Click 1

William Click

Professor Steele

English Composition 1201

9 May 2021

Standardized Testing, and its Effects on Students’ and Teachers’ Health

Students born in the early 2000s have seen some of the most unbelievable turnovers in

the tests schools use to date. Students born in Ohio in the early 2000s have seen the PARCC,

OAA, EOCs, ACT, PSAT, and others all administered over a single academic career. The various

tests and amount of time spent testing are indicative of the United States’ focus on standardized

testing, the concept of measuring a student’s learning via a score on a high-stakes test taken at

the end of a course assessing what the student learned. The time and finances used to incorporate

these testing systems suggests an understanding and a trust in this methodology; however, the

testing instead demonstrates calamity and mistrust through the administration of so many

different tests. By putting unreasonable pressure on both students and teachers, the standardized

testing system in America encourages extremely abnormal teaching practices and responses that

result in both groups feeling overwhelmed and insecure about education and their futures.

Standardized testing, despite the recent surge of interest, is not an entirely new concept.

Eric Rothschild remarks in his historical account of the Advanced Placement program that the

first AP exams were given in 1956; the AP program remains familiar with many American high

school students. However, the most significant growth in testing for all of pre-secondary

education began in the early 2000s with the introduction of new legislation. In a report on testing

data by the Council of Great City Schools, the authors write that the No Child Left Behind law,

enacted in 2001-02, required students to be tested several times in the subjects of mathematics,
 Click 2

reading, and science starting in the third grade and continuing all through high school (Hart et. al

29). Furthermore, these assessments could be used at various levels to evaluate different parts of

the school ecosystem, from federal executives all the way down to local teachers (Hart et. al 29).

New legislation and various programs have been passed since, but all expand on the ideas

outlined in this law. As these concepts were slowly implemented, the basis of the modern testing

system was formed.

Students have begun to take significantly more tests each year as legislation has been

altered, developed, and implemented. Findings in the same research done by the Council of

Great City Schools report that the students would, on average, be administered “112.3 tests''

across their entire education (Hart et. al 9). When treating pre-K as a single year, this averages to

at least eight tests administered to a student every year for fourteen years. Students are given no

shortage of tests to prepare for each year, let alone each quarter or semester. The lives of students

are not dedicated to testing: schoolwork, sports, extracurriculars, jobs, and other responsibilities

all serve purposes in the lives of youth and create the positive experiences many remember most.

With how much emphasis and weight has been placed on the testing, it is no surprise that

students become stressed and anxious about their performance on such massive evaluations.

Understanding exactly how much stress these tests put onto students is a key part of

understanding the problem with the testing system itself. Jennifer Breheny Wallace of The

Washington Post writes that a vast majority of high school students express a constant concern

about whether they will be able to attend their ideal future college - a fairly common goal

amongst the American youth population. This rise in stress, she describes, has led to students at

high-achieving schools increasingly being considered at-risk by experts (Wallace). Considering

how valuable test scores are to college admissions, it is fair to attribute a great deal of the stress
 Click 3

of these students to the standardized testing system. There is a difference between a little worry

and being placed on a professional list of groups being overly monitored, and students are

trending toward the latter. If the process is doing more harm to the students than good, is it really

worth the time, trouble, and expense that America invests to implement testing?

The results are especially concerning when considering the effects of the system on

younger children. Referring back to the research aforementioned, the NCLB legislation mandates

national testing to begin as early as third grade in some subjects (Hart et. al 29). Research from

Harvard graduate Christina Simpson explains that symptoms from stress vary between individual

cases, but can range from sleepless nights to even vomiting (Simpson). She elaborates

specifically on the vomiting symptom and expresses her disdain for guidelines that specifically

outline how to treat a test that a student has vomited on, appearing in half of the analyzed testing

protocols (Simpson 7-8). While the guidelines are disgusting in their own right, the existence of

such a policy is representative of the greater issue: students at young ages lack the abilities to

deal with the stress of a high-stakes test. Despite all educational efforts, schools fail to recognize

when it is appropriate to assess students and often neglect to teach the self-sufficiency required to

succeed in such an environment at all.

The continually renewed focus on standardized testing has forced teachers to entirely

change the way they approach their daily work. A study by Hani Morgan in 2016 analyzed some

of the different strategies teachers had adopted to fit this new environment. He explains that

teachers adopt repetitive methods of primarily “memorization and recall” that serve no purpose

other than to bolster the test scores at the end of the year (Morgan 68). This attitude reflects the

“teaching to the test” practice that many schools have adopted in wake of new testing

requirements. Morgan also mentions additional unethical approaches such as teachers aiding in
 Click 4

falsifying test answers, and avoiding certain categories or types of students to raise the test scores

of their students . Newer restrictive curriculums, combined with the system rewarding teachers

with compensation if students show improvement in scores, have resulted in an environment

where “the joy of teaching disappeared,” (Morgan 70). Teaching has changed since the adoption

of standardized testing; it is no longer the same job to many who decided it as their lifelong

career.

Testing forces teachers to adjust their content to a degree where they feel they no longer

have ownership over their own work. In the aftermath of low test scores, schools have been

known to reduce content to only what is tested, slashing anything from curricular material to

entire classes of science and histories (Morgan 70). Teachers can have their content completely

manipulated or taken away based on circumstances beyond their control—like test results from

other classes. It is an unfair notion, yet one that still persists as school districts attempt to strive

for the top performance indicators. Even then, the skills of the students being evaluated boil

down to essentially only proficiency, mostly in math and language, with a host of other skills

being entirely ignored (Morgan 68-69). Teachers are hardly even able to assess the effectiveness

of their teaching since so many basic abilities are not being measured. In an ideal situation,

teachers would practice their normal curriculums and see how all aspects of their work has

influenced their students at the end of the year. Instead, their influence becomes small to produce

small, yet ridiculously important, results at the end of the year. Teaching for seven hours each

day, without truly having a stake in the content or material being presented, is absolutely

draining on the teachers.

Occasionally, teachers have resorted to extremes to combat these circumstances. As

reported in the Morgan study, certain teachers will find particular students, such as those from
 Click 5

wealthy backgrounds, that are likely to show the most gains in testing and will therefore reflect

well on the teacher (Morgan 69). This gaming of the system, while clearly immoral, appears to

be believed by some teachers as the best way to protect their career interests. Regarding a

scandal in the Atlanta School District, writer Robert Prentice rationalizes the logic of the

teachers who changed students’ test answers: they felt that the threat to their livelihoods was so

great that the optimal path forward was to falsify the information (Prentice). Between all the

incentives and goals for both the students and teachers, the group he refers to truly believed it

was easier to cheat rather than appeal to the new system requirements in place, so much as to put

their careers directly on the line. Again, the morality of the actions are hardly considered by

these perpetrators. Risking so much for mere results should be an indicator of the poor state of

the system as a whole.

Mrs. Click, a high school teacher in several districts for over twenty years, saw how some

of these shifts affected the educational system firsthand. As mentioned in prior paragraphs, she

too believed that she didn’t hold much power over the material she was presenting anymore.

Previous books and works she had taught wavered in the new light of testing, and she was forced

to further develop basic skills instead of extending her students' learning. Furthermore,

everything became centric around the teachers rather than the students. A score was no longer a

result that the student had produced, but a representation of the testing that the teachers had

utilized. It was no longer an environment where she felt she could be beneficial to the students’

best interests. She still connects with many of her former students based on the bond they formed

while together in her classroom. However, such connections were becoming impossible as her

career continued, and testing and evaluation reigned supreme over the focus on students as

individuals.
 Click 6

Public opinion has always been divided on the standardized testing issue, and therefore

has allowed it to persevere and grow unchecked over the past two decades. Despite all of the

negative press the system currently receives, research suggests that near its inception, the

public’s impression of stress put onto students was mostly unfounded. As the NCLB was

gradually being implemented, an independent study conducted by University of Arkansas

researchers in 2005 found that teachers and parents reported far different stress levels than those

actually experienced by the students (Mulvenon 59-60). Students were found to be much less

anxious than believed, while parents would present their student’s feelings with great hyperbole

compared to their true feelings. This research, among others, was considered more valuable than

the public perception, and rightfully so: it would be disingenuous to suggest that the government

and schools should ignore the expert consensus. It was the presence of studies like these that

pushed the system through the early stages in spite of the public outcry.
 Click 7

Fig. 1. People in the early 2000s generally believed that standardized testing was in a good place.

Take note of the steadily increasing percentage in both adults and parents that believe too much

of an emphasis is placed on testing (Gallup and Rose).

As the system has become more modern and complete, the researched opinion has

evolved to be quite different than when the Arkansas study was conducted in 2005. Simpson’s

research suggests that consensus among numerous groups is that stress for students has risen

significantly. Among the opinions of school psychologists, practiced pediatricians, and yet again

parents of students in school, all indicate changes in students’ anxiety, whether from the

implementation of year-round testing curricula or caused directly by reaching the testing time of

the year (Simpson 8). The impact on students is now apparent: through obvious physical

symptoms, the impact of testing on students is much clearer than in 2005. Additionally, expert

opinion continues to fall in favor of the concerned parents rather than against it. Why continue to

tinker and pursue greatness through this route with opposition continuing to grow?

The answer to this question is that standardized testing still finds significant support: a

simple search on any database website reveals modern opinions falling on both sides of the

argument. Elizabeth Currid-Halkett of The New York Times argued only a year ago that

abolishing admissions tests of the ACT and SAT would be the wrong decision moving forward.

The tests serve to unify scores across states and districts with wildly different wealth and

educational divisions, and the creators should consider alterations rather than completely

eliminating the exam (Currid-Halkett). SAT and ACT are the most nationally recognized testing

systems, and therefore promote a degree of commonality in college admissions. The fact that

these tests play such significant weight in the admissions themselves is the problem: students are

forced to concentrate and worry about single and double digit numbers that will play a massive
 Click 8

role in determining the entire path of their future. Currid-Halkett’s proposals of potential changes

to the systems also exhibit the problem of the past two decades: the system has never been

perfect in spite of frequent adjustments. There are simply too many variables that need to be

considered in creating the ideal testing environment, let alone unifying a testing system across a

state or nation. Considering the adverse effects that the system has already been proven to have,

it is time to look ahead and consider alternatives.

Recent decisions following the pandemic of 2020 have sparked further discussion about

the implementation of testing in students’ lives. This past summer, the University of California

switched their admissions to a test-optional system (where students aren’t required to report test

scores) based on the impacts of the pandemic. Chester E. Finn of the Hoover Digest argues that

the decision will disrupt the entire admissions ecosystem, and ultimately will only work to create

less academically prepared students. However, based on anecdotal evidence, many students

instead rejoiced at local schools doing the same: the choice took off a huge weight in an already

stressful year, and meant that their experiences were no longer diminished to single and double

digit numbers. Advanced Placement tests, typically taken in several different subjects by students

annually, were reduced from three and a half hour songs in a poorly ventilated testing room, to

forty-five minute exercises that could produce results without ever leaving the house. Why even

bother with the rigorous process to distribute and proctor the former method when the latter is so

readily and quickly available? While the anecdotal evidence may not be applicable for all

students, certainty remains that there is an opposing side to the assertions of Finn. Different

motivations and views bring different opinions on the matter, and the situation remains just as

muddled as it has ever been.

Despite America’s continued focus on this system, other solutions abroad have proven to

be successful. Katie A. Hendrickson explains in her research regarding Finland’s educational

system that they find great educational success without an emphasis on any high stakes testing.

Instead, other methods are used, like assignments that evaluate proficiency without being a test,

or a portfolio as a final assessment (Hendrickson). Finland’s strength in primary school has

become household knowledge, yet their ability to do so without any of the policies America has

tried recently is especially impressive. It is true that some of the Finnish methods simply may not

work in the United States, partly because of simple cultural differences. (Hendrickson). However

this can be found true for any major system in another country: taking something across borders

requires some degree of manipulation to ensure success. Finland’s consistent accomplishment,

combined with their positive public perception, serves as evidence that there are functional

alternatives.

Even other countries that utilize the standardized testing system do so with far greater

success than the American method. Japan, for example, analyzes teachers as a group rather than

on an individual basis, believing that no one teacher constitutes a student's success or failure

(Morgan 71). This is harshly different from the United States system, which strictly assesses

individual teachers. The simple shift relieves a significant amount of pressure on teachers and

improves the entire workplace of a school as a whole. Singapore not only uses test scores to

measure teacher achievement, but also to examine a variety of other material in making their

assessments, rather than putting a great emphasis on the singular number like the United States

(Morgan 71). These teachers are given a great degree of flexibility, as they no longer have to

dread the impact one singular score may have on their careers. These two countries are

completely capable of asking for accountability from teachers, and do so far more effectively and
 Click 10

fairly than the United States. Student achievement, while aided by the teacher, is constituted by a

multitude of elements; it is unfair to make teachers feel as if one number encapsulates their entire

career.

Balancing the life of a student is already a difficult task; adding in the pressure of an

assessment that may alter students’ future paths only worsens their mental states. The same story

is echoed by students all across the country. Teachers feel the same disruptions: they lose the

feeling of jurisdiction over their own students and material. Preparing for tests completely out of

their own hands is exhausting, and furthermore, it strips teachers of their individuality and the

motivation that comes with it. It is only a matter of time before America realizes the absurdity of

its own standardized testing system; even then it will take just as much time again until education

can be truly repaired.

Works Cited

Click, Angela. Personal interview. 7 May 2021.

Currid-Halkett, Elizabeth. "A Pandemic Isn't Grounds to Abolish the SAT." New York Times, 2

May 2020, p. A27(L). Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A622536577/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=c949d60c.

Accessed 9 May 2021.

Finn, Chester E. "The Hunger (for Admission) Games: The University of California's decision to

scrap standardized tests earns an 'F.' The move does nothing for fairer admissions or

better schools." Hoover Digest, no. 4, 2020, p. 126+. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A641011996/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=6c80fd40.

Accessed 15 Apr. 2021.

Gallup, Alec, and Lowell Rose. “Standardized Testing and School Improvement.” Gallup.com,

Gallup, 3 Apr. 2021,

news.gallup.com/poll/5827/Standardized-Testing-School-Improvement.aspx.

Hart, Ray, et al. “Student Testing in America’s Great City Schools.” Council of Great City

Schools, 2015, files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED569198.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr. 2021.

Hendrickson, Katie A. “Assessment in Finland: A Scholarly Reflection on One ...” Mid-Western

Educational Researcher , n.d.,

mwera.org/MWER/volumes/v25/issue1-2/v25n1-2-Hendrickson-GRADUATE-STUDEN

T-SECTION.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr. 2021.

Morgan, Hani. “Relying on High-Stakes Standardized Tests to Evaluate Schools and Teachers: A

Bad Idea.” Clearing House, vol. 89, no. 2, Mar. 2016, pp. 67–72. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1080/00098655.2016.1156628. Accessed 15 Apr. 2021.

Mulvenon, Sean W., et al. “Test Anxiety: A Multifaceted Study on the Perceptions of Teachers,

Principals, Counselors, Students, and Parents.” International Journal of Testing, vol. 5,

no. 1, Mar. 2005, pp. 37–61. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1207/s15327574ijt0501_4. Accessed 15

Apr. 2021.

Prentice, Robert. "Teachers Cheat on Tests as a Reaction to Poor Education Policy." Teachers

and Ethics, edited by Noah Berlatsky, Greenhaven Press, 2016. Opposing Viewpoints.

Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010986221/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=7276d9d4.

Accessed 12 Apr. 2021. Originally published as "Why Good Teachers Do Bad Things,"

Ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu, 19 Aug. 2014.

Rothschild, Eric. “Four Decades of the Advanced Placement Program.” History Teacher, vol. 32,

no. 2, Feb. 1999, pp. 175–206. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/494439. Accessed 18 April

2021.

Simpson, Christina. “Effects of Standardized Testing on Students’ Well-Being.” Projects at

Harvard, May 2016,

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/eap/files/c._simpson_effects_of_testing_on_well_bei

ng_5_16.pdf . Accessed 15 Apr. 2021.

Wallace, Jennifer B. "Students in High-Achieving Schools are Now Named an 'At-Risk' Group,

Study Says." Washingtonpost.com, 26 Sept. 2019, p. NA. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints,
 Click 13

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A600896548/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=cb70f694.

Accessed 15 Apr. 2021.