Standardized testing and what it can learn from the arts

After wrapping up with music directing four different shows for our summer theater workshops, I find myself, once again, going back to thinking about process and product when putting on a production. This also throws me back to my complicated feelings on how we are “testing” our students “to see what they have learned.”

I know that I am not alone in my thinking, but I am one who completely disagrees with the concept of standardized testing. It is impossible to create a singular test that can accommodate every individual and is capable of evaluating exactly what each student knows. It is important to note that even if a student doesn’t have an issue with the structure of the standardized test itself, there can be myriad external events unrelated to the standardized test that directly affect how a student performs (no pun intended) on said test.

When having such strong feelings about the importance of not basing the value of a student’s culmination of knowledge on one single day, I often feel like a hypocrite since my career often feels like a multitude of performances (“tests”) that I am responsible for. An extra stressful aspect is that these productions are public and families definitely feel like they know what their child got out of the rehearsal process based on how they performed. So we get back to that one moment on stage representing their entire experience leading up to that one moment, which is not fair to the program or the student. But, as I think about standardized testing versus public performances, the differences can fall under two categories:

• The amount of organization that occurs before and throughout the rehearsal process; and

• Our ability to differentiate our curriculum to cater to the individual. Although we work as a team (an “ensemble,” if you will), the strength of our team would not be effective if we had even one individual who was struggling within it

In the arts, there is a debate about which to prioritize; the process or the product. I am going to go the diplomatic, and probably boring route and say that for a successful performance program, a balance must be struck between both. I have participated in programs where they say, “it’s all about the process, don’t worry about the end result!” I believe the intention behind this is to not stress out the creative team or overwhelm the performers. However, the reality is is that if a creative team puts on a show where the overall quality is poor, the caregivers that are there to witness the performance are not going to care if their performers had fun in the rehearsal process. I can say from personal experience that me simply having a friend or family member performing in a bad performance does not take away the awkwardness of watching said production.

The great news is that high quality production doesn’t have to have experienced and naturally talented performers! I am of the mindset that everyone should get to have the opportunity to perform on a stage if that is what they want to do. If you have a similar philosophy, this means that everyone (regardless of ability) will come out of the woodworks to participate in your program. When you have a group of students who need some - or a lot of - support to put on a production (take for example, a musical that consists only of 7-year-olds), the organization and all the behind-the-scenes work needs to be of the highest caliber. Here are some qualities of a great performance that doesn’t include the talent of the individual.

• The performers and ensemble are able to say all their lines and sing all their songs so that they can be understood by the audience - this may mean the program may need to invest in some quality amplification!

• Entrances, exits, and movements are clear and understood by all the individuals (including the crew)

• Memorization and flow of the lines, songs, choreography, and transitions are consistent

• Performers remain focused through the entirety of the performance

• The creative team and crew were clearly unified in their vision and fully involved in supporting their performers

• And, most importantly, the performer is obviously enjoying their time on stage and is proud of their performance after it is over!

These characteristics of the performance product would not be possible if the rehearsal process was not successfully coordinated. Consistent transitions and performers remaining focused means that there needs to be adequate time to run through the show from beginning to end, sometimes multiple times. The creative team being unified in their vision involves communication not only before rehearsals start but during the process (sometimes we bite off a little more than we can chew and need to pivot). This even applies to the performer’s ability to enjoy their time on stage! If the rehearsal process is chaotic and unpredictable, that disorganization is going to translate on stage in the form of anxiety from the performer. While some “butterflies” are normal, the fear of going onstage comes from not knowing what is going to happen or what is going to come next. Even if the student is able to push through and complete the performance, they’re not necessarily going to be happy with their performance at the end of it. This is because the anxiety far outweighed the relief you are supposed to feel once you’ve completed the difficult task.

To bring it back to the ethics of standardized testing, I think the large issue that I have with this culture is that there is a ton of disorganization within our governmental system and they are not able to differentiate their tests to accommodate the needs of every individual. If we are going to “teach to the test” (which I disagree with, but let’s continue with the parallel for now), there needs to be adequate “rehearsal time” leading up to the test. It has been proven time and time again that these tests aren’t working (especially for lower income schools and school districts) and teachers are saying that they do not have enough time and resources to support their students. I also don’t believe the “creative team” is doing their due diligence to communicate with as many professionals as possible to try and make these tests accessible. There doesn’t seem to be any communication throughout the process to identify why a population may not be successful with these tests and taking that information to make adjustments for later. I can also safely say that the anxiety of these tests consistently outweigh the relief that students feel once they have finished the tests. I always know when the standardized testing season is happening because they either flat out tell me how stressed they are about these tests or their focus is out of whack for those couple of weeks. I can safely say they’re not necessarily proud of their work or even relieved that it’s over. They know that they’re just going to have to go through the same, painful process again the following year.

The most successful performance programs that I have been a part of have the ability to evolve each year. They listen and take feedback and add it when it can reasonably be incorporated. The federal government and each state’s Department of Education needs to be looking at the systems and editing and adjusting if things are not working. Officials need to be making these accommodations because unlike our fun and enjoyable musical performances, these students, teachers, and schools can’t opt out of these tests.