Traveling, Blogging, and More High Stakes Testing Absurdities

A broken plane and another day in Maine introduces me to a new scholar and more ranting about neoliberalism

Dr. Wayne Au, (University of Washington, Bothell) provides an illuminating critique of neoliberal educational policy, the impact on students, and the particular challenge of enacting antiracist, multicultural pedagogy in school systems dominated by standardized testing and data-driven decision making. Along with the challenge of education policies which actively suppress multicultural, multilinguistic and project-based education (the results and successes of which are often not quantifiable and by extension, ignorable) Au identifies consistent problems of the racial bias of evaluation and assessment technologies which are widely utilized for measurement of student outcomes. The students then, are in multiple binds (Au, 2009) and continue to be characterized as “failing” or “behind,” the very outcomes NCLB was designed to remedy or prevent.

While students, parents, teachers and scholars of color easily recognize the inherent bias (often through direct experience of it) it can be challenging to present this critique to policy makers and educational governing bodies, precisely for the problem that is outlined: because they are the product of racially biased education systems, without being alerted to the fact, the presence of racial bias or stereotype seems to be suspect. If the test was being developed by men wearing Ku Klux Klan sheets, the bias would be readily identifiable and challenged. But the problem is much more insidious: because we are often uncomfortable with questioning or challenging our assumptions, these type of biases can go uncontested.

This critique applies to scholars who are immersed in this work; the problem is even more acute in attempting to convey this message to a larger audience, many of whom have been subjected to a counter-narrative of a post-racial society. The challenge then, is in presenting an analogy which is comprehensible while being accurate. The problem of an inherent racial bias in test development and test administration is evident, though difficult to demonstrate. Au’s description of inherent racial biases of SAT test development invites an analogy for comprehensibility.

“Test designers determined that this question, where African Americans scored higher than whites, was psychometrically invalid and was not included in future SATs” (Au, 2009, p. 69).

Suppose, for example, that two races were run, one in Georgia, and one in Texas. 10 runners entered both races, and the results for each runner were timed. At the end of the two races, it was found that white runners finished with faster times in the Georgia race than in the Texas race. Run organizers argue that White runners produce the most reliable results, given that they invented the sport of race running; thus, any race in which white runners do not finish at better rates is deemed an invalid race, and those tracks are not used for competition. The decision, which seems arbitrary, actually carries strong inherent bias, and is incredibly problematic, given the assumed supremacy of one particular decision making methodology versus another.

The attempt here, albeit far from perfect, is in demonstrating the inherent unfairness, as well as the arbitrary bias which is maintained in test construction. This type of test construction is problematic because its process goes unquestioned and unchallenged. If this is coupled with already pervasive set of discourses which pathologize students, teachers, parents, schools and communities of color, then the blame for the lack of success is never thought of as being related to test development and bias (and could never be considered as such). Returning to our running analogy- its not the track that is the problem, it’s the runners, the running trainers, the cities the runners come from, and the lack of real preparation for the track. At no point is it considered that some bias might be in the minds of those making the track choice.

If we follow Au’s logic, we encounter further challenges that should be cause to question our standardized testing choices. He notes in a different study that the implementation of high stakes testing practices directly impact curriculum implementation, as classroom practice comes to align with test demands and requirements, “narrowing” as Au describes.

“Despite some researchers’ claims to the contrary, the findings of this study suggest that high-stakes tests encourage curricular alignment to the tests themselves. This alignment tends to take the form of a curricular content narrowing to tested subjects, to the detriment or exclusion of non-tested subjects” (Au, 2007, p. 263).

While his work and the work of others demonstrates a fundamental tension, there is one educational constituency who has not received significant attention in terms of voicing opinion of this consistent narrowing process: students. Youth voice is often left out of the discussion of the impacts on curricula of high stakes testing. Arguably the most important perspective is that which being left out, an occurrence perhaps attributable to a belief in youth as passive receivers of knowledge and information, rather than active agents in their own educational career.

In future posts, I will be working to explore studies which have focused on student voices as challenge to high stakes testing and by extension, neoliberal processes.

Works Cited

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.

Au, W. W. (2009). High-stakes testing and discursive control: The triple bind for non-standard student identities. Multicultural Perspectives, 11(2), 65–71.

Photo of Dr. Au courtesy of: http://www.bothell.washington.edu/education/about/faculty/wayneau