Most people are familiar with a quote that is often attributed to President Abraham Lincoln: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”
Abe might be surprised to learn that his wisdom might not resonate with 21st-century America. Certain media outlets have found a market for stirring up angry emotions. They create negative perceptions of institutions and ideas, without logic or reason. Repetitive lies become the truth. Unfortunately, many parents have become avid consumers of misinformation regarding public education.
The big lie about public education is that it is failing America’s students. At the root of this false assertion is standardized test scores.Despite bureaucratic limitations, public schools serve students well and fulfill their intended purpose.
Public education was created to reveal academic potential in males from the lower classes. It has positively evolved and provides educational opportunities to students regardless of gender, race/ethnicity and family income levels.
Standardized test scores are flawed measures of school quality and are not largely influenced by school factors. Scores are contingent on the collective test-taking ability of the student body. If curriculum, instruction and leadership produced meaningful differences, test score gaps between students would have been closed decades ago.
When used to compare schools, standardized test scores reflect a consistent pattern. Tests always favor students from higher-income families. Although there are individual exceptions, there is a direct correlation between family income and test scores at every grade level. Wealth provides an advantage and poverty a disadvantage. Each year, the data from college admissions tests (ACT/SAT) consistently reflects this pattern.
The Clark County School District is the fifth-largest in the United States. Labeling CCSD as failing or inferior because of low test scores has no merit. Its test performance mirrors that of any other large urban district. Socio-economic factors and concentrations of English learners influence test scores. Suburban schools outperform inner-city schools. Charter and magnet schools with more selective admission and retention standards have higher test scores.
There are no secret educational methods that improve academic achievement as measured by test scores. Preparation specific to a particular test may temporarily increase scores but does not lead to a meaningful change of long-term academic outcomes. Pushing a few students over the threshold of grade-level proficiency is for political show, not sustained academic growth.
Empty promises that test scores can be vastly improved create a false perception that all students can test well. Testing is like any other individual skill. Not every student can draw well or run fast. Ability on standardized tests becomes inherent in early grade levels and remains consistent throughout an academic career. Standardized tests are designed to ensure that half of all test-takers are always below average. Selected proficiency levels guarantee specific rates of failure. In other words, the game is rigged.
Standardized test scores are designed to produce a range of scores and rank students. They offer a narrow measure of individual student learning and were never intended to compare schools or districts. The primary difference between school or district test scores is contingent on the composition of the student population. Using test scores to disparage a school or district is actually labeling their students as failures.
Promoting competition between schools based on test scores does nothing to improve learning. School choice is exercised much more commonly by higher-achieving students. Parents want their children to attend schools with more like-minded students.
Schools with a more selective admission process (including the wealth of the neighborhood) have higher test scores. Avoidance of those with behavioral issues, English learners, and special-ed students results in higher test scores. Even where open enrollment exists, weeding out low performers is a common practice in many charter, magnet and private schools.
Competition between schools is not over better educational practice. It is over the attraction and retention of higher-achieving students. There is little variance between the curriculum content and instructional methods in the tested areas of reading and mathematics in any K-12 setting. Differences may exist in the core philosophy of a building but these differences do not influence test scores.
We must reject the notion that standardized test scores are an important measure of school success and stop leading on students and parents. Educators should welcome the challenge of seeking more creative and accurate measures of learning. The initial promise of charter schools was to provide more innovative methods of learning that would improve achievement. A promise, by the way, that was never fulfilled.
A regular public or charter school with lower test scores is not necessarily failing. The building may be a great place for kids. Their students just don’t test well.
This does not excuse weak leadership or poor instruction in a regular public school. Each school should provide a safe, cordial and productive learning environment with high expectations for behavior and academic achievement (not standardized test scores). All students, regardless of their socio-economic background, need adults that care about them and want them to succeed.
Low test scores are not an indication of the failure of public education. Lincoln would say it is time to tell parents the truth.
Greg Wieman is a retired educator with a doctorate in educational leadership from Eastern Michigan University. He can be contacted at [email protected].