But like the economy, healthcare, and our social fabric, COVID has disrupted the education system, including the practice of springtime testing. Given this temporary relief from testing, now is as good a time as ever to consider why we administer standardized tests, particularly when we consider the racial bias in these tests.
How are standardized tests unfair to Black and Latinx students? Racial bias in standardized testing shows up in multiple ways.
First, Black and Latinx students face stereotype threat. Psychologists Joshua Aronson and Claude Steele have researched how the additional stress of negative stereotypes about students of color and their intelligence manifest in lower test scores. The fear of confirming a stereotype of inferiority creates stress and anxiety that contributes to poor test performance.
Some suggestions to mitigate the impact of stereotype threat on test performance include telling students not to fill out demographic questions on the test, asking students to think of areas in their lives where they are successful, and emphasizing growth mindset—the idea that all students can, in fact, improve their performance through hard work.
Standardized testing poses another threat to historically marginalized students; these tests are often designed with racial, cultural, and socio-economic bias built in. I believed that I had prepared them well to write proficient five paragraph essays, but doubt crept in when a student called me over with a question.
Too often, test designers rely on questions which assume background knowledge more often held by White, middle-class students.
Ironically, if Black and Latinx students started to perform as well as their White and East Asian peers on these tests, then the tests would be meaningless to colleges. They could no longer use test scores to differentiate among applicants. Schools are funded by property taxes, so students from wealthier families get to go to better-funded schools. They can afford to take test prep classes, and they can afford to take the test multiple times to improve their scores.
Additionally, students from wealthy families are more likely to get access to disability accommodations like extra time on the exam if they qualify for them. This appears to be correct as well. What does predict college success?
High school GPA. It seems to me that one could easily argue that it should surprise no one that the most impoverished group have the lowest standardized test scores.
As to your question about why our poorest students attend segregated and underfunded schools, I think the answer is obvious: the public education system is designed to maintain class and racial differences in society, that is the public education system is a tool of white supremacy.
Like Like. Teaching Economist, I must admit that to a degree you have a point. Our school system has been a tool of white supremacy just as nearly every institution in our country has been. However, you paint with too broad a brush. Yes, our schools are increasingly segregated. Is it a direct result of the schools or the surrounding communities which they serve? To what degree does red lining play a role?
To what degree is it a result of the will of the white majority who control the school board, city council, the zoning board, etc.? The problem with jumping to your conclusion is that it ignores these subtleties.
Unlike standardized testing, public schools were not created to separate the privileged from the underprivileged. Admittedly, they were sometimes used that way, but that was not the impetus behind their creation.
In fact, just the opposite. They contain the possibility of a solution to the issues that plague them. If our schools are segregated, integrate them. If they are underfunded, fund them. If minorities are underprivileged. Privilege them. These solution cannot be found for standardized testing because the rot of inequity runs to its core. They are standardized. They see correct and incorrect only in so far as it relates to a standard of a hypothetical typical student.
That will always lead us astray no matter how we define our standard. There are no standard students therefore you cannot fairly assess them with standardized tests. They also most often land jobs at the highest level of government and in law in fact.
Win win. Excellent article I just read this at C Dreams, good to find yr blog. You might find this interestingif not seen it yet. Reblogged this on Politicians Are Poody Heads. Their work was […]. It never was. While it may seem more of a challenge for financially impoverished students though much educational research on student mentality could prove you otherwise , it provides top ranking universities with a basic understanding of the applicant, and whether that applicant indicates they show potential to perform well at their university.
Every student, regardless of race and class, receives the exact same SAT come testing day, do they not? Though, what you fail to consider is the choices at an individual level students facing financial issues make.
From here, you may accept your fate in this world or you can make the choices that alter your destination. Throughout the past few decades, admission rates for more financially impoverished students has increased tremendously throughout top ranking US universities. This is a result of low-income students showing a commitment to improve on standardized exams, and universities recognize this. At Harvard for example, admission officers have sought for students who, while they scored lower , have showed signs of improvement over their high school career, and thus show potential to succeed at the university.
Choice is the very basis of capitalist society. Through such measures to place consideration into students facing financial hardships, by seeing the potential in students who chose to overcome their financial circumstances indicates that standardized testing is in itself a sound measurement for determining whether a student is ready for the next step in education.
Also, if anything, this is a matter of wealth, not race. Your argument could definitely apply to thousands of wealthy African-American families in contrast to the outcome impoverished white families. Jacob, I thought I explained this pretty thoroughly in the article. The people who designed standardized testing did so to justify their racist beliefs about human beings.
They said so themselves. And their prejudices are still embedded in modern day standardized testing. You mention potential of college applicants. That is no accident. You bring up the overlap between race and economics. This is true but it exists always when these two subjects are conjured. Race and class are inextricable. Clearly, there is disadvantage. The disadvantage is typically attributed to test preparation. There is substantial evidence that test prep can raise test scores, and even the College Board who administers the SAT test admits there are benefits associated with test prep.
Beyond test preparation, high income students often have access to educational opportunities not available to low income students. Some portion of the differences in test scores may also be attributed to stereotype threat. Stereotypes, like those that suggest certain racial groups are good at math and others are not, raise self-doubts and increase anxiety during high-pressure exams and result in worse scores for those who are negatively stereotyped and better scores for those with positive stereotypes.
Research has shown that reminding students of their racial group before taking a test can impact their score. Although the UC lawsuit focuses on racial and economic bias, there have long been questions raised regarding gender bias and these standardized tests.
Despite the fact that girls consistently perform better than boys in high school math classes, girls underperform boys in the math sections of these tests. For example, for SAT tests taken by the class of , girls averaged and boys averaged
0コメント