Self-incriminating tests and the right to rebuttal

¶ … Self-Incriminating and Individuals Should Have the Right to Rebuttal

Issues in standardized testing: Appeals

Because most forms of standardized assessment have results that are displayed in a quantitative fashion, such tests often create the perception that the results are entirely objective, and have a value that is unquestionably and unarguably 'correct.' "On the surface, the objective measures of today's standardized tests sound sensible. In theory, they give every student a solid picture of achievement, and an equal opportunity for advancement... It is difficult to avoid being evaluated in our society. We have arrived at the point where we are so used to being graded all the time that we expect it in every aspect of life. What is interesting to note is the way in which we evaluate ourselves. We are forever striving for 'hard' numeric ranks which allow us to pit ourselves against 'the competition'" (Problems with standardized tests, 2009, Engineers for Education). or, conversely, tests are used to identify student weaknesses and learning disabilities, so student learning deficits can be addressed. However, no matter how well they may be normed or rigorously scrutinized by experts in measurement, every individual must be acknowledged as an individual. Thus it is essential that students, parents, and their advocates have the right to appeal the results of tests that they do not feel accurately measure their potential and the results of standardizes tests alone are not used to track student progress.

For example, one problem commonly cited with NCLB (No Child Left Behind) legislation is that only students' ability to meet a particular standard is assessed, not the level of progress the student has made in relation to previous years. Likewise, many school districts in troubled areas may be threatened with a grade of 'failing' and a loss of funding, even though the students have shown a consistent rate of improvement that has not yet met state standards. The consequences of a school failing to meet grade-level proficiencies are severe, and may eventually result in the closing of the school. Furthermore, NCLB tests, which vary from state to state, still have "significant problems, such as developing exams for disabled or limited-English students" that are fair for students with highly specific learning needs and challenges (Schaeffer 2006).

In Arizona, a state with a very high non-English speaking population of students, one remedy was to allow ESL students' grades on the state exams to not be tabulated in the final results of schools. At first, state and federal education officials decided to count the scores of English-language learners in schools' final assessments only after the students' third year in the state, to give the students enough time to become proficient in reading academic material in English (Moravicik 2006). However, now students are counted after one year's residence, which has resulted in many more Arizona schools being marked as failing.

NCLB is a relatively new program, and it has been a challenge to create feasible but standardized benchmarks of learning that measure the curricular standards of every state in a nation without a national curriculum This relates to a more general question about how well in general a standardized exam can measure what a student knows -- standardized tests are supposed to measure the ability to learn as well as content area even though content area can vary greatly between classes and districts. Critics allege that this hampers teacher's creativity in the classroom and forces them to teach the format of the test. "Multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank tests cannot be used unless the answers sought are well-known, explicit and precise. Because the content of the tests must be clear and agreed upon, what is taught has to share the same characteristics" (Multiple choice tests, 2009, Engineers for education). Schools that deviate from the formula of the test, or even schools that simply do not teach the test may be penalized. Although test creators have tried to use the multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, and long and short essay formats more effectively, using these standardized means to assess critical thinking skills, especially for students from schools that use alternative learning formats, remains an imperfect science.

This is not to deny that proficiency testing cannot have value and that it is always inaccurate. Tests results have flagged problems where social promotion has denied students a quality education, and in many cases forced schools to given more attention to the poor performance of underserved populations, like ESL students, learning disabled students, or students on the borderline between failure and passing. The problem lies in the fact that NCLB is often used in a punitive fashion, even against schools that are making an effort and showing improvement. Without some humanization and an appeals process, the use of standardized testing can be a blunt instrument in the hands of legislators.

Questions about the unfairness of other standardized measurements and assessments such as the SAT are also rife because of the negative impact they can and have had on students' lives. Theoretically, the SAT is supposed to give colleges information about how students will perform in college, and flag students from easier schools with high GPAs who still struggle with basic skills. But there are questions about the fairness and accuracy of the SAT, despite many recent revisions, including the introduction of an essay portion. Women and African-Americans and members of other minority groups continue to show stronger undergraduate performances than would be predicted by their SAT scores, compared with their white male counterparts (SAT race, gender gaps increase, 2003, Fair Test). New revisions to the test have not substantially improved this (Schaeffer & Mermell 2008).

The way that the SAT makers grade the test for reliability "predictably, consistently, and reliably yields questions that favor whites dramatically over other subgroups...the explanation comes from the way that designers of the SAT -- and of many other standardized tests -- define reliability. A reliable question that is intended to be difficult, for instance, is one on which those who score highest overall consistently do well, and on which those with low scores consistently do poorly...Therefore, the highest achievers among test takers set the standard, and questions on which they do well look more statistically reliable than those on which they do poorly, even though some minority students may score higher on those questions" (Young 2003).