In reading the work of Koretz, “The Testing Charade: Pretending to Make Schools Better”, I was able to gain insight and understanding into the real world of test preparation. There is good and bad test preparation. While Koretz spends time talking about his own personal usage of good test preparation methods, he also emphasizes what bad test preparation looks like and how it corrupts the level of instruction and the students working to score well. “At best, bad test prep wastes precious time. Often it does much more harm, corrupting instruction and producing the fraudulent gains…” (Koretz).
Koretz initially breaks down what he sees as ‘bad types’ of test preparation and in doing this, he exposes the realities of how teachers and students find success in the corrupted standardized test system. First, Koretz tackles reallocation between subjects, or the idea that teachers will “cut back on things that don’t count and shift resources to the tested subjects… they often cut back on subjects like social studies, art, and music” (Koretz). This adjustment is made so teachers have ‘adequate time’ to ensure their students are being taught the necessary information on subjects that are most commonly tested. When the test grades come back, they are a large factor in the evaluation of the teacher’s effectiveness, so it may be logical as to why teachers take this approach. While it may help teachers in the short term, it will not help students in the long run as they may not fully develop the knowledge required in all subject areas.
The second bad form of test preparation that Koretz examines is reallocation within subjects. This reallocation allows time to be catered to specific topics within a subject simply because it may be favored on the test. According to James Popham’s article that I was able to connect to Koretz, there is such a large amount of information taught at these grade levels so testing the students on it all would simply be too long, leading to teachers prioritizing the material. This prioritization is based on what teachers know will be on the test and topics that have a strong presence on issued review materials. While again, this does make logical sense, it is taking away from information students should be learning. “It is probably safe to skip five of the eight sections in this chapter without penalty on the test which frees up time for the three sections that hold the paydirt” (Koretz). However, just because it is not on this one specific test, it does not mean that students will have to utilize and demonstrate this knowledge later on in life. If they are not taught about it in the grade intended because of this test preparation strategy, then really the testing system is failing the students. In going on to share a real world application to this problem, he makes it clear that this method is not an effective one as it harms people outside the classroom. Yes, these students and employees may have scored well on the standardized test, but when it came to application of the overall material, they were unable to.
Lastly, Koretz explains the final type of bad test preparation, coaching. This method focuses on test structure rather than the actual information. Coaching focuses on the “unimportant details” (Koretz) such as the methodology to solving problems rather than the applying the underlying content. By teaching these students testing methods that only help them find success on the test, they therefore did not retain any knowledge. By telling students to strategize by using the process of elimination and plugging in each answer, they aren’t truly learning because “in the real world no one is going to give students answer choices to plug in” (Koretz).
Throughout his work, Koretz is trying to convey one main idea to his readers, and that is that standardized tests and their bad preparation strategies do not help students apply their knowledge outside of the test. In being taught to a test, students are missing out on knowledge that they may need down the road at the expense of a teacher wanting a positive evaluation. This corrupts the idea of good teaching and places the teachers in a difficult position.
The current connection I made to Koretz’s work regards the equity and education quality. Both “Why Standardized Tests Don’t Measure Educational Quality” by James Popham and Kortez elaborate on how these tests create separation of advantaged students and disadvantaged students. Some teachers and school districts need to provide good test scores to their boards to stay open and operating while others have resources to meet these test scores and do not face this amount of pressure. Test preparation is a game of who can afford the most resources that will set them up and ensure success.
If the test results of the students are high, then naturally this makes the school and the teacher look good but did the students actually retain the information and learn, grow, and develop? Or did they just do what they had to do in order to achieve success. If the students’ results are low, then it makes the teacher and the school appear as if they are not doing their job solely based on one number. Both writers state that if prepared for standardized tests can help to evaluate a student but should not be the end all be all because there are so many outside factors that influence this process. Popham presents a comparison that is unique and effective in describing the relationship between standardized tests and what they are measuring, “Measuring temperature with a tablespoon” and this is an idea that Popham, Koretz and many other educators can get behind. Many educators alike have come to see that “educators should be held accountable. The teaching of a nation’s children is too important to be left unmonitored” (Popham). Standardized tests have led to bad test preparation for students around the globe and it is up to us as the future educators to remove the wrong tools with the right ones to evaluate students effectively so they are learning to their fullest potential.
Ascd. “Why Standardized Tests Don’t Measure Educational Quality.” Why Standardized
Tests Don’t Measure Educational Quality – Educational Leadership, www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/vol56/num06/Why-Standardized-Tests-Don%27t-Measure-Educational-Quality.aspx.
Koretz, D. (2017). The testing charade: pretending to make schools better.
Chapter 7, Test Prep. pp. 93-118. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.
Taylor's Education Blog 