Standardized Testing: Another way to discriminate against the poor

[Tricky]

First, as a disclaimer, let me say that Ms. Tricky is a tutor. She tutors students for standardized tests. She works for a well-known company which is quite good at helping kids prepare for standardized tests. The tutoring is not cheap at all, though only a tiny fraction actually goes to Ms. Tricky. But she likes her work and enjoys her students, and that is important.

But here's the thing. The people who buy her service are almost always rich. Sometimes very rich. She drives to the ritziest neighborhoods in our town to tutor these kids. It doesn't appear that they are snooty, although she's tutored the daughters of some fairly famous people, so that isn't why I'm annoyed. I'm annoyed because they can get into schools and get scholarships that poor people can't, solely because they can afford to buy more "tries".

Not only do they get "practice tests" with high-priced tutors, they also get to take the test multiple times. Taking a standardized test is not all that cheap, and most folks can't afford to do so more than once. These kids plan on taking it three to six times to see if they can learn the "tricks" for getting the best scores.

I suppose it is not a great big news flash that rich kids have more opportunities than poor kids, but it seems to me that standardized testing should be... well... standardized, and to me, that means everybody takes the test on equal footing. I'd be in favor of making students taking the test for a second time be forced to take a small "percentage penalty" for having had the practice. Each subsequent test would incur a higher penalty.

Am I being ridiculous, unrealistic, or am I a believer in the American Dream of fairness for all?

 

[Drachasor]

This is more about how education in America discriminates against the poor, imho. This is such an overwhelming factor that I think any other unfairness is small in comparison. Poor neighborhoods have less money, less resources, worse teachers, and a worse overall environment (outside and inside of school). All these are fixable, but we aren't doing much about it.

I don't think standardized tests are a big problem. Most of the techniques to do well on them are pretty basic and easily learned -- based on my experience having taught some of these classes. In fact, I think you could successfully have them for free online with free practice tests. Beyond that, better tutoring and resources for all students would be great (and much better educational software for free). I admit I was rather disgusted with the prices charged for the classes, especially special subjects like AP physics.

I don't think a penalty for multiple tests would work well. Rich people would still be favored since they could load up on practice tests.

 

[Newtons Bit]

First, as a disclaimer, let me say that Ms. Tricky is a tutor. She tutors students for standardized tests. She works for a well-known company which is quite good at helping kids prepare for standardized tests. The tutoring is not cheap at all, though only a tiny fraction actually goes to Ms. Tricky. But she likes her work and enjoys her students, and that is important.

But here's the thing. The people who buy her service are almost always rich. Sometimes very rich. She drives to the ritziest neighborhoods in our town to tutor these kids. It doesn't appear that they are snooty, although she's tutored the daughters of some fairly famous people, so that isn't why I'm annoyed. I'm annoyed because they can get into schools and get scholarships that poor people can't, solely because they can afford to buy more "tries".

Not only do they get "practice tests" with high-priced tutors, they also get to take the test multiple times. Taking a standardized test is not all that cheap, and most folks can't afford to do so more than once. These kids plan on taking it three to six times to see if they can learn the "tricks" for getting the best scores.

I suppose it is not a great big news flash that rich kids have more opportunities than poor kids, but it seems to me that standardized testing should be... well... standardized, and to me, that means everybody takes the test on equal footing. I'd be in favor of making students taking the test for a second time be forced to take a small "percentage penalty" for having had the practice. Each subsequent test would incur a higher penalty.

Am I being ridiculous, unrealistic, or am I a believer in the American Dream of fairness for all?

Yes, you're being ridiculous and unrealistic.

There will always be an advantage to those who spend time studying and preparing for an exam. That's the point of education. And parents can hire tutors to give their children extra help. One of the most commonly cited reasons why parents work hard is to give their children a better life than their own. Are you really going to begrudge people giving their kids more education out of their own pocket?

I get your argument about a "standardized" test. But the same preparedness can be applied to any exam.

 

[Babbylonian]

Yes, you're being ridiculous and unrealistic.

There will always be an advantage to those who spend time studying and preparing for an exam. That's the point of education. And parents can hire tutors to give their children extra help. One of the most commonly cited reasons why parents work hard is to give their children a better life than their own. Are you really going to begrudge people giving their kids more education out of their own pocket?

I get your argument about a "standardized" test. But the same preparedness can be applied to any exam.

You're missing a big part of the point: They're not studying to actually learn anything but how to beat the test. Every chance they get to take the test itself improves their chances of doing so. In theory, the tests should measure how well students absorbed the material presented to them in high school (and before); instead, for those kids who [can] take advantage of greater resources, they measure how much time and money they can afford to spend figuring out how to get a high score on the standardized test.

For tests in school classes, you've generally got a single shot at each one, and unless a teacher is very lazy the tests aren't going to count for your entire grade. Other factors like written papers, class participation, etc. will factor in as well. Kids who could do well at those things could end up not being considered for admission to schools if they didn't do well enough on the standardized testing.

Of course kids whose parents have more money to spend on them are going to have an advantage. The question is how big that advantage should be.

 

[Ziggurat]

Am I being ridiculous, unrealistic, or am I a believer in the American Dream of fairness for all?

You're being unrealistic.

Colleges already know that poor kids do worse than rich kids on standardized tests. Tutoring doesn't fundamentally change that. To the extent that college admissions want to take that into account, they can and do, so a remedy is already available. Tutoring doesn't help the rich kids beat the poor kids on the tests, they do that anyways. Tutoring helps the rich kids with motivated parents beat the rich kids with apathetic parents. That's who they're competing against.

 

[rjh01]

What happens to these student's marks once the tutoring stops? Like they go to university or get a job and suddenly their performance is worse then someone else who had similar marks but no tutoring.

 

[Quinn]

it seems to me that standardized testing should be... well... standardized, and to me, that means everybody takes the test on equal footing.

Good luck finding a way of making that happen in any remotely capitalistic society. As long as a test can be prepared for, preparation will continue to be a fungible commodity, and people with more resources will be able to afford more of it. Any safeguards that could be put in place will be gotten around, for the simple reason that there's money to be made in finding ways to do so. The example of using practice tests to get around a multi-test penalty is a fine illustration of this.

My ex used to do tutoring for one of the test prep companies. She went to their national conference one year, and said they finished the last day with a sort of holiday sing-along, with the following sung to the tune of "Deck the Halls":

Now we end this franchise meeting,
Fa-la-la-la-laaaaa la-la-la-laaaaa.
Back to teach rich kids good cheating,
Fa-la-la-la-laaaaa la-la-la-laaaaa.

 

[Drachasor]

You're being unrealistic.

Colleges already know that poor kids do worse than rich kids on standardized tests. Tutoring doesn't fundamentally change that. To the extent that college admissions want to take that into account, they can and do, so a remedy is already available. Tutoring doesn't help the rich kids beat the poor kids on the tests, they do that anyways. Tutoring helps the rich kids with motivated parents beat the rich kids with apathetic parents. That's who they're competing against.

You're flat-out wrong. Tutoring can dramatically improve test scores. It certainly helps widen the gap between rich and poor. Yes, a gap already exists, but making it bigger doesn't help. And it is certainly the case that rich and poor compete against each other for scholarships and places in schools. Certainly, poor kids are capable of getting high scores on standardized tests and they have the equal potential of improving those scores with tutoring.

Why exactly are you advocating the status quo here?

What happens to these student's marks once the tutoring stops? Like they go to university or get a job and suddenly their performance is worse then someone else who had similar marks but no tutoring.

A lot of the tutoring is about problem solving multiple choice tests. Then there's a study of vocabulary words -- but an increase vocabulary should stay with them. Then there's some on reasoning through some other sorts of problems. Some of those tools are helpful later in education and in work, I think. Some of the math techniques I found a bit similar to quick checks of solutions that were taught in my physics classes. So there is some useful stuff there. There's also a fair amount of stuff only useful on multiple choice tests.

Good luck finding a way of making that happen in any remotely capitalistic society. As long as a test can be prepared for, preparation will continue to be a fungible commodity, and people with more resources will be able to afford more of it. Any safeguards that could be put in place will be gotten around, for the simple reason that there's money to be made in finding ways to do so. The example of using practice tests to get around a multi-test penalty is a fine illustration of this.

The government could provide extensive educational resources, software, practice tests, tips, tools, and the like online for free to everyone. They could pay money to improve those resources through the public sector. They could work to make sure poor schools have better tools and funding. They could work to clean up inner cities so the environment is better for education. None of this is unreasonable even in a "remotely capitalistic society." Granted, in the current political climate of the US it is completely impossible. Then again, most reasonable things are completely impossible in the US right now. In other countries? They already do a lot to have things equalized.

 

[excaza]

In an ideal world, the majority of students would get the knowledge they need to perform well on the standardized exams from their normal classroom education. It was (at least at one point in time) the whole purpose of standardized testing in the first place.

 

[Delvo]

What happens to these student's marks once the tutoring stops?

Nothing, unless & until somebody comes up with tutoring that really makes a difference in the first place.

(And re-taking the test only helps with one of them anyway; you can re-take the other but if your score is worse then you're stuck with the worse score instead of getting to keep the higher previous one. And the opportunities to take either are spread out pretty wide on the calendar so there's only time for a few tries before having to apply to college with whatever you've got anyway, unless you're planning to take a lot of time off between high school & college, which people who not only take these tests but also do the extra stuff to prepare for them generally aren't.)

 

[RemieV]

I've never really understood this stuff...

We took practice SATs in high school prior to the real thing.

There were also tutoring sessions available through the school for free.

There were also practice books available in the library.

Is that uncommon?

 

[leftysergeant]

I have never for a moment thought that the standardized tests were worth the time spent on them.

If you are just teaching to the test, you are not doing much to actually invigorate a young mind.

It all comes down to the old rivalry between the followers of Piaget and Skinner.

Skinner seems to be winning right now because his doctrine opens doors to vast riches for the makers of testing equipment, and leaves the malleable mind of a child an easy target for the cult of the month, like supply-side drivel.

 

[Tricky]

Colleges already know that poor kids do worse than rich kids on standardized tests. Tutoring doesn't fundamentally change that.

If that were true, my wife would be out of a job. Tutoring substantially changes their test grades. She gets a bonus when a pupil of hers improves their test score significantly, and she's gotten lots of bonuses.

 

[excaza]

If that were true, my wife would be out of a job. Tutoring substantially changes their test grades. She gets a bonus when a pupil of hers improves their test score significantly, and she's gotten lots of bonuses.

In the case of standardized testing, the main goal of tutoring is teaching the student how to take the test, not to increase their knowledge in any substantial way. Strategy can net you a hundred or so points on the SATs, I scored 160 points better the second time I took the SATs (2090 to 2250 or something like that), and the exam dates were only a month apart.

 

[Tricky]

In the case of standardized testing, the main goal of tutoring is teaching the student how to take the test, not to increase their knowledge in any substantial way. Strategy can net you a hundred or so points on the SATs, I scored 160 points better the second time I took the SATs (2090 to 2250 or something like that), and the exam dates were only a month apart.

Yes and no. Strategies are important, but they also teach you what to expect. Ms. Tricky specializes in the verbal part of the test, and she has long lists of words that the kids are supposed to study and learn. But yes, it is essentially "teaching the test", something I philosophically disagree with, but pragmatically realize is the smart thing to do if you want to get in the good colleges or win a scholarship.

In my experience, the really bright kids don't need to be taught the test. They learn very early how to play the game.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

When I was in high school over ten years ago it was $75 per test to take the AP (advanced placement) exams for college. Many kids who were in AP classes were in all AP courses junior and senior year, and we had to pass the exams in order to get college credit for the courses we took.

Also, in some schools (though not my own), not only did you need to take the AP exam in order to get the college credit for it, you needed to take and pass the AP exam in order to get high school credit for it. Even if you aced the class, if you didn't take and pass the AP test, you'd only get credit on your transcripts for an "Honors" class instead of an "AP" class.

I really have to disagree that tutoring doesn't have any impact. The kind of tutoring that you get specifically teaches how to beat the test...it doesn't just help you increase your knowledge base in a way that you could simply accomplish by studying more on your own. For instance, they'll tell you about common trick questions to watch out for. The tutors I had were people who previously had worked for the testing agency itself and had been people who graded the test, so they would tell you all sorts of tricks and tips that the graders would be looking out for.

I can't really find a problem with the tutoring itself. Yeah, it sucks for the poor kids, no doubt...but as others have said, the main reason my Mom worked as hard as she did and took a very demanding, time consuming job that made a lot of money was so she could give her children every advantage in life.

However, I really don't like that the tests cost so much to take, especially as Tricky said, kids with money can just take the test repeatedly to keep upping their score. And I especially have a problem with kids not getting even proper high school credit for a course they took just because they couldn't afford the $75 (and that was over a decade ago, I don't know if it's more now). I do wish there was some sort of sliding scale of testing costs to prevent it from becoming prohibitively expensive for some kids.

However, my high school was in a solidly middle to upper middle class community. Maybe schools which serve more lower class students have financial assistance for kids in order to help them with testing costs.

Remmie - although our AP teachers did help give us tips on taking the test, there were no free test prep classes or tutoring for AP tests or the SATs. You had to pay for a prep course or tutoring or prep manuals.

And of course, in this way, parents with money save even more money. Those of us who took the AP tests and passed them got to skip the college courses, thus saving the money that would have been spent on them. You could shave up to a year and a half from your college education by coming in with AP credits.

 

[Tricky]

I've never really understood this stuff...

We took practice SATs in high school prior to the real thing.

There were also tutoring sessions available through the school for free.

There were also practice books available in the library.

Is that uncommon?

I went to an all-black high school (except for me; long story) in the poor part of town my senior year. No such resources were available to us. We had virtually no resources at all. We couldn't afford a homecoming dance or yearbooks. In those days, it was considered perfectly legitimate to give the lion's share of school money to the white schools and let the black schools get by as best they could. Things are better now. They're still not great.

 

[excaza]

Yes and no. Strategies are important, but they also teach you what to expect. Ms. Tricky specializes in the verbal part of the test, and she has long lists of words that the kids are supposed to study and learn. But yes, it is essentially "teaching the test", something I philosophically disagree with, but pragmatically realize is the smart thing to do if you want to get in the good colleges or win a scholarship.

Not to knock what your wife does, but in all honesty a tutor for standardized tests isn't needed, provided the student takes the same amount of time studying for the exam on their own that the tutor is spending breathing down their necks (which in a lot of cases is the main problem). Teaching the test (which I also don't agree with) and getting information on what to expect isn't information that is exclusive to tutors, and it isn't even all that costly. The College Board makes practice tests and questions available on their web site for free. They also publish a book of practice tests and test preparation materials yearly for $20. Most public and/or school libraries will have copies of these books that students can use, and if they don't, a guidance counselor definitely should. If these materials are not accessible to all students, then it is certainly a problem.

 

[Delvo]

If that were true, my wife would be out of a job. Tutoring substantially changes their test grades. She gets a bonus when a pupil of hers improves their test score significantly, and she's gotten lots of bonuses.

And if it were true that there's nothing to astrology or homeopathy, there'd be no employed astrologers or homeopaths.

 

[andyandy]

Am I being ridiculous, unrealistic, or am I a believer in the American Dream of fairness for all?

You're not being massively unrealistic -

1) only let kids take the test once (or make it sufficiently cheap to allow everyone the chance to retake)
2) invest more in state education

with those alone you'd end up with a much fairer playing field.

You could additionally

3) move away from standardised test - they are after all a pretty crappy way of testing subject/area specific ability.

(and they also seem to penalise those whose english is not a first language. You can be functionally fluent in a 2nd language and still do badly relative to a native speaker in a standardised English test......)

Sure there will always be something of weighting towards those with money - but it would appear relatively easy to lessen that handicap somewhat. Of course it won't happen because all those rich white middle class types are the ones in power, and would be loath to change any system which tilts in their (and their family's) favour.....