"Hacking" Standardized Tests: Part I

As an educator for more than 14 years, a student for more than 20 years, and as a curriculum writer and editor, I personally find it unusual that the "college testing industry is now scrambling to fix weaknesses that the scheme has exposed" (April 12, 2019, Section A, Page 12 of the New York edition with the headline: Standardized Test Companies Scramble to Fix Weaknesses After Scandal).

"The scheme" referenced is the college admissions scandal involving elite colleges and the wealthy students/families who wanted to gain (yet another) unfair advantage.

I am surprised because I know how to cheat - on unit and final exams, on work that is completed using an automatic grading system online, and even on standardized tests. I know this because all students have a "tell, just like poker players. Every effective teacher can read his/her students within a few weeks of meeting them. Some students are a bit more cleaver than others in their method, but cheating to get ahead is nothing new.

From athletes to researchers to elected public officials, it is merely about who gets caught and who doesn't. Which college university will be fined because of the behavior of their athletes? Which judge will be outed next as bias or as buying votes? Which researcher will be shown to have skewed their data for their hypothesis to be correct? In our quip-pro-quo American society, cheating dates back as far as discrimination and bias.

Pacific Standard published an article in March of 2019 highlighting the true problem with standardized tests - they are biased.

"Rigorously timed tests are easy to administer and readily produce a bell-shaped curve. But it is a bell-shaped curve expressing socio-economic status - not genuine ability. It would be much easier (and much quicker) just to ask students to indicate their parents' income level and then hand them a score in a few seconds, rather than put low-income students through the charade of grit and determination required to overcome their lack of class privilege to do well on these exams" (March 22, 2019; Ruth Colker, The College Admissions Scandal and The Trouble with Strictly Timed Standardized Tests).

Discriminating against poor students is nothing new. In fact, discrimination based on socio-economic status (SES) is very much acceptable today; and some would even argue that it is the only publicly accepted form of discrimination and bias that is, not only allowed, but is encouraged. This type of discrimination, after all, does avoid the always difficult discussions around "race" and "ethnicity" so it is a win-win for everyone! Right? No... the majority of American cities are organized like the high school cafeteria with separate classes of people sitting together at lunch tables. Neighborhoods look dramatically different on the East side of the Interstate than on the West side of the Interstate. From school funding and taxes to availability of public resources to equal access of the legal justice, there is not a system that is not impacted by the unspoken hidden rules of each (higher) socio-economic class.

You cannot call a large grey animal with gigantic ears and a long trunk any other name other than an Elephant. And, this elephant in the room hasn't left since Brown vs. The Board of Education and hasn't left since No Child Left Behind. The elephant is still in the room, whether you want to acknowledge it or not; and it is being ignored.

Just like in the completion of Developmental/Remedial Mathematics Courses in Higher Education, high-stakes tests have the most negative effect "against racial minorities, women, those with low socio-economic status, non-nature speakers of English, older applicants, and people with disabilities" (Colker, 2019). Despite affluent students (those coming from families making $200,000+/year) having several other significant advantages - the ability to take the test several times, the ability to attend better-funded schools with a greater variety of opportunities, and the ability to access private tutoring - there exists this idea that more rules need to be modified in order to ensure the wealthy are accepted into the Higher Education institutions of their choice.

If "being born wealthy is actually a better indicator of adult success in the U.S. than academic performance", why not, finally, just acknowledge the elephant in the room? (Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, "Born to Win, Schooled to Lose", 2019)

This would allow for a honest, hard conversation to be had about how to truly level the playing field for all students - not just those that can afford to cheat and can afford the consequences of a set back.

If the wealthy can cheat their way to the top, why can I not teach all students, families, teachers, administrators, etc the history of standardized exams, the "why" standardized exams are designed the way they are, and the "how" to overcome the inequitable, yet required, standardized tests?

It certainly would make known a lot of the hidden rules of standardized exams; and, if nothing else, the elephant would not be the only thing being ignored in the room anymore.

"Hacking" Standardized Tests - Part 2: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/hacking-standardized-tests-k-lewis