Examining Standardized Testing’s Cultural Responsiveness
by: Ji Ho (Geo) Yang, PHD Candidate at the University of Washington
In the last few posts, I reflected, ruminated, and researched/learned about the greater assault on public education, social justice, and equity here in the U.S. via the Trump administration, and connected these issues to both Seattle and my research. What I am hoping for in this blog post is to bring together the issues and learnings from those past posts and consider the possibilities for equitable transformative change within the current sea of political turmoil and land-grabbing.
One key area that teachers in my dissertation research frequently discussed was standardized testing. Teachers talked about the inequities that standardized testing creates. For one, aside from reading and math, all other subjects are deprioritized. Teachers say that a sole focus on reading and math inhibits children’s exposure to the broader world, interest development, and the imparting of a love of learning. How can students find and cultivate their love of science, art, sports, civic engagement, etc., if reading and math are what define teachers’, students’, administrators’, and the school’s worth?
Standardized testing is also primarily administered via computers/laptops, which limits the opportunities and different approaches for students to actually demonstrate their learning and growth. Standardized testing, being dependent on computers, also leads to curricula and pedagogical mandates that are also computer-based. What place is there for hands-on learning, experiential knowledge, intergenerational relationships, etc.?
Black teachers in my research have identified that their Black students learn better from hands-on learning approaches rather than technology-based approaches. Standardized testing is already quite culturally unresponsive, for example, test questions on U.S. slavery focus more on economics rather than the dehumanization of enslavement. Other examples are when test questions are relatable to the culture of white and/or middle/upper class. Teachers have noticed the compounding unresponsiveness that comes with standardized testing, from pedagogy and curriculum to testing content and methods. The issue is exacerbated by inequities in technology access, which affect performance on computer-based assessments and testing. It is challenging to complete homework or practice test-taking through a phone or tablet. This doesn’t even get at the time commitment needed to conduct three rounds of testing a year, where an elementary school can spend a month on just one round of testing. What a loss of learning and engagement time!
What possibilities are out there to actually change the role and pressures of standardized testing? Let’s connect to the previous posts and take a quick recap of the federal government’s role in public education.
In K-12 education, one of the federal government’s roles is to administer and organize federal educational acts/laws, and the big legislative piece is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). ESEA, which was developed and passed during the Civil Rights movement, has key tenets or titles to support vulnerable, marginalized, or high-needs students. For example, Title 1 provides resources for low-income students, and Title 7 provides support for bi/multilingual students. ESEA has been renewed and refined under various educational laws through different administrations, such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). These renewals have had a major impact on the ways states, districts, and schools function. For example, NCLB and ESSA have centered standards-based learning, standardized testing, and accountability in education. These federal education policies are largely managed and administered by the Department of Education (DoE).
Although federal education policies and the DoE do not provide primary funding to schools, ESEA, especially NCLB and beyond have had immense impact on education policies, practices, and schooling, the actual funding provided at the federal level is through the different titles of ESEA, such as Title 1, which is not the primary funding source for schools but important. What really changed from NCLB and moving forward is the focus on standardized testing and accountability. By abiding by federal policies, including accountability and testing policies, state education departments and districts can access federal funding. Before NCLB, school districts and states were largely in charge of their own assessment and accountability structure, which created wide variation in schooling practices, quality, and focus. NCLB and its future counterparts prioritize standardization as a key mechanism of accountability and ensuring schools can be held accountable through assessments. The emphasis on standardized testing and accountability structures in NCLB and beyond serves as a foundational root for the current teaching and learning climate in U.S. schools today. For one, as teachers experienced, it created a dog-eat-dog environment where schools and their educators and leaders are constantly looking at all possibilities to increase scores while looking over their shoulder at other schools.
The next post will reflect on my experiences across two codesign projects and exemplify assessment possibilities that center families and students rather than school systems.