However, I came out of that test thinking, wow that was terrible, but it's ok because I can just take it again. But, I was talking to my parents after taking the test and was shocked to find out that they took the test only once and with no tutoring, that was it. Flashback to the very first practice test I took with my ACT tutor and how poorly I thought I had scored. I made huge strides of improvement just by practicing and taking the test many different times with a tutor, but does everyone have that luxury?
In reality, many students in the US today are not capable of taking the ACT more than once and would never even be able to consider the use of ACT prep tools, at least not to the extent that I see used in my neighborhood.
In an article in Education Week, Kohn states on the subject of test prep, "Affluent families, schools, and districts are better able to afford such products... exacerbating the inequity of such testing...Poorer schools manage to scrape together the money."
More affluent school districts have a major advantage with this extra test prep available to them, while the poorer school districts can barely "scrape together the money," or gather it laboriously and with much difficulty. This simply "exacerbates" or severely increases the "inequity" or inequality of the tests because the rich have a huge advantage.
The result of this sad phenomenon is that these scores on the ACT and other standardized tests ultimately have a big effect on the college you will be able to attend. The more affluent students will be able to attend a more prestigious university with generally more career opportunities available to them simply because of one standardized evaluation, while the poorer communities will either not get to attend college or not be admitted to the college of their choice. The college or no college they decide to attend then limits the opportunities that they have available to them as a career. This one number, 19,23,36 can end up defining their career and ultimately their life.
I believe that these standardized tests should not carry so much weight on the fate of someone's future if they create such unequal opportunity. They should be part of a college's consideration but maybe not such a large part because they does not show exactly how much potential a student truly has. Just because one student received more ACT tutoring than the other does not mean that that student is smarter or a better candidate for a certain university.
What are some other possible solutions to reduce the inequality of "standardized" testing?
Feel free to comment! ;)
I totally agree with you Madi. I also think that the literal content on the ACT gives affluent students an advantage over lower income students. I took the ACT this Saturday as well, and remember how on the reading section there was a story about a rich kid and his feelings about staying in his summer home with his summer friends. I understood the story fairly well because I could relate to it. However, I imagine that many students who have not had any experience going to a summer home or don't know anyone who has a summer home would have more difficultly relating to and understanding the passage. I have found stories such as these on numerous practice tests I have taken, and often question why the ACT doesn't put readings that are specific to lower income people even though they do put readings specific to the wealthy.
ReplyDelete