Minimum Competency Testing

Minimum Competency Testing (MCT), a type of standardized testing, has played a significant role in public education. Its primary purpose is to test high school students to ascertain that they have at least the minimum skills that a high school graduate should have. This article develops the definition of Minimum Competency Testing (MTC) and its history in U.S. public education. It establishes the relationship between MTC and other assessment programs that have evolved over the years. The paper also examines the major criticism and praise that the testing system has received in its history, and outlines the effects MTC and its legacy, high-stakes testing, have had on public education.

Keywords: A Nation at Risk; Coleman Report; Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); National Center for Education Statistics; National Commission on Excellence in Education; Minimum Competency Testing (MCT); The National Board of Educational Testing and Public Policy; Title I

Overview

Minimum Competency Testing (MCT), a type of standardized testing, has played a significant role in public education. The basic purpose of MCT is to test high school students to ascertain that they have at least the minimum skills that a high school graduate should have. If students cannot pass a minimum competency test, then they do not receive a standard American high school diploma. Pipho (1997) notes that MCT began "as a simple accountability notion of establishing an achievement floor or minimum level of achievement needed to earn a high school diploma" (¶ 2). He also summarizes a basic debate among MCT proponents and opponents. Those who oppose MCT argue that setting assessment criteria for the minimum knowledge and skills could make that minimum become the norm in schools. Those who favor MCT argue that the system ensures that all students will "learn something instead of getting a diploma solely for seat time served" (Pipho, 1997, ¶ 2). As a national trend, MCT reached its peak in the late 1970's, but the standardized testing that came before this period and that followed should be briefly recounted for understanding both MCT and America's current educational policies.

Standardized testing in American public schools actually dates back to the 1800s, though the use of standardized test scores has significantly changed since that time. Initially, tests were not issued as part of an "accountability system." Although standardized testing continued to grow, and went through a boom period in the 1930s, it was not until a few decades after World War II that tests were issued to help monitor schools and enforce educational standards. Before that time, standardized tests were quite limited; administered mainly to assess the progress of individual students, and to evaluate course curricula (Koretz, 2002, p. 753).

In the 1960's, two developments significantly contributed to the growth of national standardized testing. In 1963 the federal government created a department called the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The main objective of the NAEP is to assess the knowledge of students in the United States so as to give the government information for developing sound educational policies. Federal government support of nation-wide, large-scale testing increased sharply after the NAEP began (Grant, 2004, p. 6). The second significant development was a few years later, in 1965, when President Johnson signed into law the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Part of the ESEA is the Title I compensatory education program, which stipulated that schools and children who receive aid through Title I must be assessed. The main method of assessment became standardized achievement tests. In 1974, Congress modified Title I specifically in the areas of assessment. As Gallagher (2003) notes of the change in Title I, "Thereafter, progress toward goals was measured (and schools funded) using standardized scores. By the 1980s, 33 states mandated some form of minimum competency testing, and over 200 million tests were administered annually to determine IQ and academic readiness" (p. 92). Soon standardized testing was also applied to high schools, and MCT grew in popularity. As Koretz observes,

By the end of the MCT period (in the early 1980's), Walstad observed, "In recent years, minimum competency testing (MCT) has become a major force in American education" (1984, p. 261). Walstad also made several important observations about the ultimate effect of the nationwide MCT trend. He argues that state-mandated MCT causes significant changes in school districts. According to his extensive study, "…many districts reported modifying the curriculum, conducting formal workshops for teachers on MCT, and administering pretests to students" (p. 266). The study indicated that only pretesting caused a statistically significant improvement in the basic skill scores of MCT assessments nationwide. However, the author also observes that "Pretesting has been viewed as a form of 'cramming' and of limited educational value" (p. 266). Walstad also suggests that any test that can be improved through pretesting might not be reliable as a test instrument. On the other hand, he observes that pretesting could be beneficial since this could help reveal which students have learning problems, and it also "gives students practical experience in testing" (Walstad, 1984, p. 266).

Further Insights

Criticism of Minimum Competency Testing

In 1979, as the popularity of MCT was hitting its peak, Arthur Wise of the Rand Corporation leveled some sharp criticism at the entire MCT system. Wise argued that MCT "is based on five assumptions, all of which are questionable" (Wise, 1979, p. 547). Those assumptions are:

• Operationalizing educational objectives will lead to their attainment;
• Measuring the outcomes of education improves learning;
• Generating lots of information from testing is a reliable way to compare states, school districts, schools, teachers and students;
• Training teachers should be done like programming people, i.e. "teachers are like automatons — programmable persons capable of reconstituting their behavior at the behest of legislative fiat";
• Practicing the true science of education is possible "if educators are forced to pay attention to test scores" (Wise, 1979, p. 547-8).

Many others have also pointed out these assumptions as well as additional problems, and the assessment-driven education or high-stakes testing systems have caused some of the same complaints to continue up to the present.

Two decades after Wise's observations, Ramirez (1999) writes that legislators and school administrators design assessment-driven reform so as to influence and control many areas of the education system: "Among the most important of these target areas is the instructional program: specifically, what and how teachers teach" (p. 206). This resonates with assumption number four above, as does Reynolds' observation nearly a decade later. Reynolds points out that, "Pedagogy that is emancipatory, that frees the individual, that makes an individual aware is difficult to achieve when the teacher is locked into an instruction-sheet type of education. Obviously, there are many alternatives to this type of education" (2007, p. 12). Wise also explains the consequence of forcing teachers to deliver what Reynolds describes as an "instruction-sheet type of education." According to Wise,

Standardized Test Bias

Another point of criticism that many have made is that the testing system may be unfair. Gallagher (2003) points out that even as far back as 1966, the National Center for Education Statistics sponsored a study which examined issues of equity among racially and ethnically diverse student populations. The study came to be known as the Coleman Report, and one conclusion in that report was that "the most important predictor of school achievement was the student's 'general social context,' or home background and related neighborhood factors" (Gallagher, 2003, p. 91). After the study was released, some testing advocates argued that the findings demonstrated that "home environments, and not biases inherent in standardized assessments" caused lower test scores. However, as Gallagher points out, that argument was later demonstrated to be wrong because tests had design and data analysis flaws (p. 91). However, the main question that the research results poses is, If test results are lower in entire populations of economically disadvantaged children, then is the testing system really fair? Ramirez cites a study that examined standardized test scores. The findings were that,

Grant carried out a study while teaching for a year in a poverty-stricken school in rural Louisiana, and his findings bring home the main point: socioeconomic status and family background give a clear MCT advantage to some students over other students. Grant observes that "this thesis is fairly well documented in educational literature" (p. 10). Grant's personal view and testimony best explains why the policy of failing students for not passing standardized tests is more injurious than helpful:

Grant directs his anger at 'bureaucrats and politicians,' which implies that he believes educational policy is politically motivated. Other education experts have made this argument even more explicitly. For example, three decades ago, when MCT became popular, Wise wrote, "I look upon it [MCT] as a political movement and try to understand its nature" (1979, p. 546). Wise believes "there is a power struggle going on, although the parties do not think of it in these terms. Minimum competency testing is mainly coming from state legislatures" (p. 548). Pipho, who wrote a rebuttal to Wise's essay, may have disagreed with Wise in some areas, but not on Wise's view that MCT may be a political movement: "Wise's concern that this is a political movement rather than an education movement is legitimate" (1979, p. 552).

Jang and Ryan (2003) implicitly make the same claim by offering the political motive. They write that "the assessments serving accountability systems are often criticized as a means for policy-makers outside the classroom to exercise power and control over teachers, students, and schools" (p. 500). Thus, the politics that Wise believes is behind MCT, and also behind more recent accountability systems, may have the political motive of controlling the public education system and those within it. Ramirez expands on Jang and Ryan's explanation by writing that politicians prefer MCT and accountability systems because enough voters like it. Additionally, it "gives the illusion of having a positive impact on the education system" and accountability systems are "much cheaper than many of the other proposed solutions (such as smaller class size or higher salaries for teachers) to what is troubling America's public schools" (1999, p. 205). It should be noted that a lot of money, either directly from the federal and state governments or indirectly through school districts or the students' parents, ends up being paid to test preparation companies and other private businesses that form the burgeoning education market.

Disappointing Results

Ramirez argues that MCT never lived up to its expectations. He writes, "As the results from those [MCT] programs started to roll in, the bluster and oratory associated with the development of that policy strategy were quickly replaced by much throat clearing and shoeshine inspecting among policy leaders" (1999, p. 206). Ramirez claims that the "unanticipated consequences" of MCT systems were "higher dropout rates, lowered expectations for students," and "narrowing of the curriculum." In other words, MCT actually damaged the public education system. Consequently, MCT policies were revised or abandoned "in state after state" (p. 206). However, rather than stopping to thoroughly investigate whether MCT really was creating unintended consequences and negative side effects, a new generation of assessment known as "high-stakes" assessment quickly outmoded MCT.

Vogel and Virtue (2007) give a different reason for why MCT became unpopular. They write that MCT became unpopular because it only tested the minimum that students should know as graduates, so the tests were set at the level of middle or junior high school. "Policymakers and the public, especially at a time when America's educational system was seen as inferior in comparison with the systems of other economically developed countries, wanted more than a competency test of high school students' ability to perform eighth-grade reading and mathematics" (p. 55).

The New High-Stakes Testing

This may be true because, in 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education released a study called A Nation at Risk, and that study caused a lot of political changes in national education policy, and also caused legislative changes in education at the state level; the term "high-stakes testing" came into use at that time. Vogler and Virtue write of the Nation at Risk report, "with its pronouncement of gloom and doom in America's public schools, the report implied that more frequent testing, including a resurgence of standardized testing at the high school level, was needed to improve the country's ailing public education system" (Vogler & Virtue, 2007, p. 54). All of these historical turns in federal educational policy — which shape states' policies — contributed to the dominant educational theory and policy of America today. That is why Koretz observes that, "In several respects, then, the current wave of high-stakes testing represents a continuation of trends in policy that extend back several decades" (2002, p. 754).

If MCT was a political bridling of public education, then the next phase was a political tightening of the reins. From the mid 1980s into the 1990s an assessment system with even more demanding criteria formed a new wave of educational reform. Vogler and Virtue note that the new state tests had the teeth of sanctions against administrators, teachers and students. They note, "The stakes involved decisions about teacher retention and compensation; student retention, advancement, or graduation; and the allocation of funding to schools, districts, or specific programs" (Vogler & Virtue, 2007, p. 55). The new system became essentially punitive. Previously, the MCT system was only punitive against the worst academic students, but the legal punishments of the new "high-stakes" system branched out to include virtually everyone within public education.

After legislators created sanctions and penalties that were much broader, researchers began carrying out studies to find out the effect this had on teachers and students. One extensive study showed that high-stakes assessments cause teachers to feel higher levels of stress. Also, according to the same study, "more than 77% of the teachers surveyed indicated decreases in morale" and the other states surveyed showed approximately the same percentages (Abrams, Pedulla & Madaus, 2003, p. 21). According to the authors of that study, other studies also demonstrated "increased levels of anxiety, stress, and fatigue … among students participating in high-stakes testing programs." Another problem is that empirical research indicates that high-stakes state-mandated testing "is associated with increased student dropout rates" (Abrams, Pedulla & Madaus, 2003, p. 21).

The National Board of Educational Testing and Public Policy carried out another important national survey that was designed to accurately reveal what teachers thought about state-mandated testing programs. The study showed that 76% of teachers believed that state-mandated tests have "led them to teach in ways that contradict their own notions of sound educational practice" (Abrams, Pedulla and Madaus, 2003, p. 23). These teachers believe that making state tests the top priority has adversely affected educational quality for their students.

Because of so much emphasis on assessment, there's a clear danger that other important elements of a quality education may lose attention, or possibly even become altogether lost to our public education system. Stewart (1982) formulates those other important elements of education quite well by concluding that our drive for assessments must be reconciled with the need to:

• Combine drill and mastery learning with application, comprehension, and critical thinking
• Assess achievement on the basis of each student's individual growth instead of uniform group standards
• Accommodate the individual characteristics and learning styles of the students
• Provide for the affective, cognitive, and social aspects of learning (Stewart, 1982, p. 103).

Viewpoints

A Matter of Priority

Minimum competency testing and other proficiency testing of grade school and high school students will most likely continue to be used in America's public school system. If around 75% of America's educators do not like the current system — a system of rewards and punishments based on standardized multiple choice test scores — then we should closely examine whether something may be wrong. Some of the evidence indicates that classrooms are becoming training grounds for passing tests (teaching to the test) which is partly why many experts in the field have been pointing out the danger in making standard tests the top classroom priority across the nation.

Considering that many of those test questions could be answered within seconds through the internet, perhaps the bigger issue in the information age is whether the right definition of "education" has been developed and applied in our schools. That definition must fit the need to adeptly gather, critically analyze and creatively synthesize information, which may be difficult to accomplish by training students to pass multiple choice exams. In any case, most educators would probably agree with Jang and Ryan's conclusion that "…any critical decisions for students in a high-stakes context should not be made on the basis of a single test score" (Jang & Ryan, 2003, p. 510).

Ultimately, Vogler and Virtue probably give the best advice for teachers today. They suggest that it is "prudent" for teachers to incorporate their state's curriculum framework into their lesson plans, and to do some pretesting by issuing previous state-mandated tests; however, they warn that teachers "must resist the temptation to be subservient to these documents". Instead, the authors advise, teachers should "trust their professional training and pedagogical knowledge to guide their instructional decisions" (Vogler & Virtue, 2007, p. 57). In other words, when teaching, teachers should continue to create their own definition of "quality education," and deliver that in the classroom.

Terms & Concepts

A Nation at Risk: The report that the NCEE released in 1983. The report contained recommendations for educational improvement. The report contained several specific areas of examination, such as assessing how major social and educational reforms of the past had affected student achievement.

Coleman Report: One of the most significant and comprehensive studies carried out in the history education. James Coleman headed the study. The report was released in 1966 and involved 600,000 children in 4,000 schools nationally. The official name of the report is Equality of Educational Opportunity.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): A federal legislative act that was signed into law on April 11, 1965. The ESEA is a comprehensive set of regulations and procedures for funding both primary and secondary public education. The Act was originally authorized until 1970, but the U.S. government has reauthorized the Act every five years since its enactment.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): A periodic study of student progress carried out by a division of The U.S. Department of Education called the National Center for Education Statistics. The study assesses mathematics, reading, writing, and science, and is released as "The Nation's Report Card". The study is used to inform legislators, educators, and parents about the status of public education.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): The primary federal organization that collects and analyzes education-related data in the U.S. and other countries. NCES is within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences. NCES carries out a Congressional mandate to collect and analyze data to create accurate and thorough statistics on the state of American education.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE): A government commission that was established on August 26, 1981. The commission was set up to examine the quality of U.S. public and private schools, colleges, and universities. The NCEE was assigned to submit a report to the nation within 18 months of its first meeting.

Minimum Competency Testing (MCT): A testing system established at the state level to ascertain whether graduating high school students have mastered an essential core of basic knowledge and skills.

The National Board of Educational Testing and Public Policy: An independent organization located at the Lynch School of Education at Boston College. NBETPP monitors testing in the United States to verify that tests are appropriate for their intended uses and have technical adequacy. The Board concentrates its work on tests that are used for deciding on school admissions, grade and professional promotions, or graduation eligibility, or other tests that are highly consequential for students, teachers, and schools.

Title I: Part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The title's purpose is to ensure that all children receive a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education. The title is also used to ascertain that students achieve at least a minimum proficiency on state academic standards and assessments.

Bibliography

Abrams, L., Pedulla, J. & Madaus, G. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers' opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory Into Practice; 42, 18-30. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9611411&site=ehost-live

Crisp, V., & Green, S. (2013). Teacher views on the effects of the change from coursework to controlled assessment in GCSEs. Educational Research & Evaluation, 19, 680-699. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91809540&site=ehost-live

Daun-Barnett, N., & St. John, E. P. (2012). Constrained curriculum in high schools: The changing math standards and student achievement, high school graduation and college continuation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20, 1-22. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=73345654&site=ehost-live

Gallagher, C. (2003). Reconciling a tradition of testing with a new learning paradigm. Educational Psychology Review; 15: 83-99. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9045517&site=ehost-live

Grant, C. (2004). Oppression, privilege, and high-stakes testing. Multicultural Perspectives; 6: 3-11. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=11961930&site=ehost-live

Hemelt, S. W., & Marcotte, D. E. (2013). High school exit exams and dropout in an era of increased accountability. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 32, 323-349. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=86235901&site=ehost-live

Jang, E. & Ryan, K. (2003). Essay review: Bridging gaps among curriculum, teaching and learning, and assessment. Journal of Curriculum Studies; 35: 499-513. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=10466644&site=ehost-live

Koretz, D. (2002). Limitations in the use of achievement tests as measures of educators' productivity. Journal of Human Resources; 37: 752-777. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=7585395&site=ehost-live

Pipho, C. (1979). Competency testing: A response to Arthur Wise. Educational Leadership; 36: 551-554. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=8871380&site=ehost-live

Pipho, C. (1997). Standards, assessment, accountability: The tangled triumvirate. Phi Delta Kappan; 78: 673-675. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9705276289&site=ehost-live

Ramirez, A. (1999). Assessment driven reform. Phi Delta Kappan; 81: 204-209. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=2459632&site=ehost-live

Reynolds, W. (2007). CHAPTER 1: Freedom from control: Toward abolition of teacher materials and minimum competency tests. (p. 2-13). In, Curriculum: A river runs through it. Peter Lang Publishing. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=38801658&site=ehost-live

Stewart, W. (1982). Harmonizing basic skills with general education areas. Education; 103: 103-105. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4730612&site=ehost-live

Vogler, K. & Virtue, D. (2007). "Just the facts, ma'am": Teaching social studies in the era of standards and high-stakes testing. Social Studies; 98: 54-58. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=25127302&site=ehost-live

Walstad, W. (1984). Analyzing minimal competency test performance. Journal of Educational Research; 77: 261-267. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4906044&site=ehost-live

Wise, A. (1979). Why minimum competency testing will not improve education. Educational Leadership; 36: 546-550. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=8871354&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Allington, R. & McGill-Franzen, A. (1997). How administrators understand learning difficulties. Remedial & Special Education; 18: 223-233. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9708042660&site=ehost-live

Bishop, J. & Mane, F. (2005). Raising academic standards and vocational concentrators: Are they better off or worse off? Education Economics; 13: 171-187. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16928676&site=ehost-live

Bishop, J. (1998). The effect of curriculum-based external exit exam systems on student achievement. Journal of Economic Education; 29: 171-182. Retrieved August 16, 2009 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=466634&site=ehost-live