Kate Taylor of the Néw York Times wrote a balanced review of the debate about how standardized testing is viewed through the prism of race.
No Child Left Behind was premised on the claim that testing would raise up all children and close the achievement gaps between racial and income groups. Congress believed this, despite the lack of evidence from Texas, which supposedly had achieved miracle status by testing every child every year.
No one noticed that the high-performing nations of the world do not test every child every year.
In the not-distant past, civil rights groups filed lawsuits to block standardized testing on grounds that it is racially biased. They were right. It is no accident that standardized tests accurately reflect family income and parent education. This disadvantages kids from poor backgrounds, who cluster in the bottom half of the bell curve. And many of those so affected are children of color.
Why did some prominent civil rights groups demand that the new federal education law retain annual testing, even though it labels and stigmatizes many of the children they represent? I can’t say for sure. I don’t know. Either they still believe the lies at the heart of NCLB or they were persuaded by certain funders to argue that we need testing to keep measuring the score gaps.
It is important to remember that tests are a measure, not a remedy. Di we keep pouring millions or billions into testing but not spending on the remedies, like small classes.
Taylor’s article shows that there are black students, teachers, and scholars who understand that standardized testing is hurting, not helping, in the pursuit of equality. Some see it as a tool that widens the school to prison pipeline, since it marks many as failures even in elementary school.
One of the scholars quoted is Warren Simmons of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
Simmons “said test scores can’t offer policy makers much guidance in the absence of qualitative assessments — of the curriculum, of teacher training, of the support a school is receiving from the district and state.
“Student testing is like using a thermometer to try to diagnose what kind of cancer an individual has,” Mr. Simmons said.”
Taylor

After a long time, Kate Taylor is starting to get it.
LikeLike
Just to beat Mr. Swacker to the punch, standardized tests don’t measure anything. As far as what they assess, they assess the ability to take a standardized test. Period. We must move past the idea that students can – or should be – compared against each other. Every child is different – strengths, needs, interests, etc. Different classes and different teachers are different (and, ideally, at least roughly in sync with the previous sentence). Those are good things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We humans are like snowflakes, each different and never the same.
LikeLike
Exactly, Dienne. Way back in the Pleistocene, when I was majoring in psychology as an undergraduate and we were studying IQ tests (as well as other psychological tests), one of my profs had the audacity to suggest that IQ tests were very culture-bound, and what IQ tests actually measured was the ability to take IQ tests. He was right, but he was ahead of his time in pointing this out.
LikeLike
Standardized testing is like using a broken thermometer to determine if the patient has a fever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unfortunately, some civil rights groups just like unions have become corporate tools, rather than serving their true purpose. Once they drink from the fountain of dark money, they lose their way, and stop serving those they are supposed to represent. If they looked at the data without bias, they would know that standardized testing measures poverty. More testing is not going to change the outcome. High stakes testing harms poor children because scores can be rigged, schools can be closed, and students may wind up in charter school they never intended to attend because certain rich, powerful people want it that way. In a way their support of testing may deny poor minority students a democratic right to attend their local neighborhood school.
LikeLike
The NY Times article is balanced, but it incorrectly suggests that last spring’s refusers were primarily white and wealthy.
New Jersey’s test refusers were racially and economically diverse.
The 135,000 New Jersey students who did not take the English Language Arts PARCC tests last spring were slightly more likely to be Black (17%) than the state’s total population of test-eligible students (15.3%).
They were slightly less likely to be Hispanic (17.4% vs. 23.9%) and Economically Disadvantaged (30% vs. 37.7%).
Overall, the New Jersey students whose families refused PARCC looked very much like the state as a whole.
Complete statistics are available here:
LikeLike
“Standardized tests measure the size of the tumor . . . . ”
For once, Diane, I won’t berate your usage of “measure”. Spot on!
LikeLike
As I read the comments on the article, I think a large part of the problem is that most people are remembering tests that they or their children took. If you have not had kids in grades 3-8 in the past 5 years, you have no idea what the situation is like now. My 12th grader received much different schooling and testing was much less stressful for the schools than it is for my 8th grader. People just don’t have a clue about what school is like now, leading them to think that parents and students today are “whiners,” but I doubt many people could make it through their jobs if they were constantly tested the way today’s kids are. Not to mention the fact that they wouldn’t have time to do their actual jobs.
LikeLike