Essay Sample about Standardized Tests

Standardized testing is a customary event for most secondary school students. They are often taken towards the end of the school year and are the same for each student of a class or subject. These tests are usually statewide and offer very little deviation between each student’s questions. Many conditions can play a role in student performance causing inequality and bias towards certain students.

There are many extraneous factors outside of studying and class taught knowledge: race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and school-district wealth. Some are more prevalent or potent than others, but all contribute to the problem of unfair and partisan scores. Some places use test scores to evaluate teachers, which can be extremely unfair and unorganized.

One of the most significant factors that determine a test score is student economic class. Students with more money typically can afford to hire tutors, pay for study programs, and take expensive tests multiple times. One of the biggest standardized tests is the SAT, a test that generally costs $50 to $60. Those with the money to take it twice or even many times have the opportunity to adapt to the test and use each attempt as practice. Many people can only afford one attempt if they can even afford it at all; however, most schools require it to enroll. Cooper Aspegren states, “Socioeconomically disadvantaged test-takers simply cannot afford the benefits of SAT preparation services in the form of private tutors or classes that cost thousands of dollars.” This causes generally lower test scores, resulting in many talented and intelligent individuals having to go to non-desirable schools. “Many socioeconomically disadvantaged students therefore cannot reach the interquartile SAT score range of the school of their choice; as a result, they are unfairly forced to dial down on their college aspirations” (Aspegren). These students could be smarter or have a better GPA than the students that get into the prestigious or desirable school, and yet still get denied.

Most undergraduates are from families with higher percentages of family income. “ At UNC-Chapel Hill, 72 percent of undergraduates come from families with incomes in the top quartile of North Carolinians; the national average for private colleges is 79 percent. Also at Chapel Hill, only 12 percent of the students come from families in the bottom half of North Carolina's incomes” (Soares). This survey in North Carolina is an example of the inequality of college access to those who don’t come from high earning families. Those with a lot of money gain privilege over those with less money because they don’t have to rely on scholarships, they can pay their way in, or take the SAT many times until it meets the college’s SAT range.

Many traits of a student cannot be measured. Psychometrician Daniel Koretz states “usually do not provide a direct and complete measure of educational achievement." For example, some things that cannot be measured are critical thinking, motivation, creativity, and persistence. These traits are very helpful in the real world and contribute to a high GPA, but not a high test score. It could be stated that it does measure motivation by how much a student studies, but those without the resources that can be purchased don’t have much that they can study with. There are a few free resources, but many websites and books must be purchased and tutors are extremely expensive. 

Another factor is race and ethnicity. Soares states, “Meanwhile, high school GPAs have no correlation to family income. SAT and ACT scores show large and growing demographic disparities by race. The test is a more reliable predictor of demographics than it is of academic performance.” This point also returns us to the former about wealth inequality. Due to racial inequality in the United States, many people of color are underprivileged and some experience extreme poverty. Many studies show that not only are people of color more likely to be financially underprivileged but also live in low-income areas, which also affects the type of school they attend. Many schools in low-income areas are underfunded and have fewer resources than schools in average or high-income areas. “The Opportunity Agenda and the Poverty & Race Research Action Council found that… Low-income Latino families were three times as likely as low-income white families to live in these neighborhoods in 1960, but 5.7 times as likely in 2000. Low-income blacks were 3.8 times more likely than poor whites to live in high-poverty neighborhoods in 1960, but 7.3 times more likely in 2000” (Alan Jenkins). Due to the economic and racial inequality in the United States, many people of color cannot access the resources needed to obtain a high score on the SAT. Herbert Walberg states, “Practice enhances their performance, as in games and sports;” however, testing as practice is only realistic in class environments and not where it counts: the SAT or ACT. When you don’t have an excess of money, you can’t afford to “practice.”

Some schools are set in lower-income areas than others. Most schools are local or state-funded; therefore, if a school is funded by a low-income county, they won’t have the resources needed to help promote higher scores or greater learning as those with new cutting edge technology or a plethora of books. As wealth gaps increase, highly funded or specialized private schools are going to promote better learning, while low-income schools won’t have the opportunity to develop their students as much.

Many places use a class’ test scores to evaluate their teacher. Some school systems take it very seriously, “schools that met 70% of their targeted goals received bonuses for all of their employees ranging anywhere from $50 to $2000 per employee.” (Bryfonski) or even threatened to fire teachers who did not meet their goal. “In July 2011, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation released a report on the Atlanta Public Schools charging a widespread cheating conspiracy over a ten-year period by 178 teachers, principals, and administrators to fix answers on the statewide Criterion-Referenced Competency Test. The report concluded that unreasonable targets combined with a superintendent who would not accept failure created an atmosphere in which teachers and principals felt they had to cheat to keep their jobs.” Many teachers resorted to cheating, which helped increase their scores, but the targets kept rising and in turn, required more cheating.

Arguments that defend standardized testing are that tests provide the feedback necessary for students, foster learning, offer practice, and evaluate teachers. Walberg states, “Giving students detailed test results helps them spot their weaknesses, increases their learning, and reduces the potential for overconfidence.” While this is a wonderful idea on the class level, many important tests do not offer feedback, and sometimes do not even show your wrong answers. Tests such as the CRCT, SAT, ACT, and Milestones only provide a score and no examples of your wrong answers. How can we learn and correct our mistakes when we don’t know what we got wrong? Practice is only available in a class setting where tests are not a one-time or once-a-year ordeal. Taking class-based tests can offer a chance to get better, but you can only practice state or national tests a certain number of times. When used in teacher evaluations, honesty is the policy; however, when faced with unfair targets, people can only do what their competitive human instinct tells them to: do whatever is needed to reach that target. Teachers will cheat if it means bonuses or getting to keep their job.

Overall, standardized tests can help in some instances: class checkups or to inquire on understanding, but standardized testing on a school, county, state, or even federal level negatively impacts students and teachers, and is biased and unfair towards everyone involved.