If we must have standardized tests

It's no secret that I strictly oppose standards-based reform to our so-called educational system. Such reform enforces the idea that all students must receive the same education despite their numerous differences. The goals of these reform attempts are to set minimum standards for all students. With the desire for a high percentage of students succeeding, the standards must be set to a level attainable by all. This essentially enforces the lowest-common-denominator approach that was a problem even before standards-based reform became law. Ultimately, standards-based reform is an attempt to standardize the individual.


One key component of standards-based reform is standardized testing. These tests are designed to ensure that students meet the minimum requirements. Like the core concept of standards-based reform, I strictly oppose the use of standardized testing to ensure that all student perform up to these minimal expectations. There's just one slight problem. Standardized testing is law.

If we absolutely must have standardized testing, perhaps we can come up with something better. I'm not going to look for a good idea here, but rather a bad idea that is less detrimental. While I would prefer shifts away from standards, I wanted to share a few ideas.

Let's start with a quick exercise. Imagine for a moment that you have two students. One generally struggles, but can score the absolute minimum requirements for each test. The other is brilliant in most subjects, frequently doubling class expectations, but he is just one question short of passing English. Which one of these two is better educated? I don't think there is any question that the student who would not quite pass would be more advanced. Our standardized testing, however, would reward the minimal standards and punish the generally advanced student.

If we want standardized testing to be a critical part of the schools, we should use overall scores rather than individual subjects. If a business can't adapt to a genius in certain subjects, that's the fault of the business. If a college can't handle a student who is at a lower level in a specific subject, then they are failing to meet the highly variable needs of individual students. That's their fault. Just so you know, I also oppose attempts to align college entry requirements to high school graduation requirements for pretty much the same reason. If a college can't handle variable starting points, they are incapable of meeting individual needs.

I do feel that there are some concerns with an overall score. This can lower the overall expectations for students since it's easier to have an overall passing score than a passing score in every single subject. To compensate for this, it would probably be best to increase the score required for passing.

Another issue with these test is the subject selection. While there are some subjects that have been proven more valuable overall, the best subjects for an individual to learn is another area of variability. A software engineer doesn't necessarily need to have strong language skills. Similarly, a translator who writes news articles in multiple languages as a form of freelance work might not need strong math skills. In both of these cases, there is serious value in subjects that are not being tested.

I don't think that the mainstream would approve of allowing core subjects to be avoided in standardized testing, but it might work to add optional tests. I wouldn't want to punish students for doing extra work, so optional subjects should only be factored into the final score if the score would help. Since the score would only count if it helped a student, those tests would likely need to have less weight in score calculations.

I hope these ideas are never used. We need to move away from standardized testing. Like I said, standardized testing is law. If we have to have them, this would at least be an improvement.