Robert Switzer

Almost four-fifths of U.S. high school graduates failed to pass this year’s standard examinations designed to show their readiness for college, test designer ACT Inc. reported.

read more | digg story

After reading through this, what I get is that while the average scores are rising more quickly than at any time in the history of the test, a declining percentage of the total people taking the test are earning acceptable total scores.

My guess is that a very small percentage of the test-takers are earning very high scores. After adjusting for this, I think one would find that the average scores are declining. If a quant reading this disputes it, please speak up.

The single most important predictor of performance on standardized tests is family income, and within that, socio-economic status. Work-ethic has little to do with it.

Thirty years ago the fiction was that you couldn’t really prepare for standardized tests like the ACT and the SAT. Everybody now knows that this is bullshit. The tests can be prepped for and even gamed, if you know how.

The competition today among upper-middle class teenagers for slots at very selective universities is quite intense, and it’s common knowledge that many are willing to do whatever is necessary and within their means to get accepted at a top-tier school.

Students even see sympathetic doctors to get an Attention Deficit Disorder diagnosis, with their parent’s blessings, so they’ll get more time to take the SAT.

That cheating and other types of fraud play a larger role in standardized testing today goes without saying. So let’s factor that out and look at the people who more or less play the game by the rules.

Over the last 30 years, income disparity has also increased dramatically. People at the top of the income pyramid are earning much more than they were 30 years ago, while income at the middle and lower levels has remained level or even decreased.

Family income has a direct impact on standardized test scores because people with higher family incomes can afford to dedicate more resources to preparing for the test, both directly and indirectly.

Upper income families have the resources for high-quality classroom-based test preparation courses, private tutors, and even ‘life coaches’ who work with rich kids on every angle of the selective college admissions process.

Indirect resources include the general sense of safety, stability and mastery that comes from growing up in a very stable environment that is largely insulated from the vagaries of economic uncertainty. Upper middle class parents are far more likely to have family friends and acquaintances in high-status professions and thus a broader and much more fertile social network.

And then there’s the obvious stuff, like the fact that rich kids live in bigger houses, have more privacy and quiet for studying, a better diet, and better medical care.

All of these resources, direct and indirect, come together to create social capital, and the kids at the top have far more of this than the kids at the middle or near the bottom.

A kid from a home with $100,000 in per capita income and 2000 square feet with 1 bathroom per person is going to be much better equipped to excel on a standardized test than a kid from a home with $10000 per capita income and 200 square feet with .25 bathrooms per person.

So the fact that a few are doing a lot better on standardized test preparation while the majority do about the same or worse simply mirrors the current distribution of other resources. A lot of money is being spent at the top of the pyramid to beat these tests, while at the middle and lower range of the pyramid, life in general is getting harder all the time and dedicating resources to beating a standardized test becomes a lower priority, or impossible.

The relationship standardized test scores bear to education is fuzzy anyway, but more on that later. Let’s assume for now that the tests are a proxy for the quality of education in the country right now.

Holding teachers and school districts accountable for measurable results isn’t the answer. Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind’ simply punishes school districts with poorer students and fewer resources. And metrics were made to be gamed. Ask any middle manager, or better yet an accountant for the details, if you don’t want to take my word for it.

Spending more money on education isn’t really the answer either. If we spend more on education, I can guarantee that the increase will find it’s way to the people who need it least.

What we really need to do is improve the underlying conditions that support education, and just about everything else. We need to see to it that people have adequate food, clothing, housing, and health care. Then we need to address income inequality with a more progressive tax system. And after that, perhaps we can begin to think about improving education.