This article originally appeared in the January-February 2003 issue of the Children's Advocate, published by Action Alliance for Children.

In My Opinion

Does the state standardized testing program help or hurt low-income students and students of color?

By Irene Moore

Critics of California's state-wide standardized STAR test often charge that such tests are unfair to low-income students and students of color. But supporters of the statewide testing program argue that disadvantaged students have the most to gain.

The STAR test has two parts: a national test that compares the student with others across the country, and a test based on the California curriculum. Scores on this test have consequences. For a school, low test scores mean missing out on financial rewards for the school and its staff. Low scores could also target a school for outside intervention. Low-scoring students might be assigned to lower-level classroom groups or courses, or required to repeat a grade.

Does this standardized testing program help or hurt disadvantaged students?

Return to top

It helps!

High expectations: "[Those] who argue that standardized testing is unfair fail to recognize that disadvantaged students are the greatest beneficiaries of the state's testing and accountability system. That's because, after years of holding low-income students to low expectations and accepting widespread academic failure, the state now has a system that expects schools to raise expectations and focus attention on those students-and for the first time gives both assistance and financial incentives for them to succeed.

"Information from testing can be used to determine which students need help and which areas of the curriculum need focus.

"For too many years, California held students to widely different standards, with no uniform testing program to shed light on the shockingly low achievement of vast numbers of students. Under California's testing program, there are no more excuses.

"The Academic Performance Index [based on test scores] informs the public and the parents about how their school is doing. The system is not perfect, but it's a vast improvement over several years ago, when parents and the public had no way to discern how our schools were performing compared to others in the state and country. We're on the right track. [Rising] scores-including scores of English learners and those whose families are in poverty-attest to that fact.

-Kerry Mazzoni, California Secretary of Education

Assessing needs: "The tests can be good tools to assess where kids are weak. The teacher can find out what they're not learning, so he/she can teach that material. If the district has a good sound curriculum, the teacher teaches that curriculum, and the tests are based on it, then students who fail the tests should be held back. Minority and low-income kids should take the tests like the rest of the class.

"The problem occurs when the tests are on material never covered in the classroom. Since [low-income students] often don't have the same enrichment at home, [tests should include only] material covered in the classroom."

-Forrest Werner, former high school teacher, counselor, and school board member, Newport-Mesa Unified School district

Return to top

It's just a reality!

Parents' responsibility: "The tests are required by law, and since we can't change the law, it's very important to know what the system requires. Therefore, it's the parents' responsibility to get their kids prepared.

"What's wrong with prepping them? Knowledge is power. There are techniques parents can use, even low-income parents. For example, they can teach their kid one new word a day, turn the TV to PBS, the Science and Nature channels. They must do things that are natural, like pointing out bugs vs. birds. Instead of lamenting about it, they must say, 'I need to adjust and adapt.' With a library and dictionary, for example, this can be done."

-Jimma McWilson, San Diego Urban League

Return to top

It hurts!

Dropping out mentally: "If kids were given the same quality and standards of instruction, [tests] would be OK. But poor kids are not expected to achieve the same level as more privileged kids. The difference is in the quality of instruction in the classroom. High-quality teachers with resources can prepare kids for anything, but low-income neighborhoods are five times more likely to have non-credentialed teachers. Teachers are thrown into the situation without the proper support, so the quality of instruction is different, leading to lower scores on the standardized tests for low-income [students] and kids of color.

"The tests can be used as eliminators to eliminate a child from progressing to the next step. At a very young age, children's self-esteem is crushed by continually telling them they are low-performing. By middle-school, that's where problems with children's behavior show up more. And disinterest in school. Many Latino children drop out. African American children have a lower dropout rate-they don't drop out as much physically but they drop out mentally because they are not performing at the level they should be, because of low expectations.

"In high school they are excluded from college entrance courses, which leads to low-paying employment and sometimes a lot of crime in the community."

-Goldie Buchanan, African American Parent/Community Coalition for Educational Equity

Teaching to the test: "One must look at what kind of stakes are attached to the tests. Low-income [students] and kids of color have pressure around the test, which affects the teaching. Instructors actually teach worse because they teach only the information they think is going to be on the test. Reading, writing, and thinking at deeper levels are not being taught [in low-income schools], but they are in wealthier districts. It's not the test, but the pressures associated with the test. The result is a poor quality of teaching."

-Susan Sandler, Justice Matters

Kids punished: "I agree that we need an assessment to see how schools are producing, but the tests are not the right tools for that. The reason is that the tests are not in tune with the curriculum and the curriculum is not in tune with English language learners. The reading program is in English, with no tools to teach children who speak a different language, although a new curriculum is underway that's more sensitive to language and culture. But the Los Angeles school district is 70 percent Latino, and 50 percent of those are ESL.

"If they get low scores, the kids are punished, because the school doesn't get money. And they are using test scores to make decisions about promotion. They are telling kids 'You are dumb.' Parents say 'The school recommended an IEP [special education plan] for my child. They say he's not learning, not reading. But he reads in Spanish fine with me.'

"There are other ways of assessing how kids are learning. For example, a combination of parental involvement, teacher evaluations, kids' evaluation of the work and portfolios, would provide a more comprehensive assessment. With portfolios, a collection of student work done throughout the year, parents and teachers can see how the kids have improved."

-Gabriel Medel, Parents for Unity

Return to top

Action Alliance
for Children
e-mail aac@4children.org
1201 Martin Luther
King Jr. Way
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 444-7136