Testing of some sort has always been a part of the evaluation process to determine if a student was properly retaining the information he/she was being taught. As far back to the days of the one-room classrooms, to the current era of multi-building complexes, professors and teachers alike have labored over both test and its effectiveness in assessing a student’s level of proficiency. Therefore, the idea of high stakes testing has always been a part of the academic landscape. All one has to do is simply walk into a classroom on the day of a test no matter the level elementary school, middle or high school or a college campus and the anxiety can be felt. However, in this climate of high stakes testing the bar has been raised and the repercussions are far reaching. In this research we will examine the ethics associated with the politics of high stakes testing, as well as the ethics of motivation of those very same test and the implications it has on all parties involved.
History of High Stakes Testing
In an era when so much is impacted by high stakes testing it’s easy to assume that this is a recent phenomena. However, research shows that the premise of high stakes testing is one that dates back to the late 1840’s in Boston (Moon, 2009). During the 1960’s high stakes testing took on a different twist as the government began evaluating educational outcomes and student performance. This was in large part due to the perception that America’s education system had fallen behind the Russian’s with the launching of the Sputnik satellite (Donner & Shockley, 2010). Therefore, prompting the federal government to pass the National Defense Education Act, which focused on the core areas of science, math and foreign languages. Although the focus of the 1970’s shifted to science and math the 1970’s and through much of the 1980’s the system of education evaluation was stilled based upon students being proficient with the minimal level of skills. However, it wasn’t until the late 1990’s, in particular during the George W. Bush administration did we transition to the concept of high stakes testing as we have come to know it today. The No Child Left Behind Legislation, which passed and became law in 2002, fostered a culture of test as the measure of accountability in terms of whether or not schools were performing and students were accurately learning. Born out of the idea that by setting high standards and holding all parties accountable including school administrators and teachers you get a better product (Beardsley, 2009). Also, as part of that accountability model you attached sanctions and incentives to that achievement.
The NCLB legislation as it known today was a reaction to the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which gave way to Title 1. The goal of Title 1 was to “provide financial assistance to local educational agencies for the education of children to low income families” (Public Law 89-10, Section 201). Therefore, at its core NCLB had the intentions of tying financial incentives to the notion of moving children who had been customarily disenfranchised (Donner & Shockley, 2010). However, unlike its predecessor in 1965, NCLB looked to attach student’s success in those core areas previously mentioned to teacher and subsequently school effectiveness. Therefore, equating performance on one test, given on one day during the entire school year with the quality or lack thereof education a student receives.
Ethics and Politics of High Stakes Testing
As with every other element of American life education is both politics and business, with a case that can be made for each being more important that the other However, in the case of the ethical political behavior surrounding high stakes testing one has to question is the greater good of the students being represented? It is a common practice that each administration comes into office with its own educational agenda, but no administration has lead with such an arguably destructive agenda as George W. Bush. Armed with the questionable success of his policies in Texas while governor, President Bush suggested that he be known as the “Education President” (Beardsley, 2009). While as a candidate then Governor Bush presented enormous gains on statewide assessments as proof of his strong record regarding education. However, what many failed to see was the success came at the cost of a large number of children being excluded from participating in statewide exams (Beardsley, 2009).
Although the initial aim of NCLB legislation and it’s over reliance on high stakes testing may not have had any political agenda attached to it since 2002 the process has become increasingly political. The politics of high stakes testing has placed politicians at odds with teachers’ unions and public school advocates against alternative school advocates. This narrow scope of learning evaluation has left each side with questionable behavior when it comes to the outcomes of children and their ability to learn. As such what you are seeing from teachers and school districts alike is behavior that reflects: (1) Gaming the System, (2) Teaching to the Test, (3) Narrowing the Curriculum, (4) Exclusion and Exemption, (5) Bubble Kid Focus, (6) Cheating, and (7) Administration Manipulation (Beardsley, 2009). All of this with the end goal of appearing to have significant accomplishments to attract the dollars that often come with meeting NCLB federally mandated goals. Thus reducing both students and their schools to data points on the political trail for politicians looking to score points with voters (Behrent, 2009).
The final element of the questionable ethics surrounding the politics of high stakes testing has to do with the business of it all. Within a ten year period between 1997 and 2007 revenue from the sale of test and the accompanying materials has gone from $260 million to well over $700 million (Supovitz, 2009). With that kind of revenue at stake one only has to imagine the level of political influence that has been given to test manufactures. Therefore, introducing market driven priorities, where profits are the motive into an arena where learning outcomes are not often measured by one prescribed method. What NCLB and high stakes testing has essentially done is politicized student needs through free market forces by channeling competition through standardization of test that fail to take into account individual learning modalities (Parkinson, 2009).
Motivation of High Stakes Testing
At any point where human interest is involved there can always be a question of ethics. Although most teachers will say they entered the profession of education with the goal of educating young people; the pressure of high stakes testing has dissolved the profession into a revolving door of personnel changes (Supovitz, 2009). Again putting the collective future of students in the hands of those who have reduced them down to mere data points. However, some would argue that with the proper motivation teachers and districts alike could be motivated to improve student performance. The author takes particular aim with this because it reduces the ethics surrounding the pedagogy of teaching to dollars and cents. Again assuming that teachers lack the motivation to want to see students succeed (Supovitz, 2009).
All one has to do is simply enter the halls of most urban schools and spend time with the teachers who have been there for a number of years and the question of motivation quickly goes away. Many would suggest that the era of high stakes testing rather than the students has generally changed their perspective. In many schools particularly those in areas dealing with issues of poverty, instruction has been reduced to nothing more than scripted reading and an endless cycle of test preparation (Parsons, Metzger, Askew & Carswell). Teaching in this manner paired with the enormous pressure to move students based upon AYP have lead to many instances of unethical behavior. Therefore, the motivation has moved from one of wanting to see students learn to one of survival. Beardsley, Berliner and Rideau (2010) went as far to suggest that incidences of cheating on the part of teachers are underreported and underestimated. Even going as far to suggest a sort of code of silence similar to the Blue Wall associated with many police departments throughout the country.
The final issue surrounding the ethics of motivation and its effects on high stakes testing leads the writer to question those that may game the system for personal benefit, power and control. Without question the issues surrounding education and the way we go about educating students are some of the most difficult to address. However, as long as we have a system in place that puts value over substance the question of ethics and motivation will always occur. Matter of fact the imprecise and ambiguous nature of the current system will always leave room for a certain amount of unethical behavior (Beardsley, 2009). One could also assume based upon the current system the motivation to maintain a state of economic disparity is the primary motivation, which is unethical within itself.
Implications of High Stakes Testing
The implications of high stakes testing can be felt throughout all ethos of our society. In major cities like Washington, DC and Atlanta, GA cheating on standardized test have rocked entire school districts. However, when you attach such high rewards to students’ achievement then its only natural to expect artificially inflated gains. Especially in light of the financial strain many large school districts are under. Also, the precedent of unethical reporting surrounding high stakes testing can be traced back to the author of NCLB. (Beardsley, 2009). Therefore, creating cottage industries under the guise of high stakes testing gaming and cheating the system has become the norm rather than isolated instances (Beardsley, Berliner & Rideau, 2010).
Another implication involving the ethics of high stakes testing that often gets mentioned is the water down nature of curriculum. Although, an unintended consequence of a high stakes testing environment the narrowing of the curriculum forced teachers to teach to what they ultimately thought would be on the test (Supovitz, 2009). Rather than teaching a fact driven curricular, education in a high stakes testing environment has been transformed to one of coverage and pacing (Donnor & Shockley, 2010). In essence reducing the learning and teaching experience down to a mere script (Parsons, Metzger, Askew and Carswell, 2011). Therefore, leaving one to question if the pedagogy of teaching in today’s classroom environment even exist. High stakes testing forces both teachers and administrators to remove the human element from the classroom again reducing students down to data. Furthermore, this creates an environment in which faculty pours over for countless hours trying to create ways to improve the numbers (Behrent, 2009). However, the efforts have only netted results that can be classified as shallow and not provided any deeper educational experiences for students (Supovitz, 2009).
The final ethical implication of high stakes testing centers around what often happens to the surrounding communities in which many of the schools that are labeled failing come from. Since it can be deduced that communities are built around schools and schools often become the identifier of those very same communities it is logical that the end or negative connotation associated with a school can spell the end of the effected neighborhood. They both exist to keep the other vibrant and functional to some extent. Therefore, the decay of one based upon high stakes testing generally spells the end for the other. Again putting children and now the communities in which they come from as an unintended consequence of the NCLB legislature.
Accountability in a NCLB era has removed the brightest children from schools in their neighborhood for perceived brighter opportunities elsewhere, a fact that was echoed by Diane Ravitch, a scholar at the Brookings Institute (Ravitch, 2010). This is by no means to suggest that teaching or lack thereof is not going on in their neighborhood schools. This is just to point out the unintended community consequence of high stakes testing. Furthermore, you will find most of the “failing” schools located in areas where there are high instances of both crime and poverty. However, there is very little factoring of those social determinants into the equation of high stakes testing. Thus what you have is African-American and Hispanic students being disproportionally impacted (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005).
Conclusion
Without a doubt no one questions whether or not there should be an accountability model when it comes to schools and the larger educational system. Prior to NCLB and its introduction of high stakes testing the model was simply a concentrated effort on providing resources without a sense of reciprocity on the part of states and local school districts (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005). Hence leaving an ethical hole when it came to fulfilling the obligation of making sure every child received a quality education. Furthermore, very few would argue with a system of checks and balances that sought to bridge the gap between educational successes and failures. However, the inability of high stakes testing to deliver a true sense of accountability has lead to what many have termed “default” education where test drive the curriculum (Moon, 2009).
Again the ethical dilemma comes into play when you take a system of accountability and add an economic component that becomes punitive in nature. Therefore, creating a system of rewards and punishments based upon an assessment that has some obvious ethical holes. Very little if any value is attached to the things that schools, in particular those that deal with challenged populations do (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005). Rather they are lumped together as if all student populations are equal. As such those with resources continue to get resources and those without continue to be without.
As stated earlier anytime there is a profit motive the human condition of competition has the potential to soil the outcome. No one wants to be seen as incompetent when it comes to their career endeavor. Therefore, behavior such as cheating, gaming the system and teaching to the test become par for the course (Beardsley, 2009). As such the behavior of many tasked with teaching becomes an ethical dilemma. Furthermore, those that they are charged with teaching become victims of a system that has robbed them of an otherwise meaningful educational experience.
Finally, high stakes testing does not under any circumstance provide or develop students to be competitive in a global economy (Donnor & Shockley, 2010). Learning in the “real world” is a comprehensive experience that forces workers to mesh data with feelings and experiences. None of which occurs with high stakes testing. As such what high stakes testing does do is marginalize the learning experience of those involved. It also robs communities of the steady presence that good schools provide through arbitrary rating systems (Ravitch, 2010). Therefore, reducing communities down to data point and that is truly unethical.
References
Beardsley, A.A. (2009). The Unintended, Pernicious Consequences of “Staying the Course” on the United States ‘ No Child Left Behind Policy, International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp 1-13.
Beardsley, A.A., Berliner, D.C. Rideau, S. (2010). Cheating in the First, Second and Third
Degree: Educators’ Responses to High–Stakes Testing, Education Policy Analysis, Vol. 18, No. 14, pp 1-36.
Behrent, M. (2009). Reclaiming Our Freedom to Teach: Education Reform in the Obama
Era, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp 240-246.
Donnor, J.K., Shockley, K. G. (2010). Leaving Us Behind: A Political Economic
Interpretation of NCLB and the Miseducation of African American Males, Educational Foundations, pp 43-54.
Hanushek, E.A., Raymond, M.E. (2005). Does School Accountability Lead to Improved
Student Performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp 297-327.
Moon, T.R. (2009). Myth 16: High Stakes Testing Are Synonymous with Rigor and
Difficulty, The Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp 277-279.
Parkinson, P. (2009). Political Economy and the NCLB Regime: Accountability,
Standards and High-Stakes Testing, The Education Forum, Vol. 73, pp 44-57.
Parson, S.A., Metzger, S.R., Askew, J., Carswell. A.R. (2011). Teaching Against the Grain:
One Title I School’s Journey Toward Project-Based Literacy Instruction, Literacy Research and Instruction, Vol. 50, pp 1-14.
Ravitch, D. (2010). In Need of a Renaissance, Real reform Will Renew, Not Abandon,
Our Neighborhood Schools, American Educator, Summer 2010, pp 10-22.
Reich, G.A., Bally, D. (2010). Get Smart: Facing High-Stakes Testing Together, The Social
Studies, Vol. 101, pp 179-184. DOI: 10.1080/00377990903493838.
Supovitz, J. (2009). Can High Stakes Testing Leverage Educational Improvements?
Prospects From the Last Decade of Testing and Accountability Reform, Journal Education Change, Vol. 10, pp 211-227. DOI 10.1007/s10833-009-9105-2.
