Some of the authors of the articles we've been reading in our class have taken the side of relying on standardized testing to create a student filtering system-- those who score low on the SAT or ACT go to community college or vocational school, and those who do well on these tests should go to a four-year institution. Some of us believe that colleges should be more rigorous in their selection process, to rely on higher standard scores on the SAT or ACT so as to not inflate the value of a bachelor's degree; however, this implies that all secondary school students are on a level playing field. This is a perceived solution to a problem that we do not fully understand. The picture on the right is a comical take on the US's universities' admissions standards. It reflects the disparity of backgrounds of students, and their learning style. The reality is not just "every student is different", but there are some very real and serious inequalities.
The Coleman Report, which was done in the 60's, as a part of the Civil Rights Act, brought a bombshell to the education world. With reliable data, it showed that a student's success is primarily influenced by two factors: racial composition of schools and family background. Students from middle-class families are going to do better in schools than poor families; whites will do better than blacks. Luckily, when it comes to inequality, schools are part of the solution, not the problem. If there were no schools, inequality would be even worse.
When kids begin school, they already show different sets of skills depending on their socioeconomic status (SES). Students whose parents have a higher SES tend to have more years of schooling, they are more likely to graduate from high school, and they score better on cognitive tests. Higher SES means that: Parents can afford tutors, SAT prep classes, a house in a good school district, and a college education. Parents may feel more comfortable helping kids with homework or intervening with teachers and school administrators. Research has found that middle and upper class parents have more involvement in their children's education than poorer parents. This is not because they are more interested in seeing their children succeed, but it turns out that middle and upper class parents have more time to be involved and they see education as a shared responsibility between parents and teachers. Upper and middle class parents are much more comfortable talking to teachers because they see their background either similar or higher to the teacher. Poor parents feel inferior to the teacher, so they don't approach them as much; thus, poorer children don't do as well in school most of the time. This research was done by Douglas Downey and Benjamin Gibbs. If you wish to read the full research article, read it here!
The best way to understand something as complex an institution as education is not to look at it at face value, but to question the living hell out of it. The analysis of this research goes to show that intelligence is not the only way to score high on the SAT or ACT; some children are severely disadvantaged simply because the chance effect of them being born in a poor neighborhood without the necessary means for college preparation. You pretty much have your ticket if you're lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family-- not to say these children won't have to work hard, but they have many more resources to allow them to succeed and enter four year universities. We should take this into account when deciding on what criteria which we base university admissions, and hopefully in the future rely less on standardized tests.
I most certainly can agree with your argument that standardized testing should be called into question. My opinion of standardized testing is reflected well in the cartoon that you incorporated into this post, as well. I strongly believe that standardized testing is, in fact, an alleged fixed measure of 'aptitude' that is too rigid to accomodate the entirety, or even vast majority, of students in America.
ReplyDeleteHowever, we have to have some measure to go by as a jumping-off point. Though I don't firmly stand behind the notion of standardized testing being the dominant factor in sorting college applicants these days, I do find it to be a somewhat beneficial way to measure aptitude. In some sense, the standardized SAT and ACT exams seek to test aptitude, critical analysis skills, and the like in a 4 hour period-- causing students to not only demonstrate ability, but also to switch from one subject to another displaying some sort of intellectual agility. Of course, we all know that college isn't about shifting from 45 minutes of math to 45 minutes of reading comprehension, however, there is no incentive to create multiple 3-4 hour long exams in each subject area. That would be too strenuous.
I suppose I'd like to argue in favor of standardized tests in such a way that scores are evaluated based on school or district-wide performance. In this sense, an inner city student who obtains a 25 on the ACT from Raby high school in Chicago (part of the CPS) - which is highly unlikely, might I add - in comparison to a school average of 15.4 in 2012 will be considered a high-achieving student when applying to various colleges.
.... I can't embed the link here where I got these stats from, so I'll just post the link... It's only the CPS that is evaluated, but I use it for a frame of reference...
http://www.suntimes.com/data/14643055-515/psae-act-scores-at-chicago-public-schools.html?appSession=327384643915850
I think that because we rely quite heavily on standardized testing, we must shift the focus from a simple raw score, to the applicant. I mean, isn't that what college admission is all about; the applicant? I'm largely pessimistic of the assumption that they will be disappearing any time soon, so if we continue to rely on standardized testing, I do believe we need to take the score or each applicant in comparison to his/her school-wide or district-wide peers more heavily into consideration. I believe that this will challenge high performing privileged students to outperform one another for tough positions, and will allow access to premium post-secondary educations for students that perform well in highly disadvantaged or underperforming communities.
Ideally, the candidate should be at the center of the application, and not a test score. However, the focus on achievement these days is placed into perspective based on one test score and a numerically based GPA. Overall, I argue that college admission boards need to somehow refocus the application process back to whom the process is supposed to be considering; the applicant.
Dillon, you have brought up some great points. Like you have stated in this article, we have spent quite a bit of time in class discussing the ideal standards for admissions to four-year universities. I agree that we may need to change our criteria for admissions, but with the amount of public and private high schools in the US it is hard for me to think of an even better method to assess college applicants. Even with this said, I do feel as though it is not fair to put such a heavy emphasis on standardized testing, but I do think the current application process for college tries to include other factors such as GPA, essays, and extra curricular activities.
ReplyDeletePlacing students on specific paths based on their standardized testing scores seems great in theory, but it is not practical. Students are coming from all different backgrounds, socioeconomic statuses, and living communities.
While I do like the idea that Cassandra has put forth, which suggests using the ACT or SAT scores as an evaluation against all of the other students in the same district, this approach could lead to some major problems. This idea seems like a step in the right direction to change how standardized scores are used because it takes into account that school districts can differ drastically from one another. This idea also worries me in regards to what will happen to some of these students from low performing districts once they are assimilated into a tougher university environment. If a student who scores a 24 on the ACT (which is an extremely high score for a certain district) attends a college where students average a 32 on the ACT, a concern could be that the curriculum in college will be much too difficult or fast paced for the student.
Standardized testing may not be the best method for "sorting" because high school curriculums are not standardized. Less weight should be put on the perfect ACT score, but I do not think a significant change can happen until we adopt a national education policy which each school has to adhere by. Until then, I agree that we should take such a large emphasis off ACT and SAT scores and put them on other factors that give insight to students on a personal level, such as essays, difficulty of classes, and personal statements.