Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
Broderick Cojeen
Grand Valley St University
1
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
2
Abstract
Each year students and teachers are put under heavy stress by a regimen of
mandated standardized testing. Either through the Federal Government, or
individual states, this testing has come to have an ever increasing effect on a
student’s future, particularly entrance exams such as the SAT or ACT. These kinds of
tests are used to ascertain a student’s supposed intelligence, and often times mean
whether or not a student gets into a school of their choosing, even though these
tests are often culturally or racially biased. Furthermore, these tests also alter the
way teacher’s teach in the classroom, by forcing them to conform to certain
curriculum, and are now being used to give or withhold funding for certain schools
depending on their performance. Each of these individual effects are more likely to
have a negative effect on students from low socioeconomic status families as well as
minority students. Therefore, this paper will highlight how the increased
standardized testing curriculum has inherently negative effects on both
impoverished and minority students.
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
3
Though criticisms of standardized testing have been thorough since at least
the 1960’s, the United States has drastically increased the amount of testing done on
students throughout the country. This has been particularly evident since the
introduction of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) in 2001, which was a
reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. No Child Left
Behind in particular ties Federal education funding to student performance on
standardized assessments, thus making them increasingly important over the last
12 years. The tests enacted by the NCLBA were purposed to close all academic
achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students (U.S. Department of
Education [USDOE], 2009). This has been enacted with fervor in the United States
despite widespread criticism that standardized tests do not accurately represent a
student’s intelligence or education, and that they disproportionately negatively
affect some groups of students. Our country has decided that it believes its’ citizens
have the equal right to an effective, free education. Therefore it should stand to
reason that the same country should not enact policies that negate that right, and
yet that is what’s happening. Through a combination of processes, including state
and federal funding, the altering of teaching processes, high-stakes testing and
inherent test biases, our school system has become flawed. Standardized testing
disproportionately negatively affects students based on their race or socioeconomic
status (SES). By perpetuating a system that is heavily reliant on standardized,
mandated and/or high-stakes testing it also stands to reason that these students
will be left behind. Thus reinforcing a cycle of poverty, a disenfranchisement of a
large portion of students and an effective barrier on upward social mobility.
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
4
Socioeconomic Status and Test Performance
Students in the United States were already getting tested at an
unprecedented rate before the NCLBA was instituted and testing has only become
more important and more prevalent following its’ passage (Akin, 2000). This is due
to a federal mandate within the act that ensures that all states apply accountability
systems within their public schools. Though it allows for variance from state to state
in terms of application, each state must in some way create a system of annual
testing for all students in grades 3-8 and in one high school grade. So despite the
fact that it has been argued before that a child’s socioeconomic status is often tied to
their school and test performance, it is clear that it is worth highlighting again in
order to move on to further arguments and because our policies have not changed
to accommodate this concept yet. As such it becomes important to locate the
nuanced ties between a student’s test performance and their parent’s
socioeconomic status (SES).
In fact the research consensus over the last 25 years has indicated that
student test performance is directly linked to their parent’s SES (Brownwell, Roos,
Fransoo, Macwilliam, Yallop & Levin, 2006). Furthermore a student’s standardized
tests scores do not even directly correlate to how well they are doing in the
classroom, but the scores instead correlate directly with the education and income
of the student’s parents.
For instance, in a study of participants of the Graduate Record Exam (GRE),
about 7,000 test takers scored a 750 and 800 on the analytical portion. Of those
7,000 only 4 percent had parents who had not completed high school, but over half
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
5
of those 7,000 had parents with a bachelor’s degree or higher (Sacks, 1997). This is
not only true of graduate tests and test takers, but extends to standardized tests
throughout age groups. Further research has suggested that, “standardized test
scores consistently vary by socioeconomic status as reflected by parental education,
family income, or other measures in kindergarten, elementary school and middle
and high school,” (Grotsky, Warren & Felts, 2008). That same research also found
evidence of SES differences in test scores in the graduate field.
By the mid to late 2000’s studies that went well into the passage and
enforcement of the NCLBA were producing similar anecdotal evidence. In fact, “long
term trend data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress suggest that
differences in reading and math achievement across levels of parental education
were unchanged between 1980 and 2004, with children of college-educated parents
outscoring those of high school dropouts by 30 points at age 13 in both subjects, by
30 points in math at age 17 and by almost 40 points in reading at age 17,” (Grostky,
Warren & Felts, 2008, 387).
Layer upon layer of research has unearthed similar testing results across SES
lines. Research conducted by Kim Bancroft within low-income school districts and
neighborhoods in which she talked with many of the teachers of students from lowSES families indicates how SES correlates with school work, and by extension,
testing. One teacher offered a critical observation about the differences between
middle to upper class kids and his students, stating, “Upper class kids know how to
be students. If your parents are often home and use books, you have a higher chance
of succeeding. They’ve had the scaffolding all their lives. The supports include
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
6
college-educated parents, books around, and resources like going to the library,
extra-curricular activities. The scaffolding from these life experiences helps develop
academic-related critical thinking skills,” (Bancroft, 2009, 60). These critical
thinking skills are what correlate with success on standardized tests. This teacher’s
statement is corroborated in other research as well, where findings are conclusive
that upper and middle class students, “are much more likely to be socialized in the
importance of literacy and numeracy because these skills are ratified by parents and
other significant role models as being the keys to economic success,” and therefore
makes them more likely to succeed in standardized testing (Luker, Cobb, Luker,
2001).
Bancroft’s conclusions come to a near identical assessment as the studies
previously mentioned. Of the key aspects of her research what shines through is the
idea that low-income students enter high school under prepared for the challenges
ahead, and that they are already, “lacking skills measured on the state standards and
concomitant tests,” (Bancroft, 2009, 70). Furthermore the student’s that came into
high school lacking said skills had trouble finding help from faculty and the, “testing
process did nothing to help,” the process of gaining the necessary skills. Ultimately
she argues that top-down policy reform such as the NCLBA is unrealistic in terms of
achieving it’s goal to reduce the achievement gap. She goes on to state that the
enforced system of assessment is undermined by low resources found at schools of
predominately low-SES students and that these schools eventually found it
obligatory to abandon benchmark testing as it was deemed, “a failed method for
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
7
understanding and improving teaching and learning in the school’s English classes,”
(Bancroft, 2009, 54).
The Chicago Teacher’s Union has been in the public eye in recent years
arguing a case that is similar to Bancroft’s. At the time they were involved in a strike
the Union leaders published a paper pointing to research that suggests that
academic achievement, particularly that on standardized tests, is “highly
correlated,” with factors outside of those that teachers can alter, particularly
poverty and racial inequalities (Boigra 2013) (CTU Staff, 2013). This was at the core
of their strike, as teachers in within the predominately low-SES schools in Chicago
were getting fed up with their situation. They felt that the amount of standardized
testing they were forced to comply with was interfering with their ability to help
students and that it was unrealistic for them to be expected to remedy the situation
when the curriculum of standardized testing they were forced to comply with was
proving to be ineffective (CTU Staff, 2013).
Furthermore, a student’s SES not only often correlates with external negative
aspects of their test performance but also aspects within their schools. Low-income
and poverty-stricken students are more likely to be taught by less skilled and
specialized teachers. In fact research indicates that high-poverty populations are
often missing qualified teachers in a disproportionate way. That same research
suggests that, “the proportion of unqualified teachers in a school can be related to
student failure on state-mandated Standards of Learning (SOL) tests even after
controlling for the prevailing effects of poverty,” (Tuerk, 2005, 421).
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
8
The bulk of the research on standardized testing seems to suggest that
students are disproportionately likely to do poorly on standardized tests in direct
correlation with their low SES. These same low SES students are also more likely to
have teachers that are less prepared to alter their shortcomings and therefore even
more likely to do poorly on said tests, further exacerbating the external negative
aspects of low SES. It stands to reason that because NCLB has mandated that schools
be funded based on test performance and that low SES students are more likely to
perform poorly on those kinds of tests, then these schools are going to be
continually underfunded creating a cyclical situation of inequity that seems nearly
impossible for a low-SES school to dig out of. By extension low-SES students are
then less likely to have access to the education that they deserve, and more
importantly the education that will help then climb the social ladder. The NCLBA is
fostering a system of inequity that is directly correlating with less upward social
mobility for low-SES students. This is evident within a wider context as the wealth
in America has come to be concentrated more and more in the hands of a few, as
opposed to the many. It bears mentioning that the current generation of young
people overwhelming feel that they will not have as much financial success as the
generation before them. Education is often held up as the most prominent factor in
creating a better life for poor and lower-middle class students and yet our current
education system is directly negating this promise. By creating a system predicated
on standardized and mandated testing the United States is in no way remedying the
obvious problems and in turn is creating one of the most unequal societies in human
history.
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
9
Altered Teaching Techniques
Standardized testing also leads teachers to change the ways in which they
teach. Most of this comes through the process of teaching to the test. This involves
drilling students repeatedly over concepts they are likely to encounter on
standardized tests in order to try and ensure test score success. Teachers do this
because they are pressured to achieve success on the NCLBA mandates, failing to do
so can lead to pay decreases and even the loss of their job. Therefore these teachers
are becoming incentivized to do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired test
outcomes. This has lead to the altering of techniques teachers use as well an
unprecedented amount of cheating scandals due to the pressures involved with the
test mandates. Both of these outcomes are once again more likely to affect students
in low SES school districts which is another way in which these students are
disproportionately affected by standardized testing.
Though this is something that happens in all school districts due to the more
rigid regiment of testing, it happens much more to school districts with high
numbers of low-SES students. Due to the national requirements set by school
districts often times the goals set out for improvement, either through a total
improvement or an annual rate are not realistically achievable. This is the kind of
thing that will ultimately lead to additional incentives for teachers to teach to the
test or other inappropriate methods. (Madeus & Clark 2002, 7)
Research suggests that many ethnic minority or low SES students come to
school less prepared not only for standardized testing but also the rigors of school in
general, because of this many teachers have to alter their teaching techniques to the
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
10
aforementioned “teach to the test,” approach where teachers only cram in testrelevant content (Riffert, 2005). This causes students to miss out on learning
opportunities that are not directly related to standardized testing, particularly in the
areas of music and art education (Salpeter, Foster, 2000). Teaching to the test also
forces, “teachers to pay attention to the form of the test as well as the content. When
teaching to the test the form of the questions can narrow the focus of instruction,
study, and learning to the detriment of other skills,” (Madeus & Clark 2002, 9).
These teachers are also under large amounts of pressure and are therefore more
likely to cheat or promote dishonesty in order to gain rewards or keep their schools
funding (Casbarro, 2005).
Research in specific classrooms that were high-minority in terms of their
student population found that these students are often taught much differently than
in classrooms that do not have as many minority students. One NSF sponsored
national study found that teachers with 60% or more minority students reported
more test pressure, test preparation and more of an influence on their instruction
than did teachers who had classrooms where 10% or less of their students were
minorities. They were also more likely to report, “that test scores were "very" or
"extremely important" to either themselves or administrators for placement in
special services, determining graduation, recommending textbook, planning
curriculum and instruction, evaluating student progress, and giving feedback to
students,” (Madeus & Clark, 2002, 10). The research also supported the assertion
that, “Teachers in high-minority classrooms significantly more often reported
teaching test-taking skills, teaching topics known to be on the test, increasing
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
11
emphasis on tested topics, beginning preparation more than a month before the
test, and including topics not otherwise taught,” (Madeus & Clark 2002, 10). One
example would be the teachers at Railside High School in California. Later in the
paper I will talk about these teachers experiences with test bias. Aside from those
experiences and despite their best efforts, their school has been labeled as
underperforming on the SAT-9 test. Though they have made great strides in helping
their low-SES and minority students and have created helpful strategies and tests
that have been proven to help their students learn many of the teachers are
considering abandoning their approach. The teachers are starting to feel that, “they
need to spend more time on test-taking skills, even though they do not believe that
this will improve the students’ understanding of mathematics,” (Boaler 2003, 506).
This is just one anecdote amongst the broad research consensus that overwhelming
supports the idea that standardized testing alters the teaching techniques and
practices in high-minority, low-SES classrooms at a much higher rate than majority
and more affluent classrooms.
Another clear example of how standardized testing can harm low-SES
students comes from science-related research in a low-income school in California.
After realizing that years of, “drill and kill,” and, “teach to the test,” practices weren’t
working this school had teachers extensively trained in inquiry-based science and
therefore their students started making extraordinary gains. For years the schools
teachers had been using teach to the test strategies in hopes of achieving the desired
test scores on mandated standardized tests. However, after many years of not living
up to requirements the fed up faculty decided to go about trying to find a new
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
12
approach and what they found was that the teach to the test techniques were what
was failing them.
The students in this school that received multiple years of different teaching
techniques such as inquiry based science, as opposed to teaching to the test, scored
up to 35% better in math scores and 28% better in reading scores on average when
compared to their classmates who did not get these techniques (Jorgenson &
Vanosdall, 2002). However many schools and school districts feel the pressure of
trying to achieve certain test scores and therefore will not alter their approaches.
Despite obvious success stories and anecdotal evidence schools cannot change their
teaching practices because they are, “locked in a frenzied struggle to better prepare
their teachers and students for the high-stakes standardized tests that are sweeping
through the U.S. state by state,” (Jorgenson & Vanosdall, 2002, 604). This not only
effects low-SES students but also minority students as these students often are
receiving, “less quality instruction and more instruction to prepare for mandated
tests that fail to meet recommended standards and that are driving instructional
practices,” (Lomax, West, Harmon, Viator & Madaus, 1995). The evidence and
research is growing to suggest that low-SES and minority students are not getting
the same teaching techniques that students from the majority or affluent school
districts are getting. This is but one more factor amongst a myriad of factors
contributing to the ineptitude of the NCLBA. The rigorous test and punish approach
to the education system is clearly altering the way in which our students are getting
taught, and visibly not for the better.
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
13
Test Bias
The direct correlation between SES and standardized test scores and the
altering of teaching practices are not the only adverse affects of standardized testing
and the NCLBA. Negative affects are also real and evident in the myriad of cultures
that encounter test bias when taking a standardized test. Standardized tests are
often harder for minority students not raised in an explicitly Anglo-European,
western culture because these tests are often written by and for those kinds of
people. A study in 2008 found, “that some questions on high-stakes tests may favor
one kind of student or another for reasons that have nothing to do with the subject
area being 13tested,” (Taylor-Smith 2011, 42). This can be particularly evident
when trying to diagnose language disorders or Specific Language Impairments (SLI)
in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) students. CLD students are often put
in classrooms that promote English speaking only and subject to standardized tests
that might be biased against their culture (Roseberry-McKibbin, 2006). Speed is
another way that test makers can sort out the test takers. Some students will not
make it all the way through a test and this causes all minority students and ESL
learners to score lower on high-stakes test because it disproportionately affects
students who are ESL or have learning disabilities.
However these are not the most obvious or explicit forms of test bias that
exist. Often times ethnic minorities also experience this test bias, one of the most
common examples would be a test biased towards African American students. What
is exceptionally hard to understand is the fact the system is using tests that are often
biased towards certain cultural groups to determine these students potential or the
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
14
amount of dollar resources their school should have to put towards their education.
(Ford & Helms 2012, 186).
This is evident throughout the country in schools that mostly consist of
minority students and these are the kinds of schools that are more likely to be
underperforming. In research as late as 2012, demographic profiles of schools that
the NCLBA has determined are underperforming based on their standards often
consist look very similar consisting of a large percentage of ethnic minorities and
impoverished students (Taylor-Smith 2011, 4). These students are the kinds that
are victims of test biases. This comes in the form of language that is different from
what they have been accustomed to, for example many African American students
grow up in a household or community that often speaks in African American
Vernacular English which is differs from Standard English. These students have
encountered one way of speaking, listening and often times this can bleed into
writing. These students will then not be as accustomed to the way a Standard
English standardized test might be using language. Things get lost in the
translations and therefore a test can be biased against students from a certain
culture that speaks something other than Standard English. (Taylor-Smith 2011, 3).
The language of standardized tests as wide ranging as the SAT or a 9th grade
California state-wide mathematics exam might be different than the language of a
certain minority group and culture and therefore harder for the student to
understand, giving them a disadvantage in terms of performing well on the test. This
is how a Railside High School in California was continually labeled as an
underperforming school by the state. Though it’s students were outperforming
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
15
students in wealthier, less-diverse school districts on math scores administered by
the research team, it continually underperformed on statewide examinations
because of the language of the tests. This was particularly evident on the SAT-9 test
that the students were required to take. In interviews with the Railside students
they found the SAT-9, “totally confusing, mainly because of the language and
contexts used in the mathematics questions,” (Boaler 2003, 504) The language was
different than they were accustomed to and used words that they were not likely to
come across within their lifestyle, thus leading to the ‘underperforming’ status. In
fact the study found, “a range of evidence suggesting that the low performance of
students in the SAT-9 at Railside is related less to mathematical understanding than
to language, context interpretation (which relies heavily on language), and testtaking skills,” )Boaler, 2003, 506). Boaler’s research concluded that this was not the
only school experiencing such a phenomenon though; that many of the other
California schools she studied had similar experiences. These schools are creating
positive learning environments and their students are exceling at the concepts they
are being taught by their teachers they are being labeled as underperforming
students by a state and system that is unfairly assessing them. (Boaler, 2003) It is
clear that the biases often found on a standardized test can also have a negative
impact on test scores. Once again this negative impact is primarily occurring to
students who are either ethnic minorities from a low SES household or both.
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
16
The SAT and the High-Stakes Testing Game
The rise of the SAT test of the past 100 years is a clear and obvious example
of the purposed merits of standardized testing and their subsequent failures. First I
will outline the history and rise of the SAT test, particularly how it has grown into
the most important and prominent standardized test in the United States. Then it
will be important to go over how the test has been exposed as a gross
misrepresentation. Despite the fact the research has painted an unsightly picture of
the SAT, it is still being used within the college admissions process in the United
States, in fact it is, “utilized in some capacity by nearly every selective institution in
the country as a measure of a student’s ability,” (Epstein 2009, 9). Due to this quality
it is failing many minority students and is a great example of the inequality in the
education system currently.
Around the turn of century into the early 1900’s IQ testing was growing at a
large rate an becoming more and more important in America. The rise of the social
Darwin movement, as well as the IQ and eugenics movement all collided at this time
and fostered an environment that placed an increased importance on intelligence
and intelligence testing (Berger 2012, 167). The U.S. created a test that was
intended to determine a soldier’s aptitude for becoming a commissioned officer.
Leading scientists of the time, particularly in eugenics, contended that the test was
objective and that its’ conclusions were both valid and reliable when testing a
soldier’s intelligence. (Berger 2012, 168).
With the scientific community behind the Army’s test, it continued to gain
influence within the U.S. By the mid 1920s, “the Army’s test morphed into the SAT,
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
17
with the bulk of the test devoted to word familiarity, the eternal staple of
intelligence testing. If these tests were predicting intelligence, colleges and
universities looked to the tests to determine which students would be successful
and therefore worthy of attending prestigious universities,” (Berger 2012, 168).
Over the next 30-40 years more and more universities began to feel that rejecting
students would make their school look more prestigious and they began adopting
the SAT for admission use. Up through the 1950s, “the use of the SAT grew rapidly.
When the University of California adopted the exam in 1968, its expansion across
the nation was solidified” (Epstein 2009, 9)
Throughout its tenure the SAT has been presented as a way to test a
students’ aptitude, general reasoning ability and critical thinking abilities. It has
distinctly been used to gauge a students’ analytic ability not their ability to master
specific subjects or material. This is the reason it came to be used by a large portion
of universities. The SAT has historically been presented as a way to assess each
student’s intelligence, or at the very least to make a fair assessment as to how well
that student will be prepared for first year college coursework. This is evident in the
original name for the test, the Scholastic Aptitude Test. The fact that it has since
adopted the name and is no longer even an acronym for something is evidence that
it does not achieve its proposed goals. The University of California designed a long
term study that had its’ incoming students take a range of standardized tests,
including the SAT, prior to being admitted to the university. This became the basis
for their study of the SAT and the effects it has had on college students throughout
the country (Berger 2012, 170).
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
18
The UC study and general research across the board over the past 15 years has
come to the conclusion that the SAT does not actually report aptitude; it is another
example of a standardized test reporting on one’s family SES. This, like the grunt of
standardized testing which reflects SES has come to harm minority students,
particularly African-Americans, at a higher rate than comparable white students.
This is extremely evident in the racial gap between black and white students taking
the SAT, one that has only widened over the past 20 years (The Journal of Blacks in
Higher Education, 2009, 82).
However, this racial gap has often been seen as direct factor of the to SES
problem. In fact, “sharp differences in family income are a major factor. Always
there has been a direct correlation between family income and SAT scores (The
Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 2010, 83). This is evident in the UC research
as well as they conclusively found a, “correlation between SAT success and socioeconomic status,” (Berger 2012, 171). Another study by Charlie Willie found that his
research in a Charleston County school district proved conclusively that there, “is a
graduated increase in the average achievement test score of students in Charleston
County that corresponds with increases in the average income of their families,”
(Willie, 2001, 468).
The racial gap appeared to be closing steadily up until 1988 but it appears
that progress declined and then the gap began to steadily worsen over the course of
the next 20 years. In fact, “the 189-point racial scoring gap that prevailed in 1988
has grown to 209 points. This is the largest racial scoring gap in 20 years. On a
percentage basis the scoring gap has grown from 15.7 percent to 17.4 percent.
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
19
These are the most unfortunate and persisting statistics that best tell the story of
how deep the academic achievement gulf is between African Americans and the rest
of the American population,” (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 2010).
What this looks like in 2009 is a higher amount of less fortunate black
students taking the SAT than comparable white students. When a study on the SAT
came out in 2009 it showed that, “22 percent of all black SAT test takers were from
families with annual incomes below $20,000. Only 4 percent of white test takers
were from families with incomes below $20,000. At the other extreme just 2 percent
of all black test takers were from families with incomes of more than $200,000. The
comparable figure for white test takers was 9 percent. (The Journal of Blacks in
Higher Education, 2009, 85). Like the majority of standardized tests, the strongest
factor determining a student’s success is the SES of their family. The problem with
this is the weight and gravity attached to the SAT and other high stakes tests, and it
is made evident in the research that this is disproportionately affecting minority
students in the United States.
The SAT has been used like a college entrance exam for a large portion of
American universities for many years now, and critics of the test have found that it
is often a barrier to creating more diversity at universities. Therefore the widening
racial gap could be viewed as evidence of this as blacks are doing steadily worse
than their white peers on the SAT, and would then be less likely to gain entrance to
said universities based on their testing. Research has supported this conclusion as
well. When compared to “traditional indicators of academic achievement, the SAT
had a more adverse impact on low-income and minority applicants” (emphasis
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
20
added) (Atkinson and Geiser, 2009, 666). Not only is the SAT clearly associated with
SES, it also does not accurately predict a student’s likely success in his or her first
year of college, all of the previously mentioned research pointed this out as well. The
SAT test is a good predictor of SES but not of a students first year college grades, and
yet it is still often used in the admissions process, particularly in light of its 2006
redesign. Yet this is despite it’s obvious disadvantages towards poorer, minority
students.
However, the SAT is just one example of a high-stakes standardized test
perpetuating inequality within our education system. The ACT is a very similar test
that does many of the same things as the SAT, but that is not where the line is
drawn. These singular tests are just one-off examples of the wider failures of the
high-stakes testing movement. The NCLBA has obviously created a system whereby
standardized tests are the uniform factor in determining a schools success, and
therefore its’ funding. It would then stand to reason that all of the standardized tests
that correlate with NCLB and contribute to a school’s funding would be considered,
“high-stakes,” if not directly by the students taking them, then definitively by the
administrators and teachers affected by the results of these tests. High-stakes tests
assess skills in mathematics, reading, and writing. Furthermore, passing these tests
has become a requirement for things such as grade promotion and high school
graduation, among other examples. This is how these tests have earned the name
high-stakes. A lot is riding on these tests, not only for individual students but also
for the education system at large. These tests are also disproportionately affecting
our poor and minority students and continuing our system of inequality.
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
21
Yet there is not anything being done other than a reinforcement of the
existing system. Assessment is being used as a way to determine student aptitude
continually and yet, “If high-stakes test results are treated solely as a representation
of inherent individual contributions to aptitude, ignoring cultural and educational
factors that depress minority students’ performance, test scores may yield
inaccurate interpretations, even if the tests themselves can be shown to be unbiased
(Taylor-Smith 2011, 3). This is just another way in which the cycle is repeated and
the inequities continue to happen despite an intention to fix them. Poor, minority
students are going to do worse on standardized tests by design and yet we are using
their test scores to justify not giving the schools that perform poorly the help they
need to actually dig their way out of the situation. This is evident and has become
the research consensus, “because minority students’ performance has continued to
widen compared to Caucasian students’ on high-stakes tests despite NCLB
initiatives to close all academic achievement gaps among all students,” (TaylorSmith 2011, 6).
The negative aspects of high-stakes testing on minority and low-SES is also
evident in research that has been previously been discussed. For instance much of
the test bias research also discussed how things such as stereotype threat and racial
identity often become a factor in regards to standardized testing. These concepts
were discussed in terms of African American test takers and therefore I will
describe them as such. Stereotype threat would be, “test performance anxiety
stimulated by the test taker's awareness that African Americans tend not to perform
well on traditional tests,” while racial identity would refer to, “the process by which
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
22
African Americans (in this case) overcome internalized racism associated with
stereotypes of their ascribed racial group and develop self-validating strategies for
coping with racial Stressors in the environments in which they function,” (Ford &
Helms 2012, 187). The research has shown that both concepts can often lead to
diminished test scores by high school and college aged African Americans due to
their internalized reactions to racial stereotyping. It would stand to reason that
using test scores to assess aptitude or competence when they are affected by such
concepts would be unfair to or at least potentially misrepresentative of the test
taker, and yet these test scores are used just the same on standardized test
throughout the nation.
Likewise the students at Railside School reported a similar experience that
appears to have helped cause their lower SAT-9 scores. These students knew
beforehand that there school had been labeled as and underperforming school and
therefore they did not expect themselves to do very well on the test. This is another
example of the stereotype threat. The students at Railside spoke of attending a
“ghetto” school in interviews particularly because students from other schools as
well as some adults had told them so. Research across the board support the idea
that when students are told that the test they are about take tends to produce
differences in achievement, where particular groups will tend to score lower on the
test as opposed to other groups, the students end up performing according to the
expectation laid out before them. There seems to be a broad consensus on the issue.
If students are told they are low achievers, “they achieve at a lower level than if you
do not,” (Boaler 2003, 505). The SAT and other high stakes tests are continuing to
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
23
fail our educational system. That system is using antiquated and false systems of
assessment to uphold unjust policy. High stakes testing as an institutional policy is
failing our poorer and minority student and has been for years. It might even be
leading to more hig school dropouts than ever. In fact research accrued over time
has been overwhelmingly in support of idea that more high-stakes testing leads to a
higher high school dropout rate. The states with the highest dropout rates in the
country tend to have more minimum competency tests that are higher stakes and
more rigid (Medaus & Clark, 2002, 15). Yet we are perpetuating a system of
inequities whereby minority and low-SES students will continue to attend school
districts that are underfunded because they cannot achieve the unrealistic
standardized test goals.
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
24
The Failure of the NCLBA
As has been made clear the No Child Left Behind act, enacted in 2001, was
created with the hope of creating a accountability within U.S. schools. It had hoped
to achieve this through a curriculum of state and federally mandated standardized
tests that would in theory hold schools accountable through an array of testing
provisions, reporting procedures, bureaucratic mandates, and sanctions. Despite the
attempts these reforms have not led to much success. In fact recent NAEP test scores
have shown that, “33% of fourth-grade students scored ―below basic in reading.
Among economically disadvantaged children, 50% scored below basic,” (TaylorSmith 2011, 17). Yet these students are going to get less funding, less quality
teachers because there school will be labeled as underperforming. Not to mention
there teachers will most likely alter the way they teach in order to attain higher test
scores. Around the country and inn many of the nation’s largest cities, high school
graduation rates are below 50%, it becomes clear that the NCLBA is not a recipe for
success. One of the issues with a top-down reform mandate such as NCLBA is that
the schools most in need of reform don’t have resources or the ability to actually
enact reform. This is what is known as, “compliance without capacity,” and
particularly refers to the schools that were already having issues with achievement
before the accountability standards were enacted. More or less these schools did the
bare minimum of alteration to their organizational standards and their instructional
delivery just in order to meet the new requirements. Of course, with so little change
actually occurring, these schools then produced, “little in the way of improved
performance,” (Taylor-Smith 2011, 18).
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
25
The NCLBA was so flawed in its’ design, particularly in its’ assumptions,
procedures and uses of language, that it appears self-evident that it would lead to
failure not only as a reform policy, but for specific schools, students and teachers as
well. One assumption that seems particularly apparent would be that the NCLBA
creates the same level of achievement, the same teaching methods and similar types
of assessment for all districts and students within the U.S. It defies logic and
common sense to apply such stringent and uniformed policy goals on such a broad
and diverse section of people. It seems simple and obvious that perhaps not each
and every student in the United States, learns the exact same way, and that
therefore we shouldn’t expect them all to know the same things at the same point of
their respective learning development.
Furthermore, and in much the same vein as SAT scores, the country as a
whole has not seen reduction in the achievement gap over the course of the
enactment of NCLB. This is clear as, “the reading achievement gap between average
students in high-poverty and low-poverty schools is 27 percentage points in urban
cities; by the eighth grade, the gap is 43 points,” (Taylor-Smith, 2011, 20). The
bridge between the lower and middle to upper classes does not appear to be in
working order and the NCLBA is not rectifying or remedying the situation at all. The
implementation of this act has only put more hardship upon the people, particularly
students, who could afford it least.
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
26
Conclusion
Despite wide ranging to the contrary the NCLBA is still being used in the U.S.
with the hope that it will be able to reduce the achievement gap and right the
wrongs of the U.S. public school system. It does so when the grunt of the research
amassed goes directly against the purposed benefits of standardized testing. By
holding schools accountable for test results that often have little or no bearing on
what a student has learned or has the capacity to learn, the U.S. is propping up a
system of educational inequity that we have striven to break down ever since the
1954 Brown V. Board of Education ruling.
The current system of high stakes standardized testing directly correlates
with negative affects on our minority and impoverished students. Years of research
have proven that these tests are first and foremost nearly equivalent to having a test
to find the SES of a students’ family. It goes against reason to think otherwise when
time and time again it is proven that standardized tests scores are higher for
students whose families are of a higher SES. This isn’t the only issue at hand though.
Not only are these tests not particularly good at measuring a student’s ability
or aptitude, they are also often times biased against minority students, ESL students,
students with learning disabilities etc. Yet these standardized, norm-referenced
tests are used to measure each and every student as if each and every student is the
same, it’s a fallacy. This is then coupled with the fact that students in less fortunate
school districts also have to contend with the fact that their teachers just aren’t as
well qualified as teachers from other districts, and that even if they are they often
are under such immense pressure to have students who test well that they alter
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
27
they way in which they teach. These alterations then lead to poorer teaching
techniques being used. Teaching to the test becomes the norm and these students
either become adept at rote memorization or they end up dropping out.
The culmination of these factors becomes a large burden upon the backs of
the students that have the most need for a reform minded, adaptable and
compassionate curriculum that will actually serve them as opposed to encumbering
them. For too long our educational system has turned to the idea that standardized
testing will best serve its underperforming students, when in actuality it is one of
the worst possible curriculums one could imagine for such students. It negatively
affects poor and minority students on so many levels to the point where the whole
thing just seems like some sad tragicomedy of a policy. The whole situation is
propagating a cycle of poverty by making it increasingly hard for students from lowSES families to find a good enough education to help them out of their current
economic status.
It seems strange that the U.S. has enacted a policy that has amassed a huge
amount of research over the years that directly contradicts the purposed goals of
said policy, but then again this is politics and most if it doesn’t make much sense.
What is more startling is that despite over a decades worth of failure in terms of
achieving even a modicum of success on those purposed goals we are still
hammering away on the high stakes testing policy. At least after a decade or so the
collective country decided that The War on Terror had been a bit of a fiasco. Yet the
NCLBA lives on informing an educational system that only seems to be getting more
and more broken as the years go by. We can only hope that in the years to come a
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
reform minded President finds some relief in a Congress that is willing to act and
that this Act may be repealed or replaced and we can start to fix this broken
education system and start helping the students that need it most.
28
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
29
References
Brownwell, M., Roos, N., Framspp, R., Roos, L., Guevremont, A., Macwilliam, L.
Yallop, L., & Levin, B. (2006). Is the class half empty? A population-based
perspective on socioeconomic status and educational outcomes. IRPP
Choices. 1-30.
Sacks, P. (1997). Standardized testing: Meritocracy's crooked yardstick. ().
Felts, E., Grodsky, E., & Warren, J.R.,(2008) Testing and social stratification in
American education.
Bancroft, K. (2010). Implementing the mandate: The limitations of benchmark
tests. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(1), 53-72.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9091-1
Luker, Bill, Jr., Cobb, Steven., Luker, William. (2001). Discrimination, inequality and
the competitive model of US education. 987-1002.
Bogira, S. (2013). Overtested. 1-6
Chicago Teachers Union. (2013). Debunking the myths of standardized testing; a CTU
position paper. 1-7
Tuerk, P. (2005). Psychology and Washington: research in the high-stakes era:
achievement, resources, and no child left behind.
Riffert, F. (2005). The use and misuse of standardized testing: A whiteheadian point
of view. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education, 36(1), 22.
Salpeter, J., & Foster, K. (2000). Playing the testing game. Technology &
Learning, 20(11), 26-28.
Casbarro, J. (2005). The politics of high-stakes testing. Education Digest: Essential
Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 70(6), 20-23.
Jorgenson, O., & Vanosdall, R. (2002). The death of science? Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8),
601-605.
Lomax, R. G., West, M. M., Harmon, M. C., & Viator, K. A. (1995). The impact of
mandated standardized testing on minority students. Journal of Negro
Education, 64(2), 171-185.
Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2006). Language disorders in children. Sacremento, Ca.
Pearson.
Left Behind: A Flawed System of Standardized and Mandated Testing
30
Boaler, J. (2003). When learning no longer matters: Standardized testing and the
creation of inequality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(7), 502-506.
Berger, S. J. (2012). THE RISE AND DEMISE OF THE SAT: The university of California
generates change for college admissions. American Educational History
Journal, 39(1), 165- 180.
Epstein, Jonathan B. 2009. Behind the SAT-optional movement: Context and
controversy. Journal of College Admission: 9-19.
Anonymous. 2010. The Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admission Test is
Now Wider Than it Has Been in 20 Years. The Journal of Blacks in Higher
Education: 74-78
Anonymous. 2009. The Persisting Racial Chasm in Scores on the SAT College
Entrance Examination. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education: 84-89
Taylor-Smith, C.High-stakes tests: Comparative study examining the impact on the
achievement gap that causes minority students continued failure. , 114.
Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2005). High-stakes testing and student
achievement: Problems for the no child left behind act. executive
summary. ().Education Policy Research Unit. Arizona State University,
Division of Advanced Studies in Education Policy, Leadership, and
Curriculum, Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education, P.O.
Box 872411, Tempe, AZ 85287.
Madaus, G. F., & Clarke, M. (2001). The adverse impact of high stakes testing on
minority students: Evidence from 100 years of test data. ().