The Effects of Achievement Gaps on Standardized Testing

Should We Abolish the SAT and ACT?

To accurately compare two variables, one must use constants. For example, during the college process, admissions staff use standardized tests as a constant, creating a level playing field of knowledge. However, many people disagree and argue that standardized tests represent the economic status, race, and learning disabilities of a prospective student, not the intelligence. When considering the different arguments of the standardized testing debate, two sides emerge — one arguing to abolish the requirement and the other arguing to keep the requirement — and after objectively considering both sides, a compromise surfaces.

Supporters of the abolishment of test scores argue that the SAT and ACT reflect economic status rather than intelligence. Due to privacy reasons, College Board, a distributor of standardized tests, releases scores not by income, but by the parents’ level of education. Based on the trend of less-educated individuals entering lower paying jobs, a clear achievement gap emerges between wealthy and poor students. In Texas, for students with parents with no high school diploma, only 18% and 36% passed in math and evidence based writing and reading, respectively. Meanwhile, 83% and 66% of students with parents with a graduate degree or higher passed in math and evidence based writing and reading, respectively. In their composite scores, students with parents with no high school diploma scored a 902 out of 1600, while students with parents with graduate degrees scored an 1157 out of 1600 (College Board). According to a survey completed by admissions officers, “an improvement of 20 points on the math section of the SAT or 10 points on the verbal section can significantly improve a student’s likelihood of admission,” no less than a 250 point difference, the average score difference between wealthy and poor students (Selingo 170). Low income students score lower not because of their intellect but because of the lack of resources provided to succeed. From the beginning of their educational career, low income students attend underfunded schools, resulting in a “reduced availability of textbooks and other instructional materials, laboratory equipment, library books, and other educational resources” (Escarce). The SAT and ACT evaluate stamina and school-learned abilities, and as a result, indirectly evaluate the quality of tutors, books, and teachers. Additionally, wealthier students pay for specialized test prep services to raise their scores. For example, Prepworks, one of the most popular test prep programs, guarantees a minimum 150 point improvement on the SAT; however, students usually improve by 300 SAT points or 5 ACT points after tutoring (Journal of Engineering News Reporter). Any student could complete the Prepworks program and receive the minimum 150 point improvement, but few can pay for test prep programs. Admissions staff against standardized tests recognize that the lack of school resources and test prep disadvantages low income students.

Racial disparities of scores also fuel the argument for the abolishment of standardized testing. Carl Brigham, the creator of the SAT and a proud eugenicist, established the test not to neutrally compare students but to prevent the “decline of American intelligence” due to “the presence here of the negro” (Brigham 210). Brigham never intended for the SAT to test students neutrally, he designed the test to prove Nordic superiority over people of color (Brigham 206). Today, nativists, racists, and eugenists do not design standardized tests as discriminatory, but a disparity between the scores of people of color and whites remain. In Texas, on average, Indigenous, Black, and Latino students score 909, 927, and 955 out of 1600, respectively, while the average white students score 1078 out of 1600, more than 100 points higher than the lowest scoring minority group (College Board). Disparities in test scores do not determine a superior race but reflect the race most likely to have access to resource. Due to the Jim Crow Laws of the Gilded Age, which segregated people of color into lower funded neighborhoods and school districts, large concentrations of people of color established their families and still live in historically poor neighborhoods. The majority of people from Black, Indigenous, or Latino descent live off a single parent income, experience poverty, and attend underfunded schools at higher rates than white and Asian people, creating additional stress on many students of color (Escarce). Racial achievement gap trends correlate with socioeconomic achievement gap trends, causing poor Black, Indigenous, and Latino students, especially females, “to have higher GPAs and lower test scores” while wealthy, white males “have lower GPAs and higher SAT scores” due to the access of resources and test prep throughout their educational career (Selingo 184). Recently, many colleges took the initiative to diversify their campuses, but Black, Indigenous, and Latino students remain affected by the achievement gap and remain less competitive in the application process of elite colleges, where every SAT and ACT point counts. Abolishing the SAT and ACT diversifies college campuses and improves equity for Black, Indigenous, and Latino students because of the intercorrelation of socioeconomic status and race.

People supporting the abolishment of test scores also argue that standardized testing provides an unfit testing environment for students with neurodevelopmental disorders. From their conception, standardized tests failed to recognize learning disabled students’ needs. When Carl Brigham conceptualized standardized testing, he did not account for different learning styles. Legally, the USA government “neither required to accept [students with learning disabilities] in the classroom nor to provide an ‘appropriate’ education that maximizes their potential” until The Education of All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, outlawing the exclusion of students with disabilities (Boon). Despite this change, the content within the SAT and ACT remains the same and still evaluates students’ stamina, concentration, and reading comprehension, the factors hindering many students with learning disabilities. Disabled students’ test scores reflect the unaccommodated environment in which they consistently perform below their known cognitive abilities in one or two areas on high stakes tests (Boon). Students can receive accommodations such as extended time, testing reading assistants, or additional breaks, but teachers must implement accommodations as the psychologist prescribed or the scores lack validity. When the Oregon Department of Education evaluated 160 teachers of their knowledge of learning disabilities, they “found that most teachers fell into the weak knowledge group (96.4%) and none (0%) in the strong knowledge group” (Boon). With so many teachers and test proctors unknowledgeable about learning disabilities, students with neurodevelopmental disorders remain underperforming even with accommodations. If a learning disabled student falls into the lower economic status bracket, they likely can not afford expensive comprehensive psychological testing for accommodations in the first place (Boon). This creates an achievement gap within an achievement gap, further disadvantaging low income students diagnosed with learning disabilities. The unaccommodating nature of the ACT and SAT for students with learning disorders raises concern and adds to the argument for the abolishment of standardized tests.

In contrast, another opinion arises and supporters of standardized tests believe applicants can not avoid achievement gaps, and the SAT and ACT offer the most neutral comparison of competitive applicants. In Dallas, Texas, a high GPA strongly correlates with wealthier school districts. For example, in Highland Park, a wealthy, predominantly white neighborhood, around 50% of students achieve a GPA above a 3.5 and 10% achieve a GPA below a 2.0. In comparison, at Thomas Jefferson High School, where the majority of students derive from low income households and families of color, only 8% of students achieve above a 3.5 GPA and 33% of students achieve less than a 2.0 GPA (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board). Achievement gaps remain when considering GPA and create a bias to wealthy, white students still maintain an advantage. GPA will not turn optional because GPA reveals the improvement and rigor of students (Selingo). Schools vary in curriculums and GPA calculation, while standardized tests require the constants of time limits, difficulty, and material. The constants of standardized testing also allow admissions staff to compare two competitive students with similar statistics for merit scholarships. When looking at merit scholarship applications, “a college is comparing straight-A students to other straight-A students, and officials are looking for tiebreakers” (Quintana). In most cases, achievement gaps affect applicants with similar statistics to the same extent, and admissions staff mainly compare students with similar statistics to decide the scholarships. High test scores immensely increase the chances of receiving merit scholarships, and abolishing standardized testing hinders the scholarship process. Due to the inescapable achievement gap and incomparable GPAs, people consider abolishing standardized tests as counterproductive for students who need their scores for scholarships.

Proponents of standardized tests also believe the admissions staff already provide equity for achievement gaps or disregard standardized tests when considering students. According to Jeffrey Selingo, a retired admission staff and expert on college admissions, many colleges, such as the University of Washington, Emory, and Amherst College, rate students in six different categories: standardized test scores, curriculum rigor and GPA, teacher recommendations and intellectual curiosity, extracurricular activities, essays, and lastly, adversity the student faced. Economic status, race, or learning disabilities might hinder SAT and ACT scores, but they lift the adversity score, which counts for the same amount of points as the standardized testing section. White, wealthy, and able-minded students score lower on the adversity score, creating a disadvantage but equalizing the scores that the achievement gap lowered (Selingo 89). Admissions staff may also disregard the previously mentioned factors, including standardized tests and adversity, and instead rely on the students’ likeliness to enroll, abbreviated to LTE. Low acceptance rates add to colleges’ prestige, and most, if not all, private colleges rely on demonstrated interest and LTE. Admissions staff at private colleges prioritize students with lower statistics over students with higher statistics if they demonstrate an interest in the school and vice versa. For example, students can “have a high academic rating [and] have taken both AP and IB classes at a competitive high school…,” but admissions staff may sort them into the tentative admit pile because of a lack of demonstrated interest (Selingo 202). No matter if an achievement gap affects the test scores or not, high test scores may not guarantee admission at private institutions with LTE. People supporting standardized tests advocate that admissions staff already provide equity and the irreverence of test scores at schools with demonstrated interest.

To appease both sides of the argument, many schools offer test optional admission. People whose standardized test scores benefit their application can decide to keep their score and vice versa. Deciding to not submit a test score would not automatically label the student as a low-scorer. In Fall 2019, many students not affected by the achievement gap chose not to submit scores. When Indiana University turned test optional, they “had expected somewhere between 11% and 18% of students would submit their applications without exam scores…,” but “instead, roughly 40% of prospective students so far have applied without scores this year” (Quintana). At the Georgia Institute of Technology, one-third of the students applied with no test scores. With optional test scores, colleges turn to other aspects of the application that economic status, race, and learning disabilities impact less, like recommendations and intellectual curiosity, extracurricular activities, response to adversity, and essays (Quintana). Students with high test scores can still show off their achievement by opting to submit test scores; on the other hand, admissions staff will not penalize students opting out of submission. GPA will remain a part of the college process even though the achievement gaps also influence GPA. Rather than totally abolishing or keeping the SAT and ACT, turning test optional provides a fair compromise for students both affected and unaffected by the achievement gap. In a dream world, the United States closes the achievement gaps by investing in social programs, increasing the funding of schools and developing courses for educators about learning disabilities and accommodations. Other than the current stimulus checks, people advocate for the future establishment of “policy priority for government at all levels and a research priority for social scientists from all disciplines” to prevent the influences of poverty, race, and learning disabilities at a systemic level (Escarce). Diminishing the achievement gaps requires people to upheave the educational foundation and to address the root of the problem through government action and community education. One quick action will not close the achievement gap, but test optional policies progress the college process closer to neutral comparison.

Due to the achievement gaps caused by economic class, race, and neurodevelopmental disorders, people debate if standardized testing offers an equal playing ground for prospective students. However, colleges turning test optional instead of completely abolishing or requiring standardized testing creates a fair compromise between the two arguments. In the past, America ignored and hindered minority success by segregation, laws, and nativist ideas, but small steps, like turning test optional, contribute to the closure of educational achievement gaps and open opportunities of education for the lower class, people of color, and people with learning disabilities. The decline of the relevance of achievement gaps will lead to a rise of minority success and diversity on college campuses and the workplace. Hopefully, in the future, with achievement gaps closed, standardized tests could represent a fair evaluation of intelligence.

Authors Note: The prompt required a non-biased approach to whatever issue chosen. I would like to make it clear that I do not support standardized testing and do not think affirmative action accurately compensates for the achievement gaps. Thank you for reading my essay and feel free to cite it.

Work Cited: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vKv6UZ9cwdqKrK2jYTBikxmppPRJnfh6eyuC79HzKWs/edit?usp=sharing