Standardized Testing

Tests are the fairest yardstick we have -- every student answers the same questions, so a top score means the same thing everywhere. Grades don't work that way: an "A" at one school can mean much less than an "A" at another. One study of 33,000 grades found that "40 percent were inflated beyond what might have been expected, given those students' standardized test scores." Only an outside test cuts through that. Supporters call these tests "the most reliable measures we have for gauging performance at the school level, shedding light on systemic inequities, and holding schools accountable for their academic performance." Tests also predict real success. A large 2024 study of the most selective colleges found SAT and ACT scores were "four times more predictive of academic achievement in college than high school grades," and that the tests are fair to poorer students -- a student from a poorer background did about as well as a richer student with the same score. Supporters say tests protect struggling kids, not just elite ones. Results get broken down by race, income, and language, exposing gaps schools might otherwise bury, and supporters say a focus on scores has helped these kids, not hurt them. They point to a time when "student performance rose, particularly among younger children and traditionally disadvantaged populations." You cannot fix a problem you refuse to measure -- drop the test, and a child who is falling behind becomes invisible.

Scores track family wealth closely -- critics call a test score "a better predictor of a student's socio-economic status and a parent's educational attainment level," noting that "students from higher-income households routinely outperform their peers on the ACT and SAT." One big reason is money: "wealthier families can afford test prep services, private tutoring and test retakes." The rich-poor score gap is now "40 percent larger than the gap several decades earlier." Critics say the tests "reflect privilege more than potential." High stakes also warp school itself. When scores decide a school's fate, teachers teach to the test, and class time shifts toward tested subjects, like math and reading. In one research review, "more than 80 percent of the studies... found changes in curriculum content and increases in teacher-centered instruction." What is "missing from the tests" then tends to "disappear from the curriculum," and subjects the test ignores can get squeezed out. And the tests miss much of what matters: they "do not measure the ability to think deeply or creatively in any field," and are "weak measures" of writing, reasoning, and real understanding. A bubble sheet cannot capture a curious, capable child -- judging kids and schools by it can punish the very students it claims to help.