Problems with Standardized Testing

At their very base level, Standardized Tests are exams often in multiple-choice, multi-select, or true/false format with a rarity of questions in short answer format. These tests are designed to measure academic achievement. As a result of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, the US has seen a major shift in the emphasis on standardized testing, and the importance of the results that they give. The No Child Left Behind Act introduced four pillars of reform in education. Those were accountability for results, which introduced the requirement for the state and local districts to produce annual report cards to students, parents, and communities to inform them of what the results of standardized testing have shown in schools' progress toward academic achievement, state and local flexibility, which gave state and local districts the freedom to allocate funds to programs that addressed the needs of their schools. proven educational methods, which required the implementation of teaching methods proven effective by scientific research, and parental choice, which provided parents with a choice of moving their children out of schools that have been determined to be low performing. All of these pillars establish required a heavy emphasis on standardized testing to produce results that could be used to determine if the four pillars were being met. Just by that alone, it seems the purpose of mandating these exams is to measure academic achievement in schools to ensure that all students are proficient in their learning, but the problem arises because there is a focus only on these pillars and not the challenges that these standardized tests can bring. One of the biggest problems arises from the fact that a lot of standardized tests are norm-referenced, which computes students' results on how they performed in comparison to their peers. These tests are incredibly biased, especially against students of color, students with whose second language is English, and students with specific learning needs. Another challenge, in general, only allows students to demonstrate academic proficiency in a singular way, which does not take into account students who struggle with taking multiple-choice tests or tests in other large formats and that get very strong test anxiety. It places emphasis on the 4 core academic areas, which leave out students who excel in the arts or other elective areas. Student grades and progress to the next grade level are determined by these tests. On the teacher side of things, it requires them to often "teach towards the test," where they teach students the strategies to do well on the exams rather than teach them the content to do well. They also often need to use vital instruction time to prepare for the tests. They also have their ability as a teacher questioned based on the results of these tests. Although the emphasis on standardized tests was implemented to ensure proficient academic achievement, it has become something that places immense pressure on students and teachers to excel under unrealistic expectations.

Student's Hand filling out a multiple choice
answer sheet for a Standardized Test. 

As a student, I am not an excellent test taker, and throughout my time taking standardized tests, I often performed just well enough to be considered academically proficient whereas my work in class day to day reflected academic achievement significantly above proficient. As a pre-service teacher, the challenges introduced above as well as countless other problems with standardized testing really concern me. Of course, I foresee the pressure of having the results of an exam be used to reflect my effectiveness as a teacher, but even more than that I see the pressure that it puts on students, and how a lot are having their learning progress and success as a student being unfairly evaluated. The more time I spend in the classroom and the more time I study education, my concern grows more and more that students are not being accurately assessed and that their progress and achievement in the classroom are not being highlighted, which, in my opinion, is by far a more accurate representation of academic ability for a lot of students. 

Equity in the Promotion and Hiring of School Leadership

Most people are aware of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act made employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and/or national origin illegal as well as many other legal regulations that ensure equity for the employment of other communities. They are all important components that ensure equity and fairness for the promotion and hiring of school leadership and administration, but they do not cover and define all aspects of equity in the hiring and promotion process. Truly ensuring equity in the Promotion and Hiring of School Leadership encapsulates the entire process, which starts with gaining leadership experience in a current space or position and establishing connections with those who offer mentorship or even establishing relationships with those who offer a spot to apply for the position. This also includes principal preparation programs which research shows are still predominantly white heterosexual male spaces, and have only recently made progress to include a higher percentage of white women, but not significant progress with other communities. It includes all the interview questions and even the final decision made by those hiring in their professional opinion. Most of these do not have regulations that keep them equitable but are more part of the systematic process. The only way to ensure that hiring systems and processes are equitable is to implement change in the entire process as a whole and make sure each step in the process is fair for all.

My own perspective and opinion when it comes to equity in the promotion and hiring of school leadership come from having an interest in seeing all the new hires and changes for local school districts and beyond as well as my own commitment to equity and fairness in my life and in my career as a future educator. Without revealing specifics, there was a situation in my district where a male educator with less than 10 years of experience in the classroom and as an administrator was favored and selected for an administrator position over a highly-respected veteran female educator with over 20 years of experience to the disappointment of students, teachers, and many others involved with the school. It was not a decision that was against legal regulations, but it obviously showed favoritism towards men from the people making that final promotion decision. 

Doors with glass panes that read
 "Office of the Principal". The
inside of the office is visible.

My own experience with having administrators is they have all been white people and predominantly men across the district. None of the students or teachers of color people of other cultures, affiliations, and identities never saw themselves reflected either in the school leadership, and I always saw that as a problem. I personally believe that equity and fairness in the entire process of being hired or promoted to school leadership are of incredible importance. The entire process should be non-discriminatory and not just in the parts that the law says to but in every part of the process. Finally, I will end with why this topic is important to know. In general, equity is important in every space and in every situation, so that alone should encourage everyone to be informed on topics concerning equity. This topic can even be applied to hiring and promotion in other fields as well. If you have any association with the world of education whether you are someone who hires and promotes school leaders, are currently or pursuing the possibility of becoming a school leader, a teacher, a school staff member, a student, or the parent of a student it is important to know that equity and fairness when it comes to who is selected to lead our schools. Assuring those communities see themselves reflected in school and district-wide leadership should always be a commitment by those making hiring and promotion decisions.