As I was driving recently, I heard a commercial on the radio that really grabbed my attention. It was from a real estate organization that was talking about the advantages of owning a home. What grabbed my attention was a statement claiming that children of homeowners score better on standardized tests. I couldn’t believe it. Somebody was using the potential of a child’s success on a standardized test to get people to consider buying houses. Of course, I immediately thought that children of families that didn’t own their home must not be doing as well on these same tests.
At this point during my drive, I tuned out the radio and started thinking about implications of this statement, if in fact it was true. We have been told that the single most influential factor in a child’s education is the teacher. Using that as a sledgehammer statement, many politicians have pushed for connecting teacher assessment to student performance on standardized tests. Of course what now comes immediately to mind is: Are there teachers who have a larger portion of children from families of renters as opposed to homeowners?
What about all the other factors? There are teachers who have students with absences totaling half of a year. Does seat time have an effect on a child’s performance on a standardized test? What about the children from families that are unemployed for any length of time? That must have a negative effect on standardized test performance. What about children of families dependent on food stamps? We know children who are hungry do not perform well at school. Need I even mention children with special needs. If their needs are not addressed in a standardized test, won’t that negatively affect performance? Abused children are another group that may not perform optimally on a standardized test.
Now, if we are to talk about fairness in assessments, when we assess a teacher based on a students’ overall performance on a standardized test we need to ask a question: Do all teachers have these poor performing, albeit for good reason, students in equal portions? Are there teachers with greater numbers of these students in their classes? Are there teachers who have classes without these groups of students represented in the class? When it comes to comparisons we must remember, apples to apples, oranges to oranges and classes to classes.
Yes, the single most influential factor in a child’s education is the teacher. What is left off that statement is that the teacher is not the sole factor in a student’s education. There are hundreds of factors that affect a child’s education that have nothing to do with the teacher. If we are to expect standardized testing to accurately assess students as well as their teachers, we need to first standardize our students.
We need all students to come from safe and healthy homes owned by loving parents. We need all students to be free from physical and emotional challenges. We need all students to be free of racial and cultural prejudices. We need all students to be mentally and physically healthy and sound. Once we have put these standards in place for all students, then standardized tests may begin to approach something that makes sense in assessing teachers for the purpose of standardized education. Be careful of what you wish for!
[…] Student Standardization « My Island View. Share this:ShareLike this:LikeBe the first to like […]
I totally agree with your stance. The problem, however, is that probably most of the people who read this agree, too. The people who need to hear this are the ones who make the laws; they probably aren’t reading this…
One of the reasons why students are not tested in Finland like they are here, is simply the fact how we cannot exclude other factors (life) from the teaching-learning process, and thus these measurements are so very highly inaccurate. Believing in them is very bad science, indeed.
Love reading your posts, Tom. Over all the professional development I’ve done with #edchat and other resources, I’ve come to realize that standardized tests should not be the goal of education. I believe we should be looking beyond grades and test performance. I live in Texas, where the state standardized test (the STAAR) is extremely important to school districts. With that being said, having that kind of view on tests probably hasn’t helped me with the teaching job market. I’ve looked for a job for the past 2 yrs and have had multiple interviews, all of which I’ve expressed my views on grades and testing. I’ve yet to get a job teaching. Not sure if my views on that have anything to do with it or not.
Thanks for a thought provoking read.
So the person pushing home ownership as a cure for bad test scores made a classic correlation is not causation error. From what I’ve read, test scores are more a function of poverty than anything else, even the teacher. That’s because poor parents are not as good at teaching as not so poor parents. As a principal I had a 90% poverty rate. The students who scored best were refugees. They were poor, but they had two parents who understood that education was the way out (Single moms don’t get out of war-torn countries.) Most poor kids come from single parent homes and cultures where education is not honored. In some cases it is even looked down upon. Not sure how we fix this one. Great post. Nice to see you at 140edu.
I was glad to stumble across this post as I had a similar internal dialogue after hearing the exact same commercial. What troubled me most was the fact that a corporate entity was playing on parents desire to have their children succeed as a tool to leverage more buying. Not too unlike the political battles that are being had over the education system. Everyone has a vested interest and cares, which makes it more susceptible to ulterior motives.