Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 30

A Closer Look on the Administration of Standardized Test in Public Schools:

Basis for Policy Review

Lara Tongol

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

The 21st century learning environment has a pressing demand upon learners to

become globally competitive in terms of academic achievement. Educational legislators

viewed this matter as utmost urgency and established measures such as intensifying the

students’ competencies by promulgating policies relative to measuring students’ academic

performance by way of standardized testing. Polices for quality education channeled

through standardized testing are meant to hurdle exams as early as elementary level up

to college admission test and eventually to passing a board examination. Wellman (2001)

observed that the trend for the adoption of K-12 based programs among countries has

radically changed the educational system starting from primary up to tertiary level. Senior

high school students are eventually being prepared to pass college entrance examinations

administered through the use of standardized testing. Standardized testing has been for

almost two centuries now deemed to be an objective indicator of students’ intelligence in

almost any content and context of academic learning (Vey, 2005). Assessment therefore

is being viewed as one of the central actor in the educational process (William, 2010) and

a determinant of schools’ performance.


Schools, colleges, and universities were struggling to adopt more rigorous level of

standardized exams as a means to gage students’ performance (Gallagher, 2003). In the

midst of a globally competitive society where academic achievement is tied to higher

performance in any standardized testing both schools and learners are experiencing

pressure to boost their performance in the national ranking level (Moon et al, 2003).

Producing students with exemplary performance in the standardized examinations has

been for so many years a key indicator of school performance as well (Mulford, 2003),

and for the private schools – a good marketing image towards the public (Macbeath,

2005).

Setting of the Study

The central role of educational system as a whole is to develop people to reach

their full potential and become productive citizens of their respective countries. The role

of education is widely seen as one of the most promising paths for individuals to achieve

better and more decent standard of living along with the macro intention of the

government that it can greatly contribute to national economic development (Glennerster

et al, 2011).

However, there has been a lot of dissenting perspective on the aspect of human

capital development coming from different angles. One of the most orthodox measure of

human capital competency can be traced back as early as the dawning of the First

Industrial revolution where people are educated in order to fit their skills needed for the

assembly line production system (de Pleijt, 2016; Galor, 2011), which is an important

ingredient in the growing movement of that time where useful knowledge is the key for
economic stimulation (Mokyr, 2013, 2009, 2002; Allen, 2009), which was further

expounded by Franck and Galor (2015).

Thus, it can be hypothesized that comes along to the aspect of social and economic

development of human society is the development also of educational system intended

to address the need for the production on an effective and efficient manpower. By way

of looking into how to produce an effective and efficient manpower for the support of

social and economic development, educational legislators though of standardizing

learning outcomes including the implementation of standardized testing geared towards

competency requirement of the past and current social and industrial revolution. The

pressing need to produce better learners has been so apparent in recent years among

schools both for public and private as a measure of their teaching efficacy as well as the

overall gage for the country’s competitiveness in the human capital market. Hence, the

increased reliance and adherence to standardized testing has been adopted across the

country as the sole objective indicator of learners’ competency and school’s performance

(Baker et al, 2010; Pont et al, 2008).


Review of Related Literature

This section presents the literatures that formed the conceptual framework of the study.

The topics were presented in a thematic format anchored on the statement of the

problem that governs the research paradigm.

History of Standardized Testing

Standardized testing has been around in the history of humanity since the time of

imperial China where applicants coming from the ruling class vying for government

positions are given civil service examinations (Fletcher, 2009). This was during the Tang

dynasty of 618-907AD when the government occupied mostly of Confucian literates were

selected on the basis of civil service examinations intended to select the best talents that

can help contribute to the betterment of public administration of that time.

During the 1800s, Horace Mann presented to the public the concept of using

standardized exams in Boston schools to derive objective information about the level of

quality of teaching and learning activity among urban schools. The assessment has helped

developed comparative analysis on the individual performance of schools on how they

deliver their lessons based on students’ knowledge and their ability to answer the exam

(Scott, 2004).

In the turn of the 19th century schoolhouses in the United States began to

administer to their students content assessment to see if they have mastered the lessons

given to them by their teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2008; Gallagher, 2003).
Students that flunk the exam are being retained and were given additional instructions

reinforced by an oral examination of what was known today as recitation (Giordano,

2005).

Educational theorist Edward A. Ross and Frank Bobbit had begun to promote their

idea of ‘social efficiency model’ of learning at the beginning of the 20th century postulating

that learning must be carried out in an efficient manner and no time should be left for

waste, as such learners must only be taught on the content they will need in their life’s

role (Kliebard, 2005). Thus, all learning materials must be focused on the intended

outcomes of the learners’ adult life thereby the school of specialization was born which

until this modern time still serves the purpose of producing graduates that will occupy

different jobs in the capitalist market society.

During the early 20th century, Alfred Binet developed the Stanford-Binet

Intelligence test that will later form part of what is now known as the IQ Test (Becker,

2003). The outbreak of World War 2 had prompted the United States military to use the

Army Mental Tests to determine the best position for their new recruits subsequently

followed by the introduction of the IBM-developed automated test score scanning bubbled

cards. The well-known Scholastic Aptitude Test of today was originally introduced during

1926 wherein in contains 315 questions spanning from subjects of vocabulary to

mathematics.

Dissenting Perspectives on the Use of Standardized Testing

There has been a lot of negative contention about the real intention of

standardized testing especially in public schools. Hill (2006, 2005) confirms that
standardization of public education is merely to serve the purpose of the capitalist market

in order to select the best human capital that can be of use for such effect without

considering learners’ handicap and regardless of learners ability to absorb the contents

of the instructions given to them (Laprairie et al, 2010). The learners that best suits the

capitalist society are those that rank high in standardized tests (Hursh, 2008, 2007; Horn,

2003). Further, conditioning students to rank high in standardized exams are a means to

compete in the globally competitive labor and economic market where the best of the

best will prevail (Giroux, 2009). Giroux went on to expose that the students are merely

intellectual slaves that are fashioned to become subjects of the imperial capitalist world

and become subservient to the command and control system in the guise of standardizing

their learning and limiting their knowledge through the method of specialization and

reductionist approaches. In turn, learners are just commodities needed for the

burgeoning need of the capitalist market and that their intellectual qualities have to be

polished prior to joining the workforce (Mahiri, 2005; Kenway & Bullen, 2001). In the

early 1980s, the use of standardized testing was to solicit knowledge on the content of

the lesson among students, thus, putting the burden upon the shoulders of the students

to excel in their exams. Eventually, it evolved to include accountability among teachers

and the school with regards to students’ performance in the standardized exams (Linn,

2000).
The Adoption of Standardized Testing in the Philippine Setting

Being part of American territory for half a decade, the Philippine education

system can be distinctively viewed as American education patterned in almost every

aspect. This includes all its educational theories and practices in managing school

systems together with its policies and standards governing the public school

examination (Carreon, 2005). The formal examination administered by the American

colonial regime was through the Monroe Survey of 1925 as a mandate to evaluate the

then current status of educational system (Magno, 2010) and one of its key findings is

that ‘the secondary education did not prepare students for life and recommended training

in agriculture, commerce, and industry are strongly needed’.

The need to improve the basic education level has prompted the Philippine

government to participate in the global movement of Education For All (EFA) launched in

1990. Subsequent development to the first EFA initiative was augmented by the 2015

National Plan of Action or Phil-EFA 2015.The thrust is to build a much stronger systemic

reforms in order to make a functional education system of making every Filipino literate

upon finishing their basic education (Lapus, 2008). The primary task of the educational

reform is to initiate and sustain the assessment movement(especially in the public

schools) which is deemed essential in the development of culture of student assessment

as its primary stakeholders, thereby subsequently utilizing the results of the assessment

as inputs for further structural reforms and continuous improvement.


Subsequently, the Department of Education has deployed the National

Achievement Test (NAT) - a Philippine made standardized test through its through its

Memorandum Order 522 series of 2009, with the aim of determining pupils’ and students’

achievement level, strengths and weaknesses, in the five curricular areas namely science,

mathematics, English, Filipino and HeKaSi at the end of the school year (Benito, 2010).

The very recent and perhaps a long over reform needed by the Philippine

education system is the implementation of the enhanced basic education program

otherwise known as K-12 Act or the Republic Act 10533 signed into law by the former

president Benigno Simeon Aquino III on May 15, 2013 (Acosta & Acosta, 2016). This was

a major revamp in the Philippines’ old educational system having only 10 years of basic

education schooling and the last country in Asia to adopt a K-12 education structure, two

other countries are in Africa namely Angola and Djibouti (Sarmiento & Orale, 2016). It is

expected that K-12 graduates have higher academic productivity because of their much

longer exposure to instructions and are more competitive being exposed to a number of

standardized testing such as the NAT and be at par with the rest of the graduates around

the world (Lauraya et al, 2013).

Conceptual Framework

The choice for cost and effort-effective measure in gaging students’ and pupils’

academic achievement is by way of administering standardized testing to a multitude of

takers at one time. However, since the passage of the Education for All (EFA) and the No

Child Left Behind programs there has been so many variable considerations regarding the
effectiveness of standardized testing in the extent of its effect on the true learning and

competency accumulation beyond the recall assessment of subject content (Price, 2010;

Chudowsky, et al, 2007). The very recent adoption of the K-12 education framework has

stirred national interests and policy debates among legislators on the crafting of viable

and sound assessment mechanisms that can really capture real students’ achievement

and the level of quality education offered in public schools, along with this issue is the

evaluation on the furtherance of necessary trainings that public school teachers must

need in order to deliver quality instruction among students and pupils (Duncan, 2010).

The contention that students’ academic performance can be gaged objectively

using standardized examinations has been accepted since its historical inception and are

highly associated with the level of quality of instruction of the school as well as of teachers

delivering the lesson to students. This was amplified by the claims of Heck (2008), Goe

(2007), Aaronson et al (2007), Cochran-Smith & Zeichner (2005) and Rivkin et al (2005)

agreeing on the postulate that there is a significance of teachers’ influence on students’

outcomes.

Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework that the researcher has generated out

of the review of the literatures gathered. Consenting and dissenting opinions were both

considered in the formulation of the research paradigm and the underlying variables were

thoughtful derived from the axial themes of literatures consulted.


Figure 1: Research Paradigm

Objective of the Study

The general objective of this study is to provide policy review inputs to the
Department of Education as basis for their policy enhancement program in the process
of administering standardized testing in public schools. The inputs that can be generated
out of this study can also serve as basis for policy review mechanisms for the legislative
branch of the government in considering the adoption and use of standardized testing as
well as for its further development and enhancement.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to derive inputs from selected informants as basis for policy review
on the administration of standardized testing in public schools.

Specifically, this will answer the following questions:

1. What government policies has been implemented and promulgated as basis for
the adoption and administration of standardized test?
2. What are the perceived benefits and difficulties in the practice of administering
standardized testing in public schools as viewed by:
2.1 School heads
2.2 Teachers

3. What inputs to policy review can be offered out of the result of the study?

Scope and Limitation


This study has solicited opinions from Dep Ed officials and seasoned teachers to

extract insights that can be of help for inputs in reviewing the Dep Ed policy of the

administration of standardized tests among pupils and students in the Division of

Pampanga in particular and the whole basic education sector in general. The use of

focused group discussion using an interview guide was utilized by the researcher in order

to generate a grounded theory from the prevailing phenomenon. The contexts of the

responses were carefully analyzed through deductive and inductive approach to arrive at

an elegant description of the theory. The qualitative method of research was the main

design framework for carrying the narrative responses from participants of this study.

Significance of the Study

It is expected that the result of this study will benefit the students in high school
level and pupils in elementary in particular as well as the whole educational system of
the country in general. The following stakeholders that are deemed to benefit from this
study are:

Pupils and Students. They will be benefited from this study because of the ongoing

improvement and enhancement of the standardized assessment administered by the


Department of Education. Such improvement will increase the level of quality of education

as well as the pupils’ and students’ competitiveness in dealing with standardized exams,

as such they will become comparable to other graduates from developed countries with

high level of intellectual competency.

Parents. Parents can benefit from the result of this study in such a way that they can

aid and help their children achieve better academic grades through follow-up of their

lessons while their children are at home.

Teachers and School Administrators. This study will further hasten the ability of

teachers and school administrators to focus their efforts in delivering quality instructions

to pupils and students in order for them to achieve better academic competency.

The researcher and future researchers. This study has given so much opportunity

for the researcher to deepen her understanding about the real issue on the administration

of standardized exams. This study will also give future researchers on this topic ample

insights to further the investigation on the improvement and enhancement of

standardized testing in the country.

Definition of Terms
The following terms has been used in this study and are operationally defined
herein:
Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT). The CRCT measures students

mastery of the. Teachers use data at the beginning of school year to group students by

those who do not meet expectations, those who meet expectations, and those who

exceed expectations in order to properly align school improvement mechanisms and other
learning improvement measures based on the criteria gathered from the students’ prior

performance.

Formative Assessment: A process that teachers and students use to gather

information during as opposed to after, the learning process and to make adjustments

accordingly.

Interim Assessments: Assessments administered during instruction that are designed

to evaluate students’ knowledge and skills relative to a specific set of goals to inform

decisions in the classroom and beyond.

Summative Assessments: Formal assessments that are given at the end of a unit,

term, course, or academic year. Summative assessment can be the standardized tests

given at the end of a school year to determine if the students have mastered the

curriculum or they can be teacher-made to test the mastery of a unit of study. This form

of assessment is an accountability tool for a school, district, and state.

Chapter 2

Method
This section describes the methodology and research design used in this study
including the description of the research participants, sources of data and the instrument
for gathering the necessary data, the methods used to analyze the data and the ethical
procedures observed during the conduct of the research process.

Type of Research

This study have utilized the qualitative research method as the main research
framework to solicit necessary data for the inputs to policy review on the administration
of standardized tests in basic education sector. The researcher has an overarching goal
to derive a theoretical description out of the responses from key informants using a
grounded theory approach. Axial coding of key informants’ responses were generated in
order to streamline the responses and derive the underlying contexts out of their varied
responses. The main idea of the grounded theory approach is to carefully read the textual
responses of key informants and their interrelationships. The researcher’s ability to look
into the variability and associability of the responses reinforced by readings of related
literature is the central aim to arrive at a grounded theory.

Respondents and Sampling Technique


During the proposal defense, it was agreed upon by the panel members that the
researcher will have an audience of five school administrators and five veteran teachers
for a focused group discussion but to be done in a separate session. The key informants
were purposely selected on the basis of availability and proximity to the work of the
researcher.

Instrument
The researcher utilized an interview guide to gather necessary inputs for the

qualitative description of the phenomenon on the administration of standardized test

using a focused group discussion approach.

Content Validation
Seasoned public school administrators were consulted for the validation of the

interview guide so as to confirm that the questions can really solicit the desired inputs for

the study.

Data Gathering
Responses from key informants were carefully noted and were processed through

axial coding method in order to generate a grounded theory. Both deductive and inductive

investigation process were used to derive the contexts of the responses.

These are the guide questions that the researcher have utilized to solicit vital
information from key informants.
1. What do you think are the main reasons on why students have to be subjected
in standardized assessments?
2. Do you think that standardized testing can benefit both teachers and students?
In what way?
3. What are the major drawbacks of teachers and students in administering
standardized testing in public schools?
4. Do you think that the amount of learning of students is directly measureable by
standardized tests?
5. Is there a need for revising, enhancing or replacing standardized testing by any
other method of assessment of students’ learning?

Data Analysis
Both open and axial coding method were used in the grounded theory developed

by the researcher. Open coding is the part of the grounded theory analysis concerned

with identifying, naming, categorizing and describing the phenomena found in the textual
responses. Basically, each line, sentence and paragraph are being read and analyzed in

search of the answer to the repeated question about the phenomenon. In this case the

phenomenon is the administration of standardized exams in the basic education sector.

Axial coding is the process of relating codes such as categories and themes to each

other, through a combination of inductive and deductive analysis. Grounded theorists

emphasize causal relationships and fit things into a basic frame of generic relationships

as a means of simplifying the variety of textual responses coming from key informants.

Ethical Consideration
Confidentiality of key informants’ personal information was withheld from the

public. Prior to the conduct of the focused group discussion, the researcher has sought

permission by means of written communication from school administrators with regards

to the intention of the investigation.

Chapter 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSIONS
This section presents the data analysis discussed according to the sequence on the

manner how the statement of the problem was presented.

Statement of the Problem No.1: What government policies has been


implemented and promulgated as basis for the adoption and administration of
standardized test?

The Department of Education has deployed the National Achievement Test (NAT)

- a Philippine made standardized test through its through its Memorandum Order 522

series of 2009, with the aim of determining pupils’ and students’ achievement level,

strengths and weaknesses, in the five curricular areas namely science, mathematics,

English, Filipino and HeKaSi at the end of the school year (Benito, 2010).

Also, through the Dep Ed Order 55 series of 2016, ‘Policy Guidelines on the

National Assessment of Student Learning for the K to 12 Basic Education Program. This

latest policy announcement is geared towards measuring learners’ progress in the

attainment of learning standards and 21st century skills. The result of such adopted policy

on standardized testing will form part on the enhancement process of teaching and

learning as the country is moving towards globalizing its educational system.

The policy is also intended for accountability measures among schools in order to

gage their effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of outcomes based education

system which was recently adopted due to the K-12 program. Further, it is a mechanism

to determine whether learners are meeting learning standards of the curriculum and

measure students’ aptitude and occupational interest for career guidance and career

choice.
Statement of the Problem 2: What are the perceived benefits and difficulties
in the practice of administering standardized testing in public schools as
viewed by:

2.1 School heads


2.2 Teachers

Main reasons on why students have to be subjected in standardized assessments

Profound responses from School Heads

“Standardized Assessment of student learning has psychometric properties of


validity and reliability. In order to measure for the validity and reliability of a test
different statistical tool has to be utilized. Furthermore, if a test is standardized
norm, the result of which can be utilized in the evaluation of curriculum and
instruction as well as it could monitor the progress of learners in some areas or
subjects such as language and number literacy.”

“To know if they learn well from the competencies being taught to them.
Students are the main basis to improve standardized assessment.”

Salient responses from seasoned teachers


“To assess or evaluate pupils’ academic performances and to compare/measure
their level of readiness or difficulties in school’s subjects.”

“It requires less effort and easier evaluation, especially for bigger number of
classes.”

Cost and effort-effective measures in gaging students’ and pupils’ academic

performance is by way of administering standardized testing in a multitude of takers

especially for public schools where a big number of pupils and students are apparent.
The very recent adoption of the K-12 education framework has stirred national interests

and policy debates among legislators on the crafting of viable and sound assessment

mechanisms that can really capture real students’ achievement and the level of quality

education offered in public schools, along with this issue is the evaluation on the

furtherance of necessary trainings that public school teachers must need in order to

deliver quality instruction among students and pupils (Duncan, 2010).

Standardized testing can benefit both teachers and students

“Because teachers can identify learners in need of advancement and remediation. It also
provides data or information to teachers as for learners’ abilities and also their wellness is
identified. It also provides teacher longitudinal report of learners’ progress and
achievement. It also sees the trend of growth and decline rapidly respond to learners’
educational needs.”

“It requires less effort and easier evaluation, especially for bigger number of classes.”

“Through standardized testing, teachers will know if they have met the target
competencies and for the pupils they will be assessed according to the standards set by
the division.”

Pupils’ and students’ academic performance can be gaged objectively using

standardized examinations has been accepted since its historical inception and are highly

associated with the level of quality of instruction of the school as well as of teachers

delivering the lesson to students. This was amplified by the claims of Heck (2008), Goe

(2007), Aaronson et al (2007), Cochran-Smith & Zeichner (2005) and Rivkin et al (2005)

agreeing on the postulate that there is a significance of teachers’ influence on students’

outcomes. Standardized assessment therefore is being viewed as one of the central actor

in the educational process (William, 2010) and a determinant of schools’ performance.


Producing students with exemplary performance in the standardized examinations

has been for so many years a key indicator of school performance as well (Mulford, 2003),

and for the private schools – a good marketing image towards the public (Macbeath,

2005).

Major drawbacks of teachers and students in administering standardized testing in

public schools

“One of the drawback of it is that we cater different kind of learners, with different kind
of capabilities, thinking and level of understanding wherein sometimes standardized test
is not applicable. Another drawback of it is the way of administering the test, teachers
administering the test have different ways in delivering or administering the test. For
example, in our case, we don’t have sufficient fund to pay for the test papers even the
learners can’t afford to pay for it so the teachers read the test questions in a way that
learners understand it and a good thing for those who can’t read if the teacher will be the
one who will read the test questions, the result of the rest will be affected by these, rather
than the learners be the one reading it.”

“Standardized test is subjective because only subjective response is only to be test putting
aside the creative response of learner. in addition, instruction and manner of
administration of the test may be differently delivered also contribute to it.”

Hill (2006, 2005) confirms that standardization of public education is merely to

serve the purpose of the capitalist market in order to select the best human capital that

can be of use for such effect without considering learners’ handicap and regardless of

learners ability to absorb the contents of the instructions given to them (Laprairie et al,

2010). The learners that best suits the capitalist society are those that rank high in

standardized tests (Hursh, 2008, 2007; Horn, 2003). Learners are just commodities

needed for the burgeoning need of the capitalist market and that their intellectual
qualities have to be polished prior to joining the workforce (Mahiri, 2005; Kenway &

Bullen, 2001).

This is to postulate that all learning materials must be focused on the intended

outcomes of the learners’ adult life thereby the school of specialization was born which

until this modern time still serves the purpose of producing graduates that will occupy

different jobs in the capitalist market society.

The amount of learning of students is directly measureable by standardized

tests

“No, because learning is not only measured through written test and we are already aware
of multiple intelligence wherein it is not being measured by standardized test.”

“Yes, but only to the aspect of what have been given to students to learn. Basically what
were administered in the assessment test were the same lessons that they have studied
and discussed by their teachers.”

“No, we should always look at standardized test not as a value judgement on the student.
But as an additional data point that can provide some perspective on student learning.”

Since the passage of the Education for All (EFA) and the No Child Left Behind

programs there has been so many variable considerations regarding the effectiveness of

standardized testing in the extent of its effect on the true learning and competency

accumulation beyond the recall assessment of subject content (Price, 2010; Chudowsky,

et al, 2007).
When crafted and designed properly alongside effective implementation and

administration, standardized tests can offer important benefits to students, teachers,

administrators, and policymakers. Teachers can take a cue out of the result of

standardized test scores which can be used to help identify areas of strength and

weakness within the curriculum. Content not mastered by students can provide teachers

and school administrators with valuable information to assess their teaching-learning

delivery level (Volante, 2005). Gaps in student learning can give insights to policy makers,

school heads and other concerned stakeholders such as international development groups

to give teachers some specific types of professional development to be pursued as part

of the continuous improvement process especially to strengthen the newly implemented

K-12 program.

In general the theoretical underpinning of social efficiency model can be addresses

by administering standardized testing in public schools although it possess a major

shortcoming since it cannot be the major basis neither a sole indicator of student

academic performance (Behuniak, 2002). Among the major weakness of standardized

testing is its inability to detect other competencies and skills possessed by the students

such as creativity and innovativeness. Standardized test are too narrowly defined and

restricted only for recall dimensions of subject content and cannot simply solicit a wide

range of human potential abilities.


Based on the foregoing results, the researcher was able to derive a grounded theory
model. To wit:

Phenomenon of interest: Standardized testing


Causal condition: Pursuit of students’ high academic achievement
Context: Teachers’ mastery of the content and students’ absorption of the subject content
Action strategies: Delivering relevant subject matter content defined in the curriculum
Consequences: Gaining high scores in administered standardized tests

Thus, it can be stated that:

Standardized testing is a means to achieve the pursuit of national interest for high

academic achievement among students in the context of teachers’ and schools’

accountability to deliver the necessary content of the curriculum with the condition that

it must be well understood among students essential in gaining high scores during

examinations.
Chapter 4
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Cost and effort-effective measures in gaging students’ and pupils’ academic

performance is by way of administering standardized testing in a multitude of takers

especially for public schools where a big number of pupils and students visible. This is to

address the very recent adoption of the K-12 education framework which has also stirred

national interests and policy debates among legislators on the crafting of viable and sound

assessment mechanisms that can really capture real students’ achievement and the level

of quality education offered in public schools.

Pupils’ and students’ academic performance can be gaged objectively using standardized

examinations has been accepted since its historical inception and are highly associated

with the level of quality of instruction of the school as well as of teachers delivering the

lesson to students.

Producing students with exemplary performance in the standardized examinations has

been for so many years a key indicator of school performance.

Standardization of public education is merely to serve the purpose of the capitalist market

in order to select the best human capital that can be of use for such effect without

considering learners’ handicap and regardless of learners’ ability to absorb the contents

of the instructions given to them. They are merely human commodities needed for the

burgeoning need of the capitalist market and that their intellectual qualities have to be

polished prior to joining the workforce.


However, when crafted and designed properly alongside effective implementation

and administration, standardized tests can offer important benefits to students, teachers,

administrators, and policymakers. Teachers can take a cue out of the result of

standardized test scores which can be used to help identify areas of strength and

weakness within the curriculum. Content not mastered by students can provide teachers

and school administrators with valuable information to assess their teaching-learning

delivery level (Volante, 2005). Gaps in student learning can give insights to policy makers,

school heads and other concerned stakeholders such as international development groups

to give teachers some specific types of professional development to be pursued as part

of the continuous improvement process especially to strengthen the newly implemented

K-12 program.

Conclusion
A thorough and comprehensive approach framework in addressing the

implementation and administration of standardized testing in public schools. On the

outset it can be inferred that the result of standardized test can give a reflection on the

level of teaching and learning process in public schools and the level of instructional

delivery and competence among teachers. Aside from standardized testing that is too

narrowly defined based on a predetermined curricular content, there should be other

means of alternative assessment that can capture other dimensions of human

intelligences. With the consideration of multiple intelligences, it can be generalized that

standardization is not a catch all phrase to address the development of a human potential

but rather through a mixed and dynamic formulation of the teaching and learning process

adaptive to the rapidly changing social, economic and technological changes.


References

Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the
Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95-135.

Acosta, I. C. and Acosta, A.S. (2016). Teachers' Perceptions on Senior High School
Readiness of Higher Education Institutions in the Philippines. Universal Journal of
Educational Research 4(10): 2435-2450.

Baker, E. L., Barton, P.E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L.,
Ravitch, D., Rothstein, R., Shavelson, R. J. and Shepard, L.A. (2010). Problems with
the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers. EPI Briefing Paper 278,
Economic Policy Institute.

Becker, K. A. (2003). History of the Stanford-Binet intelligence scales: Content and


psychometrics. (Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition Assessment Service
Bulletin No. 1). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Behuniak, P. (2002). Consumer-referenced testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(3), 199-207.

Benito, N. (2010). Achievement Test: An Overview. Department of Education, National


Educational Testing and Research Center. Pasig City.

Carreon, M. L. (2005). Applicability of standard tests to the Filipino. Published 2005 by


the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Chudowsky, N., Chudowsky, V. and Kober, N. (2007). Has student achievement increased
since no child left behind? Center on Education Policy, Washington, D.C.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the
AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
de Pleijt, A. M. (2016). The role of human capital in the transition to modern economic
growth, 1300-1900. Published PhD Thesis, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

Dep Ed Order 55 series of 2016, ‘Policy Guidelines on the National Assessment of Student
Learning for the K to 12 Basic Education Program.

DepEd Memorandum No. 522, s. 2009. Administration of the National Achievement Test
(NAT) for Grade 3, Grade 6 and 2nd Year High School.

Duncan, A. (2010). Remarks to national council for accreditation of teacher education.


Speech at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., November 16.

Fletcher, D. (2009). Standardized testing. Time. December 11, 2009.

Franck, R. and Galor, O. (2015). Is Industrialization Conducive to Long-Run Prosperity?


Working Papers 2015-2, Department of Economics, Brown University.

Gallagher, C.J. (2003). Reconciling a Tradition of Testing with a New Learning Paradigm
Source. Educational Psychology Review, 15 (1), 83-99.

Galor, O., 2011. Unified Growth Theory. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

Giordano, G. (2005). How testing came to dominate American schools. New York, NY:
Peter Lang.

Giroux, H. A. (2009). Obama’s dilemma: Postpartisan politics and the crisis of


American education. Harvard Educational Review, 79 (2), 250-266.

Giroux, H. A. (2009). The politics of higher education and the militarized academy after
9/11. Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics, 29, 104-126.
Giroux, H. A. (2009). Youth in a suspect society. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Glennerster, R., Kremer, M., Mbiti, I. and Takavarasha, K. (2011). Access and Quality in
the Kenyan Education System: A Review of the Progress, Challenges and Potential
Solutions. Paper Prepared for the Office of the Prime Minister of Kenya.

Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research
synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Heck, R. H. (2008). Teacher effectiveness and student achievement: Investigating a
multilevel cross-classified model. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(2), 227-
249.

Hill, D. (2006). Class, capital and education in this neoliberal and neoconservative
period. Information for Social Change (23), 1-19.
Hill, D. (2005). Globalization and its educational discontents: Neo-liberalization and its
impact on education workers’ rights, pay and conditions. International Studies in
Sociology of Education, 15(3), 257-288.

Horn, C. (2003). High-stakes testing and students: Stopping or perpetuating a cycle of


failure? Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 30-41.
Hursh, D. (2007). Exacerbating inequality: The failed promise of the No Child Left
Behind Act. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 295-308.
Hursh, D. (2008). High-stakes testing and the decline of teaching and learning: The real
crisis in education. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Kenway, J. and Bullen, E. (2001). Consuming Children. Education-entertainment-
advertising. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum 1893-1958. New York,
NY: Routledge Falmer.
Lapus, J.A. (2008). The Education System Facing the Challenges of the 21st Century.
Country Report of the Republic of the Philippines, Geneva, Switzerland.
Laprairie, K., Johnson, D., Rice, M., Adams, P., & Higgins, B. (2010). The top ten things
new high school teachers need to know about servicing students with special needs.
American Secondary Education, 38(2), 23–31.
Lauraya, F.P., Mascariñas, A., Amano, L., Bercasio, R., Cortez, C. Jr., Torres, E. (2013).
Bicol SUCS after K-12 and Beyond: An Ex-ante Analysis of the Impact of K-12
Program to HEIs, Higher Education Summit 2013 Oriental Hotel, Legazpi City,
Philippines.
Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. ER Online, 29(2).
Macbeath, J. (2005). Schools must speak for themselves: the case for school self-
evaluation. Routledge: New Fetter Lane, London.
Magno, C. (2010). A brief history of educational assessment in the Philippines.
Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review ,Vol. 1, 140-149.

Mahiri, J. (2005). From 3 R’s to 3 C’s: Corporate curriculum and culture in public
schools. Social Justice, 32(3), 72-88.
Mokyr, J. (2013). Human Capital, Useful Knowledge, and Long-Term Economic Growth.
Economia Politica 30(3), 251-271.

Mokyr, J. (2009). The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Britain, 1700- 1850.
Yale University Press, New Haven.

Mokyr, J. (2002). Long-Term Economic Growth and the History of Technology. Handbook
of Economic Growth, vol. 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1113-1180.

Moon, T., Brighton, C. and Callahan, C. (2003). State standardized testing programs:
Friend or foe of gifted education? Roeper Review, 25 (2) 49-60.

Mulford, B. (2003). School leaders: Changing roles and impact on teacher and school
effectiveness. Education and Training Policy Division, OECD.

Pont, B., Nusche, D., Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership. OECD Publishing,
OECD Publications, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16.

Price, H. E. (2010). Does No Child Left Behind Really Capture School Quality? Evidence
from an Urban School District. Educational Policy, 24 (5)779 - 814
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
Sarmiento, D. H. and Orale, R. (2016). Senior High School Curriculum in the Philippines,
USA, and Japan. Journal of Academic Research 01:3(2016) 12-23.

Scott, T. (2004). Teaching the ideology of assessment. Radical Teacher, 71 (4) 30-37.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Great expectations holding ourselves and our
schools accountable for results.
Vey, L. D. (2005). Enhancing the relationship between learning and assessment.
Published Doctorate Thesis, University of Canberra, Australia.
Volante, L. (2005). Accountability, student assessment, and the need for a comprehensive
Approach. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 9 (6).
Wellman, J. V. (2001, March/April). Assessing state accountability systems. Change,
33(2), 47- 52.

William, D. (2010). Standardized testing and school accountability. Educational


Psychologist, 45(2), 107–122.