Standardized Testing: The Good, The Bad, And The Necessary
A few weeks ago, the nonprofit organization responsible for administering the ACT published its findings on the most recent ACT scores, which I later came across in a LinkedIn post published by the organization. The headline highlighted a concerning new development: according to The ACT Newsroom & Blog, ACT scores for U.S. students reached a 30-year low in the 2023 graduating class. The report states:
“More than four in 10 seniors meet none of the college readiness benchmarks; 70% of seniors fall short of college readiness benchmarks for mathematics…This is the sixth consecutive year of declines in average scores, with average scores declining in every academic subject [and] we are continuing to see a rise in the number of seniors leaving high school without meeting any of the college readiness benchmarks, even as student GPAs continue to rise and students report that they feel prepared to be successful in college.”
As any good rabbit hole-seeker can understand, I immediately jumped to the comments section to see others’ reactions. Some — perhaps most — users alleged this was merely an attempt from the ACT’s organization to exploit the education system by using scare tactics to squeeze more money out of schools by exaggerating the decline in scores for a test that is no longer required for college entrance. Others claimed that the numbers were insignificant, irrelevant, and even racist.
I was not surprised to come across comments like this. I can understand and find some of them valid. One of the strongest arguments against the report is that since standardized testing is mandatory in all states, including those that follow the Common Core curriculum, several states did not have a readily available statewide exam and chose the ACT or SAT instead. The result? An arbitrary test haphazardly thrown at students to check off a metaphorical box, many of which are in education.
This assignment of tests, such as the ACT and SAT, aims to assess students in a standardized manner. However, this practice poses problems due to the specific purposes of these college entrance exams. It is important to note that the issue here differs from the idea of testing itself or the desire for standardization. Instead, the problem is that tests like the ACT and College Board SAT are often similar in difficulty levels as even the most challenging AP tests. More importantly, these tests serve a common goal: enhancing a college-bound student’s “college resume.” They are not intended to standardize the performance of all students; they are specifically designed for college-bound students.
Many educators, parents, and students are beginning to realize that a college-bound future is steadily declining in popularity. Students are becoming more aware of career choices, technical certificate opportunities, and even Associate degree programs that can be completed by high school graduation.
These students are, for the most part, different from the ones for whom exams like the ACT or SAT are intended. This is not to say these students cannot do it, but if they have little interest in the test outcome, it becomes irrelevant, and their performance will likely be low. States that use the SAT or ACT as their standardized test for grades 9–12 include West Virginia, Utah, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, and North Carolina. However, this is not the majority, and it does not make sense for that alone to be the cause for the mentioned six consecutive years of declining ACT scores.
Ultimately, while I agree that this argument against the ACT or SAT being used by certain states is not only valid but also needs attention, my reasoning for believing so is where I digress from popular opinion, which can be summarized as a general public disdain for the implementation of standardized testing at all.
Some states, like mine, Texas, utilizing the STAAR test, have (or had, given the direction Texas education is taking now) the right intentions at their core, but unfortunately fail in execution and follow-through with the test and, more specifically, with the enforcement of consequences for students who fail to meet basic expectations on the test.
I know “consequences” is a scary word for some, and defenses and blood pressure start rising at this mention. For the sake of academic performance, though, I am by no means advocating for a “punishment” for students who do not meet expectations. Equating “consequences” and “punishment” is entirely false. A consequence is simply the result of an action, and it’s somewhat objective by nature. On the other hand, a punishment implies an element of intent from the individual being punished and is usually meant to cause some form of harm to the individual being punished. If you are a salesman and fail to generate any sales because you spend your time doing things unrelated to the actual sale of something, then a consequence of that action would be loss of income, loss of a job, etc. Nobody would say you were being punished. It doesn’t make the person good or bad. It’s just a consequence of what they did (or didn’t) do. A punishment would be the salesman’s wife finding out about it, throwing his dinner in the trash, and giving the silent treatment for a few days afterward. The difference between the two is significant in holding students accountable academically. Frankly, we owe it to them. And it is our job.
With this in mind, despite the shortcomings of some states using the wrong testing and others simply. Not enforcing consequences related to failed testing is not worth giving up on the standardization effort. The usefulness of its data far outweighs the alleged uselessness of the few outlier students who circle “C” for every answer in 10 minutes or less.
Of course, any testing should be used in conjunction with other methods of assessment to provide a holistic education to students. But I would argue that it is entirely too idealistic — even damaging — to advocate for eliminating standardized tests as a measure of progress and a mandate for graduation or grade level progression. This kind of strict adherence to a non-negotiable expectation of what students should be able to do in a given set of subjects may very well be the key, in fact, to closing the widening gap in which an inverse relationship is shown between rising GPAs among high school seniors and yet falling scores on high stakes exams. And, regardless of anyone’s opinion on the fairness of the testing or traditional grading, we can all recognize that students’ inability to comprehend basic reading materials, think critically, or perform essential mathematical functions proves at least one universal truth: The kids are not alright.
Photo by Peter Conrad on Unsplash
So, why is there so much disagreement about testing then? Many parents and community members vehemently opposed state testing and were mainly unaware of the ambiguous scoring methods used by STAAR. For illustrative purposes, I’m going to place this argument in the context of testing implemented here in Texas — and even more specifically, from the angle of an ELA teacher. Hence, I’ll refer mainly to the Reading and Writing tests taken by 7th and 8th-grade students and the English I and English Il tests taken by first- and second-year students, respectively. All of these are part of the STAAR test administered by the Texas Education Agency. My experience and observation could and likely will differ from educators in other states, but I imagine the difference is minimal.
Now, I won’t pretend to claim that the STAAR test is necessarily easy. It’s a tough test. However, two things are essential here:
- The passing rate, depending on how you look at it (“meets expectations,” “approaches,” or “exceeds” are all forms of passing), is incredibly low. A student can fail the test by any other measure and still meet expectations according to the state grading criteria. Furthermore, the actual scoring of the written elements on the exam allows for so much grace that a student receiving 0 points on a written response is essentially more of a challenge and a deliberate effort than if the student re-wrote the question and left it at just that. How do I know? I’ve been scoring STAAR tests for the past year. Even on questions requiring students to re-write a sentence grammatically correct, they can receive almost full credit if they did one or two key things right.
So, we shouldn’t pretend that this test is anywhere near the level of something like the SAT, and unfortunately, with confusing scoring measures like “raw score,” “scale score,” and percentiles, where raw scores go up to 65 and scale scores go up to 6,000, it can be confusing and easy to hear “fail” and think the student made a 68%. In reality, students only need to score about 35% on the test to get the minimum score required to “pass.” Let that sink in for a bit. Is it outrageous to expect students to get 35% on a test that is scored, at least for writing, with a ton of grace? This brings me to the next point:
2. The ELA test covers a range of topics: figurative language, theme, characterization, plot structure, and persuasive techniques. It also tests students’ ability to identify critical information in diagrams, understand text structures, and explain the importance of elements such as white space, headings, and captions. It contains questions about inferences in persuasive speeches and informational texts, the difference between a fact or opinion, and how to use text evidence to back up and defend a claim. It tests students’ ability to identify cause and effect using evidence, not assumptions.
Another thing to note: Students have multiple opportunities to take and pass the exam. Massive amounts of funding have been supplied for interventions, tutorials, and for students who have repeatedly failed to be put into a class where they can recover credit while getting the intervention needed for STAAR (more on that later).
So, with STAAR, at least, we have a test that students can take as many times as they are able, which also includes all the accommodations put forth in a student’s 504 or IEP, with a recently eliminated time limit that applies to all students, and that is graded significantly easier than almost anything else that student will take in a high school ELA class with a teacher who doesn’t just hand out free grades. Furthermore, this same test has the most fundamental skills students should know by the time they graduate high school, not just for college readiness but for life readiness.
So…why can’t they do it? Why is a 65% passing rate amongst a class of students considered “good” when failing is passing? (The current percentage of students passing reading is 52% and 43% for math) It should be a no-brainer. But why isn’t it? And why aren’t students (and some teachers) held accountable when their scores are dismal while their class grades shine? Something doesn’t add up.
The argument made is often along the lines of, “A student’s intelligence is not measured by a test!” or “My child is more than a test score!” or “My students express themselves in other ways!” etc.
Nobody is arguing, though, that those things aren’t true. But you can both agree that a student is more than a test score and agree that while it doesn’t define them (who on earth says it does, anyway?), it is still a valid and telling measure of their readiness for the next grade level, or in the case of high school, their readiness in life as a person able to think and communicate with, according to current measures, at least 35% accuracy. Is this that much of an ask? And are we okay with the fact that no, in fact, almost half of all students in Texas cannot even perform above 35% on a test that, from a scorer’s standpoint, has lowered the bar to new levels?
For a test that measures skills like communication, critical thinking, persuasion, and logic, it’s even more mysterious why so many parents are so adamantly against it, especially when these same parents claim schools are robbing their children of critical thinking skills, not teaching them to read, and indoctrinating them with….well, I still haven’t figured out what the indoctrination is about.
But wouldn’t it seem that these very parents would be the ones to advocate for these tests? What am I missing?
Unless there is a genuine desire not to hold kids accountable anymore and to not allow for consequences, remember, consequences do not equal punishments. As is the case with many students, consequences are often the best thing that can happen to a person, particularly when intrinsic motivation is low or non-existent. Unfortunately, this unwillingness or perhaps discomfort with simply allowing consequences to take their course is where some (not all) of the anti-testing sentiment comes from. By consequences, I mean holding students back a semester or a grade level if needed, re-testing, summer school, etc. In high school specifically, I firmly believe that no student should not graduate if they have not legitimately passed the STAAR test. There’s no reason a student should have the GPA to graduate anyway if they can’t pass. Not allowing students to see a real-world consequence play out (even if they are at a disadvantage in some way — such as life) is to rob them of an opportunity to learn that some things in life are not escapable. Some things don’t have shortcuts, and intrinsic motivation or not, there are consequences if you don’t try to do them.
This is why it’s critical not just to use these tests as a scare tactic but to honestly use them as intended regarding graduation and grade level requirements. In Texas, for example, we tell students they can only graduate high school once they pass these tests. But in reality, there are an endless number of workarounds. And the kids know it. The parents know it. The result? A rigged and over-crowded particular education system with an even worse notable education teacher shortage; student apathy, particularly when, at the same time, teachers can’t fail students anymore; teacher burnout as a result of student apathy while trying to teach a test that their employment is often based on with students who know that high-stakes testing is a farce at best. Where in the equation is the accountability?
Photo by Enrique Macias on Unsplash
So, Texas, though it might have once had the best intentions with a state test that, admittedly, has excellent data and does test the essentials, wastes all usefulness by giving far too many “outs” and not using it as any form of accountability. So, the solution is often what administrators themselves and education gurus will tell you with zeal while practicing the opposite: say what you mean, and mean what you say. And follow through no matter what.
I can’t think of a more important scenario in which this mindset would be better used than ensuring that the next generation of leaders, scientists, and thinkers is at least 35% proficient in literacy abilities.
Would this be easy? Not. Would kids get held back? Sometimes for years. Yes. But what other solution do we expect when, at the same time, we’re sounding the alarm over and over again, before COVID and after COVID, for years now, shouting that the kids are “just being passed along with no accountability”? We can’t guarantee that an individual teacher or district will hold those students accountable to an acceptable standard that ensures they know the fundamentals of reading, writing, critical thinking, and mathematics. That’s evident in that GPAs are higher than ever, test scores are at their worst, and an alarming percentage of middle school students still can’t sound out essential words. It’s too subjective (giving the benefit of the doubt here) for individual districts and teachers to decide, and unfortunately, in a system where teachers are often pitted against teachers for things like tenure, meager pay raises, if any, and job security, the incentive to boost GPAs is too high to counter this. Remember: Teachers are absolutely professionals, but they are also human.
And so a piece of the puzzle for this learning crisis — and an extremely critical piece, I would argue — is to standardize at least one thing every year, to make sure that ALL students can, for example, identify a flawed argument, and that ALL students can summarize and identify a main idea, and that we are ALL on the same page and ALL on board with this: They won’t move on until they learn it. It’s harsh. It’s not easy. It’s re-teaching and intervening and re-teaching again. Until they, and we, get it right. Because we won’t have a choice but to get it right. But what we’re doing now isn’t working.
A final thought and a true story: Having worked as an interventionist for these exams with seniors during my first full year of teaching, I can attest that students CAN learn this stuff. They just haven’t had to. Will they pass with flying colors? Not all, no. But in one semester, I had the most challenging behavior students with 0% passing rates and more apathy than you can imagine who had, as seniors, never passed STAAR, turning into a 70% passing rate. Within one semester. Because in this particular case/class…the stakes were higher. It was both a credit recovery class AND a last chance to pass STAAR. Without at least credit recovery, they couldn’t graduate. They knew they could blow off STAAR. But when their credit recovery was more than just sitting at a computer skipping through a program, and instead had an actual class with a real human teacher devoted to teaching them in new and engaging ways in a small group environment that specifically targeted the skills on STAAR (which, frankly, are the same skills any English class teaches), then suddenly they found themselves capable of passing after all. So, why not do it? It was honestly just easier that way. And it worked. Were these students the following great American authors? No. But could they identify a theme, write an introductory essay about it that required them to organize their thoughts in a way they could communicate clearly, argue logically even if in a fundamental way, and PASS the bare minimum of what we all agree students should know? YES. The other 30% that semester went on to pass the semester after that.
This resembles the model we should follow more closely. If we do, we should eliminate this testing because the data would be helpful when kids don’t try on these tests. But if we have kids trying, and the stakes are high, they now have a reason to care. They now have a reason to do their best. They have a reason to prioritize even if they don’t always enjoy it. Then, we have a reason to look at that data from kids who mostly have to care now and do something useful with that data. Anything else is just filler talk and wastes everyone’s time. At the place we’re in with education right now, I think there are better ways to serve the students and teachers well. I only see more shortcuts and “outs,” and the problems will continue to increase. Teachers won’t get the raises or respect they deserve either when there are no results to show from kids who don’t care because they know there’s a system set up to allow them to fail but really to graduate and pass anyway. We have to stop hoping that one day they’ll magically become inspired to love reading and face the reality: tough love is called for.
There is a crisis in education right now, and we have to make a choice and a definitive one at that.
We cannot stomp out standardized testing and simultaneously throw our hands up and say, “Where is the accountability? Why are the kids not college-ready?” You can’t have both. So, at this crossroads, it’s time to stop allowing students (and some parents) to drive the narrative ultimately. If we’re going to do what’s best for the kids — truly what is best, no matter how uncomfortable that may be — we draw a line, and we hold to it no matter what.
I expect education to crumble sooner than most predict if we don’t. Time will tell, and although these ideas are highly unlikely to be implemented, it is our last chance to regain some control of a learning crisis that will soon be too far gone to fix.
