Category: Civic Issues Blog

For this week’s Civic Issue Blog, I have decided to take a step back from college admission standardized tests and look at standardized tests in a broader sense. Unlike aptitude standardized tests, like the SAT or ACT, for example, achievement standardized tests are not used to predict a student’s future outcome or performance. Achievement tests are a type of standardized test that is used to determine how successful a particular school or teacher is currently performing. These tests use the students’ results to determine this information and take action accordingly. However, just like with aptitude tests, there are many issues that come with this type of standardized testing. These include specific limitations on teacher creativity, exposure to text anxiety at a very young age, as well as simply how these tests have been deemed ineffective in portraying true student and teacher success.

“Teaching to the test” is a phrase that has become increasingly popular in the realm of standardized testing. It is important to note that this controversy is not to say that following the curriculum is not an important part of teaching. However, it means that many teachers find the prospect of standardized testing evaluations scary and as a result, they overfocus on the material they know will be tested. This is a problem in two main ways. First, this strategy neglects to address material that will not be tested. Lessons in music and the arts are not tested yet are certainly important to a child’s education. Some schools have reported cutting arts, recess, and other recreational activities before the testing season to have more time to prepare students. Similarly, lessons on sharing and leadership are also very important for a child to understand but are not included on these standardized tests. There is a risk that requiring these standardized tests at such a young age may hinder the breadth of information a student learns because the administration or individual teacher overemphasizes the topics that will show up on the tests. The second way that this concentration on tested material is harmful is by not recognizing what the standardized tests actually are. To elaborate, sometimes the pressure of these tests may make an administrator or teacher forget that these achievement standardized tests are supposed to be testing the minimum necessary information. The term “backward planning” accurately reflects how some teachers revolve their lessons around the test and therefore unintentionally prevent themselves from teaching additional information. Some schools put incredible pressure on teachers to prepare their students for the tests by using it to determine their teacher evaluations. 

A lot of students get stressed out about tests. These achievement standardized tests are no exception to that rule. Although most legislators have agreed against implementing standardized tests for students below the second grade, third graders must participate in yearly testing. This standardized achievement testing continues all the way through to some years of high school. Exposing eight-year-old children to these “high-stakes” testing environments can be detrimental to their stress levels and self-esteem in the long term. According to We Are Teachers, 35% of students experience some form of test anxiety and test anxiety begins to appear around second and fourth grade which is similar to when they are first preparing for upcoming standardized tests. The cycle continues as students who suffer from test anxiety perform worse on these exams than their non-anxious peers. Standardized tests not only cause testing anxiety in children at a very young age but that anxiety causes the student’s score to no longer be an accurate reflection of their regular high performance. 

The way these standardized tests are written is also highly problematic. A student learns a lot in each grade, and it would be impossible to test them thoroughly on every unit. For that reason, the standardized test developers do not include information they perceive as “easy” or that they expect to have been covered already. According to one article, exam questions that 80% or more students get right are deemed ineffective and become “assumed” knowledge in the future. Instead, test producers focus on developing questions that 40% to 60% of students will get right. While this may seem like an effective way to cut down on question numbers and test times, this can actually be really harmful to both students and teachers. Even the highest achieving young students may feel like they learned a lot that year, but when they sit down to take the test are shocked to find that they cannot answer many of the questions. They are also not rewarded for all of the material deemed “easy” which discredits the amount of work that students and teachers put into that material. This method of testing also promotes an “all or nothing” mentality where students and teachers are held to a remarkably high standard where they either know how to do the difficult problem or none at all. This makes it very hard for students who perform at a “middle achieving” level to avoid feeling discouraged because they suddenly feel very unprepared. 

In terms of future solutions and policies, there are a few solutions. The ideal solution would be determining student and teacher performance based on holistic student improvement and grades. However, standardized achievement tests can be useful in the future if they are reformed properly. First, these tests should be given at a later age to avoid early exposure to test anxiety. In addition, the questions on the exams should be more inclusive of all performance levels and include questions they expect students to do well on. This will help boost student’s self-esteem and confidence on the test, as well as their future academic endeavors. Finally, administrations should recognize the usefulness of other teacher evaluation tools to avoid relying so heavily on these standardized achievement exams. This will alleviate teacher stress which will create a much better learning environment for everyone involved. Overall, there is certainly much room for improvement in the realm of standardized testing. Unlike the aptitude standardized tests like the SAT and ACT, I do not think that these standardized achievement tests need to be completely thrown out. Instead, they just need some intensive reform and consideration to best support their educational goals.

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/04/19/34-problems-with-standardized-tests/

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar99/vol56/num06/Why-Standardized-Tests-Don%27t-Measure-Educational-Quality.aspx

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/it-wrong-teach-test-ben-johnson

https://www.weareteachers.com/test-anxiety/

https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/education/in-our-schools/2015/03/11/early-childhood-standardized-testing/70171002/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1484796/

For my previous civic blog post, I looked into how test preparation programs affected standardized test scores, specifically for college admission. This week, I want to consider the inequalities of programs like Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate tests. In this civic issue post, I will consider the accessibility and cost of taking these types of standardized subject exams. 

Advanced Placement exams, commonly referred to as AP exams, are taken after a student has completed an Advanced Placement course. Many high schools across the country include an AP course, but there are discrepancies as to how many of those courses are offered. There are 38 AP courses currently sponsored by the College Board. Even fewer schools offer International Baccalaureate (IB) programs. High schools have very wide ranges of how many of those courses they teach, from none of them to all of them. Low-income students and students of color are statistically more likely to attend a high school that has a limited AP program in place. 

Cost is the next factor to consider in the inequity present in the AP and IB standardized exams. It does not cost any money to enroll in an AP-level course. However, in order to take the standardized test and receive any AP credit for the course, you must pay $95 per course. Students who look to be “competitive applicants” in the college application process are recommended to take as many as 5 AP exams, costing a total of $435. This cost can be a significant burden on families, especially those from low-income backgrounds. IB has recently eliminated their registration fee, lowering the price per course from $291 to $119 per course. This is still a significant cost, especially if the student wishes to pursue the IB diploma curriculum which would total $1,746. This does not even consider the cost of actually sending the scores to the institutes you wish you apply to or attend.

Some may raise the argument that these exams result in college credits, and college credits are incredibly costly as well. Although this is true, not every student will be able to “cash in” their AP or IB score for credit at the university they attend. Every university has different requirements for which scores they accept. Some highly selective universities will not accept any of the credit from AP or IB exams, yet still expect students to take about 5 of those courses in order to be considered competitive applicants.

Schools that chose to include other rigorous coursework in their curriculum, instead of nationally practiced exams like the AP and IB, are sometimes punished for doing so. Say a high school decides that the AP courses are unreasonably expensive and they are unfair for the low-income students that make up their student body. Instead, they come up with an equally difficult curriculum that is free and does not require a standardized test at the end. Although this school is taking its student’s needs into account, the school will be ranked lower for not producing enough AP and IB students. The number of AP and IB students a high school produces is becoming an increasingly used statistic for school rankings on sites like Niche and U.S. News in both categories of “College Readiness” and “College Curriculum Breadth”.

Many sources agree that there is a “gap” between the number of students from various backgrounds who should be enrolled in these various AP and IB programs. This gap can be explained by the inequity of these standardized tests and programs, especially among the individual qualities of these exams’ accessibility, cost, and how useful students find them.

Moving forward, there is hope for the development of the AP and IB programs. Evidence provided by research by The Ohio State University has shown that students who perform “well” on the AP exam and come from high-poverty areas are more likely to enroll in college education programs. In the graphs, it becomes clear that although they do not make up a majority (about 18%) of the general student demographic, “Suburban, low poverty” makes up a large proportion of students enrolled in AP programs in the state of Ohio (about 35%). Students in the “Rural, high poverty” demographic share similarly higher enrollments in AP courses. However, this research also noted a similar claim as I mentioned in my last post. Just like the SAT, AP scores do not serve as an accurate depiction of a student’s success in college. This is especially true for low poverty students enrolled in AP programs. This discrepancy based on demographic raises the concern that although the exams are standardized, the courses and their content might not be so universal. This proves to be especially harmful to students in high-poverty neighborhoods where school districts are more likely to alter the curriculum. These students in turn have a disadvantage when it comes to the final standardized test at the end of the year compared to their low poverty neighborhood counterparts.

The International Baccalaureate program has begun making headway in tackling inequality in these courses and their testing policies. They have enforced an equity coaching program in order to allow their program to reach students from diverse backgrounds.

The Advanced Placement program is also making strong improvements in improving the accessibility of their programs, especially through their “AP for All” initiative. This initiative hopes to bring at least 5 AP courses to all schools in New York City by next fall. Although there are other boundaries preventing students from enrolling in these courses, improving accessibility is definitely a step in the right direction. If this plan succeeds, we may see major headway in the accessibility and enrollment of ethnic and socioeconomic minorities in these programs.

In terms of future policies that can be implemented, the Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs need to work towards a future where all students have the opportunity to enroll in their courses even if they live in a rural or low-income neighborhood. This policy work can also be done on a district level by mandating all high schools to offer a baseline number of AP and IB courses within their curriculum. Additionally, the AP and IB programs should work to decrease the cost of enrolling in these courses in order to allow students from all socio-economic backgrounds to be able to participate.

Sources:

1. https://sites.ed.gov/underservedyouth/files/2017/01/MS3-Lead-Higher-Initiative-Finding-Americas-Missing-AP-and-IB-Students.pdf
2. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings
3. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/international-baccalaureate-to-eliminate-172-registration-fee/2019/07#:~:text=The%20IB%20is%20getting%20rid,qualify%20students%20for%20college%20credit
4. https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-many-ap-classes-should-you-take#:~:text=Take%20as%20many%20as%20you,to%204%20would%20be%20enough.
5. https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/exam-administration-ordering-scores/ordering-fees/ordering-exam-materials/help/cost-of-exam
6. https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/87466/1/Gibson_Thesis_Latex.pdf
7. https://professionals.collegeboard.org/testing/states-local-governments/partnerships/nyc/ap-all

The SAT and ACT tests are infamous for being used in the college admission process. In theory, these exams are intended to identify how much knowledge students have retained over the course of high school. This tested knowledge is then converted into a score on the SAT or ACT to notify colleges of a student’s predicted academic success during their first year of college. Unfortunately, because of the tension and competitiveness of college admission, many students find themselves enrolling in test preparation courses to boost their scores. Over the last few years, questions have come to light as to the fairness of test preparation considering how it usually comes at a very high price and excludes students from a socio-economic background that does not allow for that type of investment. For this civic issues post, I will consider how test preparation hurts students of low-income backgrounds and how policies college admission offices should be expected to implement in order to account for these difficulties.

The first thing to consider is whether test prep even works. In the past, the College Board has repeatedly stated that test prep is not significantly helpful in increasing students’ scores. In 2017, the College Board announced a new sponsorship of Khan Academy. Khan Academy is a free online learning platform that has also released a test prep service to provide students with individualized practice problems in areas they struggle in. Interestingly, after this partnership was announced, the College Board made a statement applauding the effects of test prep and encouraging students to sign up for the Khan Academy program. Although this program is free, one can draw the line to understand that if this prep course is considered helpful by the College Board, personal tutoring is probably helpful as well. 

If we step back for a minute and consider a world before online schooling became a regular thing, a lot of low-income students may not have the resources or technology to spend as many hours as they want on a free test prep program like Khan Academy. Although these circumstances might change in the coming years, companies like College Board and Khan Academy cannot assume that all students have unlimited access to a computer or the internet.

Previous studies have concluded that there is a strong correlation between college admission standardized test scores and the student’s family income. According to data provided by the College Board, students whose families have an annual income of above $200,000 are reported to score 388 points higher than students with family annual incomes below that value. Of course, there are many ways that a student’s family income affects their personal circumstances and ultimately their test scores but being able to afford and enroll in a test prep program is certainly one of those many factors. Test prep is a costly luxury that most families simply cannot afford. The combined (or individual) expenses of a private tutor, test preparation books, and even a family’s availability to bring their child to a prep center every week are simply not feasible for a lot of families. 

Going forward, there is a greater need for students to have more equal opportunities when it comes to preparing for college admission standardized tests. The work that Khan Academy is doing to provide students with free access to helpful test prep is definitely a step in the right direction. All students need to be aware of these freely available resources and have access to them in order to improve the fairness associated with these standardized tests. 

It must also be understood though that at the end of the day, it is very difficult to ensure equality for all students in terms of standardized tests. For that reason, college admission offices should recognize these inequities and use standardized test scores sparingly in their admission decisions. Standardized test scores are seen as deciding factors in the college admission process and then lead students to worry about their scores. That anxiety ultimately leads them to turn to test preparation courses and discrepancies in standardized test scores across socio-economic backgrounds. 

With the current COVID-19 pandemic, many colleges across the country have opted to become test-optional for the foreseeable future because of the health concerns and scheduling issues associated with sitting for the exam. Even before the pandemic though, in early 2020, 40% of colleges were reported as test-optional institutions. Hopefully, this policy will extend past the pandemic and will reveal more opportunities for socio-economic diversity in incoming college classes. Studies provided by NPR have reported that colleges that identify as test-optional report an influx of minority students including first-generation, low-income, and ethnic minority students.

Some argue that going test-optional will allow less qualified to gain admission. Most colleges agree that standardized tests are not the best indicators of college success. Instead, the admission officers at these test-optional schools are relying on other parts of a student’s application that they consider a more equitable indication of a student’s future academic success in college. 

Overall, the standardized testing process used for college admissions is flawed, specifically because of the socio-economic barrier preventing students from low-income backgrounds from being seen as equally competitive applicants. Future policies are required on both sides of the standardized testing for the college admission process. First, companies like the College Board need to implement policies to emphasize content learned in high school. If students feel prepared for this standardized testing, they might be less likely to feel like they have to fund outside resources to receive a “good” score which will in turn help diminish the discrepancies in scores between students of various socio-economic backgrounds. Programming like Khan Academy is important in increasing the accessibility of test preparation material specifically for college admission tests. Secondly, colleges should consider policies to reduce the importance of standardized test scores in the admission process. This can be done by simply considering the test scores to a lesser degree or just altogether becoming a test-optional school.

It can be frustrating to learn of the barriers affecting minority populations and preventing them from receiving equal opportunities to do well on these standardized tests. That being said, these policies as well as the free test prep programs are slowly but surely making strides in addressing these inequities facing the current standardized testing implementations. In future posts, I will consider other factors such as access to disability accommodations as well as the ability to enroll and sit for the test of AP, IB, and other college course classes.

 

Sources:

https://thecollegepost.com/test-prep-industry-access-equity/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/09/can-coaching-truly-boost-sat-scores-for-years-the-college-board-said-no-now-it-says-yes/

https://tower.mastersny.org/4900/features/privilege-sat/

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/04/26/604875394/study-colleges-that-ditch-the-sat-and-act-can-enhance-diversity

More colleges are taking an anti-test stance for admissions

Why are so many US universities going test-optional?