I wrote this back in March but then... The Rona. I'm publishing it now since BPS just chose their vendor.
After a very public breakup with test-maker Education Records Bureau (ERB), Boston Public Schools is seeking a "new test" that "accurately assesses a student's knowledge of content they're taught in class and has been rigorously reviewed to ensure it is free of bias." This is disappointing since it shows that BPS seems set on continuing to ignore research and reiterating its faith in the cult of overtesting.
Like many educational policymakers, BPS leaders seem unwilling to consider a world in which educational decisions are not highly influenced by the standardized tests that have dominated American education since the 1920s. The quest for a test that will somehow be free of the problems that plagued the ISEE is naive and contrary to 100 years of research. In fact, in 1934, Carl Brigham, the SAT's creator, wrote: "The test movement came to this country some twenty-five or thirty years ago accompanied by one of the most glorious fallacies in the history of science, namely that the test measured native intelligence purely and simply without regard to training or schooling. I hope nobody believes that now. The test scores very definitely are a composite including schooling, family background, familiarity with English, and everything else, relevant and irrelevant."
The notion that BPS will be able to solicit bids, verify appropriateness of the test, and organize logistics of a new test to replace in six months a broken system that has existed for more than 25 years seems unlikely at best. When contacted via email, Jinghua Liu, Chief Testing and Research Officer of Enrollment Management Association (ERB's primary competitor), responded that "after examining the BPS requirement and framework, we are afraid that the alignment, especially on math, with the SSAT is weak." She further added that topics like mean absolute deviation "is a topic implemented by common core, but which isn't a topic that we assess at all."
The problems BPS cited with the use of the ISEE show the conflicting ideas that govern school districts' relationships with standardized tests. On one hand BPS implies doubt in the relevance and fairness of the test they have used for decades, while on the other hand the district demonstrates a dedication to the idea that a different standardized test can solve these problems. BPS seems to expect that the disparate outcomes along racial and economic lines that are exacerbated by testing will be mitigated with a different test, despite all evidence to the contrary.
BPS has only to look at other exam schools around the country to realize that despite each using different tests, the results are similar: when tests are emphasized, low-income, African-American, and Latinx students are disadvantaged.
| School | District | Test Used | % Low Income | % Black and Hispanic |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology | Alexandria, VA | Quant-Q, ACT Aspire | 1.8% FRL | 4.2% |
| Stuyvesant High School | New York, NY | SHSAT | 46% | 4% |
| Walter Payton College Prep | Chicago Public Schools | NWEA MAP | 29% | 32% |
| Hunter College High School | New York, NY | HCHS Entrance Exam | 9% | 9% |
| Liberal Arts and Science Academy | Austin, TX | Cognitive Abilities Test | 10% | 23% |
| Academic Magnet High School | Charleston, SC | MAP | 1% | 7% |
Perhaps it's time to consider that the problem might not be the specific test but instead the reliance on a test created outside of the school system that is highly susceptible to coaching and test prep. Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that simple reliance on GPA and test scores gives rise to grade inflation and test prep, which in turn gives advantages to private school students and wealthier students.
These patterns were highlighted by a Brookings Institute report showing economic and racial segregation of exam schools in several major cities. A 2018 report from the Harvard Kennedy School advised BPS that using MCAS and GPA would help address the very problems BPS is spending millions of dollars on a new test to address.
Maybe instead of reshuffling the deck chairs, BPS should consider spending the money allocated for external testing and test prep into improving resources for under-funded schools. Let's hope that those in control of these decisions give up their dogged dedication to a tool that research has demonstrated over and over to be of limited usefulness and one that fosters perverse educational habits and exacerbates inequity. Maybe the smarter and braver solution is to not erect a barrier (an additional test) and then require families or the city to invest millions of dollars getting over that barrier (test prep).