Empty promises: The illusion of test score improvement in public education

Feigned concern over national and state test scores or school ratings seems to be a ritual each fall. Unfounded criticism falls like leaves on public schools because of disparity in student test scores that are beyond their control. It is usually political blather presenting no viable solutions.

This summer the superintendent in the Clark County School District stated his “goal” is a “5 to 7 percent increase every year” in third grade proficiency scores on the annual state assessment. In November, The Washoe County School District superintendent revealed a strategic plan (in a very dynamic presentation) to improve proficiency rates in grades 3-8; from currently under 40 percent up to 75 percent by 2026.

Annual promises by educational leaders to raise test scores, like Linus promising the arrival of The Great Pumpkin on Halloween, will go unfulfilled. They have neither the means to improve scores or political will to reveal the shortcomings of using standardized test scores to measure educational quality.

Why would seasoned educational leaders pretend this is possible? Especially after admitting, in Reno, this has never been done in Nevada? Score gains of this magnitude have never happened in any public school district across the country except through blatant cheating.

It is mathematically improbable as well. In any measured activity, half are above average and half below. If proficiency levels are preset at the 60th percentile, only 40 percent can be deemed proficient.

Despite sounding credible to those hopelessly naïve and overly optimistic, there are no proven academic interventions, curriculum revisions or alignments, technology tools or instructional practices that substantially increase individual standardized test scores.

Standardized test scores are the primary measurement across education; commonly perceived as accurate measures of learning and academic achievement. Often cited as evidence of school and instructional quality, they are neither.

Standardized tests are intended to measure individual abilities, not student populations. Tests are designed to create a range of scores and used to rank and sort students. Preset score levels limit the number of proficient test-takers.

Test-taking ability emerges in early elementary grades. Individual student rank remains within a limited range after third grade; generally unaffected by educational setting.

Test score averages reflect socio-economic demographics and are poor measures of learning. Curriculum, instruction and other school factors have little effect on standardized test scores.

Learning is more effectively measured by classroom assessments. Once a year, state or national tests cover a broad span of material that are assessed with a timed exam in the spring. Time limits are largely responsible for the distribution of ranked scores. Scores rely on the individual ability to comprehend and process questions quickly and accurately.

Results are usually released in the fall, after students have moved on to the next grade level. Meaningless, cumulative scores, leave students with no idea which exam items were missed or why. This is one reason why standardized tests flop as learning tools.

Poverty negatively influences health, economic and educational outcomes. When comparing test scores, schools with lower average scores consistently display higher rates of poverty along with higher numbers of English language learners and special education students.

Racial differences reflect socio-economic differences when comparing test score averages. Black, Hispanic/Latino and Native American students are more likely to come from impoverished conditions and most educational outcomes are related to family incomes. Racial comparisons only perpetuate negative stereotypes.

Students in low-income communities are more likely to have unqualified or unlicensed teachers. But, even the best teachers are unable to overcome initial academic achievement gaps and create common proficiency levels on standardized tests.

State school rating systems use standardized test scores to measure school quality. The Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF) is Nevada’s school rating system. It’s a star-rating system where one star is the lowest rating and five stars is the highest rating. Again, based on test score averages determined by demographics.

Amaze your friends! Using maps of the Clark and Washoe County School Districts that indicate NSPF star ratings for regular public schools, put your finger on a school and analyze the socio-economic conditions of the surrounding areas. Boldly predict each time that neighborhoods around four and five star schools have higher household incomes than those around one and two star schools.

Right every time! You will be the hit of the party. Note: this trick works in metropolitan public school districts across the country. Feel free to transport this trick across state lines.

Lower-income urban neighborhoods produce lower test score averages than higher income suburban neighborhoods. Magnet and charter schools situated in low-income neighborhoods may seem like exceptions because of higher test score averages. An illusion. School test score averages are contingent on the composition of the student body.

Magnet schools draw from district-wide attendance areas and have more selective admission requirements, many times based on test scores. Charter schools offer a different setting with mostly similar educational practices but usually attract students without a need for school provided transportation. Lack of personal transportation is an indicator of poverty.

Poverty also increases the likelihood of being in an English language learner or special education program. Most charter schools avoid students in these programs and those that have behavioral issues. Charter schools that nobly take on the responsibility of educating students that are more challenging have lower test score averages.

Educators need the political courage to admit they have little influence over standardized test scores. Better test-takers in classrooms and schools account for higher test score averages. We need to quit pretending otherwise.