Bridging the Gap: Background Knowledge, Prior Knowledge, and the Injustice of Standardised Testing

At my school in Northeast Los Angeles, a Title 1 institution with a higher-than-average number of students with Individualised Education Programmes (IEPs), the consequences of declining SBAC scores are a daily reality. This year, we’ve officially entered Tier II status, a label that reflects several years of diminishing performance on the state-mandated summative assessments. For our students, this designation is not just a statistic but a reflection of a systemic gap in their educational experience. It isn’t that they lack the intelligence or capability to succeed—far from it. Instead, they are navigating a system where the curriculum and assessments are fundamentally misaligned. The curriculum focuses on testing individual learning targets, emphasising incremental progress, whilst the SBAC demands a summative understanding of concepts spanning their entire school experience. This disconnect leaves students unprepared to meet the broad and integrative demands of these high-stakes tests, creating a widening disparity between what they are asked to demonstrate and what they are equipped to deliver.

Whilst modern education strategies like equity grading rightly focus on inclusivity and individual progress, they often fail to address the cultural mismatch inherent in assessments like the SBAC. These tests are rooted in a narrow conception of a “standard American experience,” which excludes the diverse cultural backgrounds and lived experiences of many students. This lack of representation not only alienates students but also undermines their ability to engage with and excel in assessments that do not reflect their realities or validate their knowledge. Equity grading emphasises incremental growth towards standards-based learning targets, which benefit students in the short term but fall short when faced with tests that demand the synthesis of broader concepts and prior learning. Compounding the issue is the design of the SBAC itself, which assumes a cultural and linguistic homogeneity that does not reflect the diversity of today’s classrooms. For our migrant students or those from underrepresented backgrounds, the content of these tests is often alien—steeped in references and contexts that are neither familiar nor relevant. These factors converge to create a testing environment that disadvantages those it purports to assess fairly, making it not just an academic issue but a profound inequity. Addressing this requires a fundamental shift in how we understand and prepare students for assessments, starting with recognising the importance of prior knowledge and its role in educational justice.

Defining Background Knowledge and Prior Knowledge

Understanding the distinction between background knowledge and prior knowledge is essential when considering how students approach assessments like the SBAC. Background knowledge refers to externally provided information designed to bridge gaps in understanding. It is often imparted in the classroom or through targeted instruction, offering students the context they may lack. Prior knowledge, on the other hand, is internalised through personal experience and learning over time. It is the foundation upon which new concepts can be built, enabling deeper comprehension and application.

For many autistic students, this distinction becomes even more pronounced. They may possess profound prior knowledge in their areas of interest—often at a level far exceeding their peers or even their teachers—but this is accompanied by significant gaps in generalised knowledge. This disparity can pose unique challenges when faced with assessments requiring a broad, cumulative understanding of diverse topics.

Consider the classic text book example of “Anne and Sam.” Anne enters a new job at a psychiatric clinic with prior knowledge about dementia and Alzheimer’s, gained through graduate training and work experience. She can readily draw upon this knowledge to navigate her new role. Sam, by contrast, begins her role at the same clinic without prior experience. She receives background knowledge through initial training, but this does not equate to the depth and accessibility of Anne’s prior knowledge. In much the same way, students who rely solely on fragmented background knowledge struggle when summative tests like the SBAC demand synthesis of years of cumulative learning.

This distinction is critical because tests like the SBAC are designed to evaluate students’ ability to activate and apply prior knowledge across a broad range of subjects. Yet, many students lack the opportunity to develop and integrate this knowledge due to a curriculum focused on short-term goals and individual targets. Without consistent reinforcement and connection to prior learning, students are left to piece together fragmented background knowledge, often finding themselves unprepared for the comprehensive demands of such assessments.

Declining SBAC Scores and Prior Knowledge Deficits

Declining SBAC scores reflect a systemic challenge in how students are prepared to meet the demands of summative assessments. Unlike classroom tasks focused on specific skills or learning targets, the SBAC measures cumulative understanding and “critical thinking.” It requires students to synthesise knowledge across years of instruction and apply it in unfamiliar contexts. For students who have had limited opportunities to integrate and build upon prior knowledge, this presents a significant obstacle. The test assumes a foundation of knowledge and skills that many students simply haven’t had the chance to develop in a holistic way.

Equity grading and the emphasis on individual learning targets have undoubtedly brought meaningful benefits to the classroom, particularly for underserved and neurodivergent students. These strategies focus on incremental mastery, allowing students to progress at their own pace and on their own terms. However, this approach also means that students may miss out on the broader synthesis and “cumulative thinking” required for high-stakes assessments like the SBAC. This is not a criticism of equity grading but rather an observation about its limitations in preparing students for tests that demand a different kind of knowledge integration (the purpose of a system is the thing it does).

Adding to the challenge is the absence of traditional mid-terms and finals in many schools. These high-stakes assessments, whilst often a source of trauma for students of previous generations, forced us to revisit and consolidate knowledge from an entire term or year. The process of preparing for these exams, though stressful, resulted in lasting learning for many of us. In contrast, modern students who focus on mastering discrete learning targets may struggle to retain and integrate this knowledge long term. It is not uncommon to see students forget fundamental concepts only a few months after achieving “mastery” because the skills were not revisited or integrated into a larger framework of understanding.

Reflecting on these differences, I wonder whether the lasting knowledge my generation retained came despite the stress of finals or perhaps even because of it. The current approach to education prioritises short-term success and inclusivity, which are undoubtedly important, but it often comes at the expense of preparing students for the holistic demands of tests like the SBAC (again, the purpose of a system is the thing that it does). Addressing this gap requires balancing the strengths of equity grading with opportunities for cumulative learning, ensuring students are equipped to meet both classroom goals and the broader expectations of summative assessments.

The Injustice of Standardised Testing

The phrase “the purpose of a system is the thing that it does” resonates deeply when reflecting on the role of standardised testing in education. If the true purpose of our schools were to produce well-rounded, capable adults, we would expect assessments to measure the diverse skills and knowledge that contribute to holistic human development. Instead, systems like the SBAC seem designed to prioritise one-dimensional metrics of “growth,” perpetuating a cycle where the focus is less on meaningful learning and more on incremental improvements in test performance. This raises uncomfortable questions: is the purpose of our educational system to cultivate thinkers, creators, and problem-solvers, or simply to generate better scores on successive tests?

The SBAC is riddled with cultural and geographical biases that undermine its claim to fairness. Its content assumes a monolithic understanding of what constitutes “American” culture and history, excluding the lived experiences of many students. Reading samples often feature heavily Americana-themed material, such as analysing speeches by U.S. presidents or identifying the main idea in excerpts that presuppose familiarity with specific historical contexts. For a student who has not grown up immersed in these cultural narratives, such tasks are not just challenging—they are alienating. The test evaluates their ability to navigate a narrow cultural framework rather than their actual literacy or reasoning skills.

Migrant and diverse populations are particularly disadvantaged by these biases. Students from migrant backgrounds often bring with them a wealth of knowledge from their home cultures, knowledge that could greatly enrich the classroom if acknowledged. Yet, standardised tests like the SBAC fail to measure or value this cultural capital. Instead, these students are penalised for not conforming to a rigid, U.S.-centric template of knowledge. Moreover, migrant students frequently face educational interruptions and linguistic barriers, which the SBAC does little to accommodate. The test assumes a continuous, uninterrupted educational trajectory and fluency in academic English, neither of which reflects the reality for many.

For students with IEPs, the situation is often just as inequitable. Testing accommodations mandated by IEPs are inconsistently honoured, with significant mismatches between what a student is entitled to and what they are actually provided during testing. This is particularly evident for students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD), Other Health Impairments (OHI), or Autism (AUT), whose needs are often misunderstood or inadequately supported. For example, a student’s IEP may specify access to a scribe or breaks as necessary accommodations, but these are frequently limited or poorly implemented in practice. Such failures not only violate the intent of the IEP but also create additional barriers for students already struggling within an inaccessible system.

These systemic shortcomings reflect a troubling reality: the purpose of standardised testing is not to assess the whole student but to sustain a machine built on quantifiable outputs. The SBAC, like many standardised tests, prioritises narrow definitions of success, privileging certain cultural narratives while marginalising others. In doing so, it perpetuates inequities rather than addressing them, raising the need for a critical reevaluation of what we want our education system to achieve—and for whom. If the goal is to nurture capable, empathetic, and culturally literate adults, we must first challenge a system that reduces them to a set of scores.

Migration and the Changing Face of Background Knowledge

Migration has profoundly transformed what constitutes “background knowledge” in classrooms, introducing rich cultural perspectives that challenge the dominant narrative of American individualism. Many students come from Indigenous or matristic cultures where knowledge is seen as collective and tasks are accomplished collaboratively. In these cultures, the strength of the community lies in its ability to share knowledge, support one another, and approach challenges as a team. These values stand in stark contrast to the rugged individualism prized by the American education system and embedded in standardised tests like the SBAC.

In our classrooms, we strive to honour these communal approaches through group work, collaborative projects, and peer-supported learning (e.g. Purposeful and Productive Instructional Grouping - PPIG). These activities recognise the inherent value of collective effort, allowing students to draw on each other’s strengths and create solutions together. Yet, when it comes to assessments like the SBAC, we strip students of their teams, their supports, and their collective ways of thinking, forcing them to perform in isolation. The results are as predictable as they are inequitable: students whose cultural knowledge and educational strengths thrive in communal settings are unfairly disadvantaged when measured against a framework that privileges individualism.

Consider the deep well of communal knowledge that students from Indigenous or matristic cultures bring to the classroom. Their traditions often emphasise storytelling, shared responsibilities, and the collective transmission of wisdom through the generations. These cultures value harmony and cooperation over competition, prioritising the well-being of the group rather than individual achievement. And yet, these rich, collaborative approaches to knowledge-building are excluded from standardised assessments, which demand solitary performance and penalise those who thrive in shared learning environments.

Whilst some curricula have begun to incorporate multicultural narratives, acknowledging the contributions of the Maya, Mexica, or other Indigenous cultures, standardised tests lag far behind. The SBAC and similar assessments are rooted in a narrow, outdated vision of education that assumes knowledge is a solitary endeavour. By ignoring the collective nature of learning in many cultures, these tests fail to capture the full scope of what students know and how they excel.

If education is to truly reflect the diversity of its students, it must embrace their ways of knowing and learning. This means designing assessments that value collaboration and honour the communal knowledge many students bring with them. Until then, we will continue to disadvantage students whose cultures celebrate the collective, while privileging those who align with an individualistic framework that feels increasingly out of step with our interconnected world.

Recommendations for Bridging the Gap

Bridging the gap between what students know and how they are assessed requires a fundamental rethinking of how we design and implement standardised tests and evaluations. To create a more equitable system, we must start by making tests inclusive, moving beyond narrow cultural frameworks to embrace the diverse experiences and knowledge that students bring to the classroom.

Inclusive test design begins with incorporating culturally responsive content and narratives. This means moving away from the heavily “Americana” focus of assessments like the SBAC and including stories, histories, and examples that reflect the diversity of today’s classrooms. The knowledge of Mexica (Aztec) and Maya civilisations, the contributions of matristic societies, or the rich oral traditions of African diasporic cultures are just a few of the narratives that could be integrated to make tests more representative. To achieve this, educators from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds should be actively engaged in the test creation process, ensuring that assessments reflect the lived realities of the students they are meant to serve.

At the same time, we must rethink the purpose and structure of assessments themselves. The over-reliance on high-stakes, summative tests is not only inequitable but also fails to capture the full range of what students know and can do. Instead, schools should adopt more flexible and inclusive evaluation methods that align with equity frameworks. This could include performance-based assessments, ongoing portfolios, or other tools that prioritise understanding and growth over rote memorisation. Additionally, implementing cumulative learning strategies within these frameworks ensures that students are encouraged to revisit, synthesise, and build upon what they’ve learned, preparing them for more holistic evaluations.

Empowering students also means creating opportunities for them to demonstrate their knowledge in ways that reflect their strengths. Cumulative assessments like projects, capstone experiences, or even simulated exams allow students to integrate and apply their prior knowledge in meaningful ways. These approaches not only provide a more accurate picture of student learning but also equip students with the critical thinking and problem-solving skills they will need beyond the classroom.

By making these changes, we can begin to close the gap between teaching, learning, and assessment. Inclusive, flexible, and empowering evaluation methods honour the diverse abilities and experiences of all students, creating a system that reflects their potential rather than penalising them for failing to conform to outdated and inequitable standards.

Broader Implications

The reliance on standardised testing reveals a troubling fixation on producing “standard humans” within an education system that was never designed to honour diversity. By privileging conformity and narrow metrics of success, these tests perpetuate inequities rather than addressing them. They fail to account for the vibrant individuality of students—their cultural backgrounds, learning styles, and ways of thinking—and instead reduce their abilities to a single score. Declining SBAC results are not a reflection of student failure but of a system unwilling to adapt to meet the needs of its diverse population.

Teachers and parents often see the harm done by this one-size-fits-all approach, yet any attempt to push back against the dominance of standardised tests is met with resistance from above. Administrators, policymakers, and even the test creators themselves cling to the notion that these assessments are the ultimate measure of accountability and progress, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. This creates a system where students, especially those from underrepresented or marginalised groups, are set up to fail—not because they lack the ability to succeed, but because the system refuses to meet them where they are.

To create a fair and equitable education system, we must reimagine how we assess learning. Testing should reflect the diversity and richness of the student population, celebrating what makes each student unique rather than penalising them for not fitting into a rigid standard. This requires a fundamental shift in priorities, moving away from standardised tests as the gold standard of achievement and embracing assessments that value growth, creativity, and the many forms of human potential. By doing so, we can build an education system that uplifts every student and honours their place in a truly diverse world.

Final thoughts …

SBAC scores serve as a stark reminder of the systemic gaps in our education system, particularly the lack of access to prior knowledge and the exclusivity of standardised tests. These assessments fail to reflect the realities of a diverse student population, privileging a narrow set of cultural norms and individualistic approaches to learning. As a result, many students are unfairly disadvantaged, not because they lack ability, but because the system does not honour their experiences, strengths, or ways of knowing.

To address this inequity, we must reimagine how we assess learning. Policymakers, educators, and test creators must work together to develop assessments that prioritise inclusivity and equity without sacrificing academic rigour. Tests should celebrate the richness of students’ diverse backgrounds and give them the tools to succeed on their own terms. By shifting the focus from standardisation to genuine understanding and growth, we can create a system that uplifts every learner and equips them to thrive in a truly inclusive society. It is time to move beyond outdated metrics and embrace a future where every student’s potential is valued and nurtured.