Do standardized tests work?

The College Board recently made significant changes to the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), the preeminent university entrance exam for schools in the United States, in order to more accurately assess students’ understanding of course material. This modification is largely in response to criticisms that the SAT — and other standardized tests — merely valorize test-taking skills, rather than provide a full picture of an applicant’s aptitude.

This adaptation reignites questions about the role of standardized testing in education today. Certainly such tests serve essential functions, such as keeping teachers and students accountable to school curriculums. However, overvaluing standardized testing encourages narrow perspectives, mechanical learning, and excessive anxiety in students around test performance — conditions which are antithetical to the purpose of education.

For example, both the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario have criticized standardized testing administered by the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO). These census tests annually evaluate the reading, writing, and math skills of students in grades three and six, as well as math skills in grade nine and literacy in grade ten.

Literacy and numeracy are crucial to succeeding in life, so it does not come as a surprise that standardized tests emphasize the mastery of these skills. However, standardized testing’s sole focus on these skills may force some teachers to sideline holistic teaching of other subjects such as history, science, social studies, and arts to focus on the tests’ core content.

This is because schools are ranked according to EQAO test scores, under the questionable assumption that better test performances indicate better learning environments. Teachers are then pressured to “teach to the test,” instead of providing a well rounded education. When such pressure manifests in tangible forms such as merit-based pay or grounds for re-employment, teachers may even falsify test results — indeed, 35 educators in Atlanta were recently indicted for such behaviour. Ontario schools have also come under fire as a result of teachers helping students to cheat on EQAO tests.

The necessary but antiquated teaching approaches used in preparing students for standardized testing also fail to promote the creativity that education is so often valued for. The multiple choice, true or false, and fill-in-the-blank type questions featured in scholastic apptitude tests encourage mere memorization over critical thinking. This was the reason that Alberta decided last year to phase out their standardized Provincial Achievement Tests in favour of the more individualized Student Learning Assessments, which focus on inquiry and innovative problem solving.

The EQAO reportedly spent about $33 million in operating costs in 2009­–2010, while the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat spent $77 million to design and mandate programs to improve EQAO test scores. Given the apparent negative consequences of EQAO’s standardized tests, it is perhaps worthwhile to consider redirecting these funds towards improving the education system as a whole, rather than judging student performance based one narrow definition of success.

Standardized testing indicates important aspects of a student’s performance, but cannot be used as a blanket measure of intelligence, growth, or academic potential. Too often we forget that such tests evaluate our performance at one specific instance, regardless of any detrimental external factors of the day. The test day is fleeting, but the results can have a lasting impact — it is important to recognize standardized testing’s limitations before using the results to determine the paths of our respective educations.

Victoria Wicks is a first-year student at Trinity College studying political science and philosophy.

Last week, the US College Board announced important changes to the SAT, including the replacement of esoteric vocabularies and the elimination of the dreaded essay section. However, these changes do not remedy the complaints of individuals who have been petitioning universities for years to make the SAT optional. To them, standardized testing does not provide a level playing field, allow applicants to showcase their other skills, and can incentivize teachers to “teach to the test,” rather than approach education broadly. Despite this conflict, it is important to recognize that the SAT is perhaps the sole objective component of post-secondary applications ­­— one that is both fair and useful.

The university application process is intrinsically unfair. Children from affluent families will arguably receive better application support from their teachers and schools; they can also afford lessons for extracurricular activIties, international volunteer opportunities, or private tutoring. These factors have two things in common; they have the potential to strengthen an application and are not universally accessible.

Obviously, unfairness in other components of the application does not justify any unfairness in the SAT; that being said, it seems premature for critics to make the mental jump from “the SAT is unfair” to “let’s get rid of it.” If this logic holds, admissions officers should ignore any aspects of students’ applications that are not accessible to all applicants. Indeed, compared to some expensive extracurricular activities that can pose insurmountable financial obstacles, SAT preparation is not necessarily expensive; “Cracking SAT” by Princeton Review only costs $15 and “The Official SAT Study Guide” by College Review costs $16.

The SAT is probably the fairest factor in this biased game. Everyone does the same test, and while some students can afford more test-preparation classes, these do not automatically translate into better grades. Months of hard work are still required. Compared to some extracurricular activities that showcase applicants’ broad interests or ability to overcome adversity — but that sometimes amount to little more than exaggerated hobbies — standardized testing has real substance.

The time spent preparing for the SAT is not wasted. Studying for standardized tests fills potential gaps in a high school education. High school graduates should know words like “arcane” and “esoteric”; they should be able to read under pressure and extract tones and undertones; they should master basic grammar. These exercises will be time-consuming. This doesn’t mean that the material being practiced is useless — although admittedly, some vocabulary words are. Time spent preparing is a worthwhile growing experience as it builds perseverance and patience — discipline needed to dedicate over half a year preparing for a one-shot test.

Many of the SAT’s obvious flaws have been addressed in recent revisions. Students are allowed to take the test multiple times. The essay portion, which is highly subjective, is now optional. A new collaboration between College Board and Khan Academy that will benefit  less privileged students is now underway.

Standardized testing is not without room for improvement, but it is still the fairest way to compare across applicants from different backgrounds. Progress should continue to work towards levelling the playing field, rather than eliminating the game.

Li Pan is a second-year student at Trinity College studying mathematics and economics.