Will more standardized tests to track students progress lead to better school performance?

No

1 of 34

by LaDonna Hatfield

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

One of the finest universities in the nation recently announced that beginning with the Fall 2008 semester, it will no longer require an ACT or SAT score for incoming freshmen. Which university has opted to look for a better way to determine who will belong to the Class of 2012? Harvard University. Why would such a renowned and traditional educational institution open its doors to students without a test score? There are several reasons, but the biggest reason has to do with the idea of the test score itself.

Educational research has shown that the poorest factor in predicting college (and life) success is the standardized test score. In fact, many students who score in the lower ranges of the test score acceptance system have been the most successful students at major universities and community colleges. These are the students who know how to study and are willing to commit themselves to studying, getting tutors when needed, conferencing with professors, and joining study groups in order to insure their success as measured by obtaining a college degree. These students worked hard to graduate from high school, and they are not afraid of the challenges of studying hard and developing as lifelong learners when they get to college.

Test score reliability is another issue that plagues all major standardized tests. In a good testing situation, the test itself should have both reliability and validity built into the questions and the format. If the factors of reliability and validity are high, students should score within one standard deviation no matter how many times they take a standardized test. However, test coaching companies have proved repeatedly that teaching how to approach a standardized test can make a difference of more than one standard deviation. This means the reliability and validity of these testing measures must be called into question. So why aren't we questioning the validity and reliability of these tests instead of blindly following the herd to lay down money for a test score that has such little value?

At major universities, especially elite universities such as Harvard, all of the students applying have a 4.0 plus and a high test score. So how are these schools to determine who deserves a spot at a prestigious university if that is the case? Increasingly, all universities are seeking freshman with a track record of community service and a commitment to furthering their education. Colleges now want to know if a student has taken advantage of schedule planning that reflects future goals, if the student has been active in the school and in the community, and if the student has the desire great enough to insure their continued dedication and hard work to reach the goal of acquiring a degree. These things cannot be measured by a standardized test.

If the testing materials used to track K-12 students are valid and reliable according to the testing company, these tests are subject to the same problems as the ACT and SAT. If the tests are valid and reliable, students should continue to score within one standard deviation throughout their K-12 education. Therefore, how would tracking those scores serve a purpose at all? If students suddenly score several deviations above the last test score, does this mean their brain-power improved dramatically? Or were items on the test consciously or inadvertently taught in the classroom? Or did the student test in a new situation where security was more lax? Or did a student find new ways of coping with test anxiety? Or are there other factors at play in the whole standardized testing game?

The purpose of standardized testing in the K-12 setting was supposed to be for the purpose of determining where schools and teachers needed to strengthen their curriculum and teaching styles. The test was not designed to give a composite picture of a student's abilities or general intelligence level. The test was not designed to be used as a tool to compare school districts, states, or the United States to other countries. Again, standardized testing for grades K-12 in America was designed to allow schools and teachers to determine their strengths and weaknesses in effectively developing and delivering curriculum.

Using test scores for purposes other than those intended by the design of the test is a sad waste of time based on the faultiest of logical principles. Standardized testing in America's schools will not provide the information educators, administrators, and future colleges need to determine a child's possibilities for a successful college matriculation, much less to determine a person's capacity for success beyond high school. Until Americans recognize the limitations of using K-12 test scores for anything other than adjusting curriculum instruction and delivery to maximize effective teaching and learning, we will continue to be mislead by testing companies and news articles about test results. It is time to stop a test-driven curriculum in this country. If colleges and cities in America want a citizenry that is educated, a citizenry where individuals seek to contribute on a personal and a global level to the betterment of society, we must stop using standardized test scores for purposes other than what those test scores were intended. Discounting a person's worth and ability to contribute to society because of a number on a test makes as much sense basing a person's worth on the color of his or her skin. Wake up, America.

Learn more about this author, LaDonna Hatfield.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.