Revolt: A Lesson in Standardized Testing

The last thing a junior in high school wants to be told is that he or she has to wake up at the crack of dawn one day to fill in a relentless amount of bubbles in a book filled with brain-buster questions. The words, "Make sure you have a number two pencil with you!" creep insidiously into the brains of these students along with strategies, vocabulary words, and formulas. High school teachers are coerced into teaching preparation techniques that mold robots out of teenagers through consistent drilling and practice tests. Although the purpose of standardized testing is to predict future academic performance, alternative methods could better serve both colleges and universities as well as individual students. A recently collected survey, an interview with a high school teacher as well as academic journals reveal the bias and inaccuracy of tests such as the ACT and SAT.

In an online survey I distributed to former or current high school students, questions regarding standardized testing were asked. The responses indicated that high schools put little effort into preparing students for the ACT or SAT. 70% of participants chose the response that although they knew about these tests, they had to search for information about them. The survey also revealed that the majority (86%) had to pay in order to take the test. This is unfair for those who do not have the financial stability in order to pay for testing. It also reveals that although testing is a prominent part of the college admissions process, students have to actively search for information about them (Hurt).

In order to gain more perspective from the instructors that deal with standardized testing on a daily basis, I visited Serena Kessler, an English teacher from Romulus High School. She spoke openly about the bias of standardized tests and the pressure on both the faculty as well as students to perform well. When Michigan began mandating the entirety of the public school students to take the ACT, scores in Kessler explained that the state of Michigan required the principal to send out a letter to the parents of the school stating that the scores were low. “The letter basically said, ‘Hey, we as a school aren’t good enough. If you want your child to go to another school, we’ll transport them there.’ It was something so stupid, like two kids had to score two points higher and we would have made this cutoff point,” she said sounding almost outraged at the letter. She also told me that the school had devoted an entire class to ACT preparation in order to raise scores. In the class, teachers of various subjects rotated for a specified amount of weeks to instruct students on how to excel in different aspects of the test. This forced dedication to teaching for the test diminishes what control teachers and faculty have over the curriculum. It also perpetuates a culture in which students learn to recognize answers without innovation or creativity. Rather than crafting new solutions to problems, they are conditioned to memorize definitions and tricks to defeat the almighty test. When discussing whether or not the test was biased, Kessler agreed that children who come from the same socioeconomic or cultural status as those who create the test are likely to get higher scores because when they have to guess, they guess based on what they feel is right and in their case, it will be correct. I asked Kessler if she thought any change would occur in how the state of Michigan approaches standardized testing and she replied, “In Michigan, that change is going to be an increase in reliance on using these tests to define people. We want quick answers of whether or not these kids are good or not. Unless someone poses a revolutionary alternative, that’s the way it’s going to be. I mean, I think this test is bullshit but here I am, teaching kids strategies on how to pass it. I have kids to feed, ya know?”

The bias in standardized testing is evident in a multitude of academic research articles. Although it may be accidental, it is affecting the composition of students at universities and colleges and lowering the overall diversity of those receiving higher education. First, standardized testing is a timed and mostly, if not all, multiple choice. This type of quizzing and answer recognition testing is biased toward the male population. Tests such as the ACT reward test takers for guessing on questions. Men are, according to the authors of Fair Test (a website compiling scholarly research and interviews about testing), more likely to take risks and thus less likely to leave answers blank. Women are also more likely to recheck their answers and read over all of the possible answers more thoroughly requiring more time and resulting in the possibility of not being able to answer every question. Often, test preparation booklets such as those released by the Princeton Review gloat about their ability to raise individual’s test scores. However, books and test coaching outside of school cost money, and these resources are unfairly available to those who are rich rather than those who are deserving regardless of socioeconomic status. In his article,How We Justify and Perpetuate the Wealthy, White, Male Academic Status Quo through the Use of Biased Admissions Requirements, Theodore Micceri shows that the cutoff point for admission based on test scores is often between the majority population’s general scores and the minority population’s general scores allowing colleges to keep a wealthy and Caucasian student body.

Although advocates of standardized testing claim that they are wonderful predictors of college performance, this is not always the case, and many colleges find that other aspects of a student’s life are much better indicators of future academic performance. Such indicators include grade point average. Grade point average is a good indication of a student’s academic ability as well as work ethic whereas standardized test scores can be misleading. A student might score phenomenally on the ACT but be preoccupied with other activities or uninterested in learning in the traditional manner or a student may score lower than what is reflective of his or her ability due to outside factors such as unusually high stress related to test taking. Colleges such as Wayne State University, Ferris State University, and Texas A&M have all reported that after transitioning into test-optional admissions, they have been very pleased with the resulting student body (Fair Test).

While standardized test scores may be correlated with academic performance, there are much better indicators of one’s scholarly abilities. These alternatives can be that of personal interviews, grade point averages, personal statements, extracurricular activities, portfolios as well as many other options. Studies have revealed that standardized testing is in fact biased against certain minorities. If abolished, the diversity of colleges would increase exponentially which is what they claim to strive toward. If universities want to recruit the most academically sound student population, they should transition into test-optional admission processes that allow students to display merit and success in alternate areas. More important than this choice for colleges is the choice of the students in the nation to rebel against standardized testing and opt for new methods of showcasing their abilities. Colleges will never stray from the quick-sort method without a revolution—without the catalyst a student population should strive to become.

Works Cited

Fair Test. The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, Winter 2009. Web. 8 Dec.

2009.

Hurt, Sara. “Standardized Testing.” Survey. www.surveymonkey.com. SurveyMonkey,

29 October 2009. 28 November 2009.

Loewen, J. W., Rosser, P., Katzman, J. Gender bias in SAT items. American

Educational Research Association, 48, 42-48.

Micceri, T. How we justify and perpetuate the wealthy, white, male academic status quo

through the use of biased admissions requirements. Paper Presented at the

Florida Association for Institutional Research Annual Conference, Cocoa Beach,

FL. Feb 25-27, 2009