Why do journalists lie about standardised test results?
autside.substack.com
A recent opinion piece about the ongoing debate around the validity of different methods for assessing student achievement and progress in education got me thinking. Standardised test scores, produced by large corporate testing companies, are often promoted by the media as more factual than teacher assessments through classroom grades. However, this discourse warrants closer scrutiny.
Media outlets frequently report on standardised test data over classroom grades, despite economic conflicts of interest. Major media conglomerates often have financial ties to standardised testing companies and benefit from promoting these assessments as rigorous and factual benchmarks for educational success. Meanwhile, alarmist stories of failing schools generate more interest than positive coverage. This creates a biased narrative around education, overemphasising shortcomings revealed through standardised testing.
In addition, the media consistently misreports test score data itself. For example, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test results are interpreted as showing two-thirds of students reading below "proficient" levels. In reality, the NAEP defines "proficient" as beyond grade level expectations. Interpreted accurately, these tests show two-thirds of students reading at or above the level appropriate for their grade - a very different headline.
When reporting on discrepancies between rising grades and declining test scores, media outlets simply assume standardised tests are more valid, without justification. This demonstrates an inherent bias towards test-makers and corporations over classroom teachers. Meanwhile, the testing industry generates billions in revenue each year, whist teachers earn below poverty level salaries. Testing companies financially benefit from narratives of crisis and failure in education necessitating increased standardised testing regimes.
Whilst certain issues with aspects of public education rightly warrant open debate, a narrow focus on standardised test data obscures the impact of wider socioeconomic factors like child poverty. When controlling for poverty rates, US test scores compare more favourably to other countries. And increased funding of schools has repeatedly shown positive impacts on student achievement.
Thus, whilst standardised testing data is promoted as authoritative evidence on educational achievement, in reality these corporate-produced metrics require more scepticism. Media culpability in exacerbating the outsized influence of standardised tests is a growing concern, as is the need for greater funding support across school systems.
An example from very close to home
My employer has changed providers this year. We now use the iReady testing platform from Curriculum Associates, a $230m/yr company. When I first learned of the change, I went in search of information on the company and the tools. I wanted to see if there was anything to this stuff.
Based on my standard critique of how standardised test results are often misinterpreted and misreported to paint an overly negative picture of student achievement, I examined the marketing material about iReady with a critical eye. This one, the very first result on a recent Bing search, is entirely AI generated. It’s so silly, it’s almost laughable.
The AI-generated iReady marketing material does seem to follow a similar pattern of using concerning statistics to highlight problems and present their tool as the solution. For example, the material states "Only 35% of students are proficient in reading" which sounds quite alarming. However, it does not provide proper context or explain what measure of "proficiency" is being used. Based on the article, statistics like these can be misleading if the proficiency benchmark is set higher than grade level expectations.
The marketing material then presents iReady as the answer to low proficiency issues. Whilst iReady does appear in the piece to be an innovative personalised learning platform, the marketing leans into rhetoric implying vast swaths of students are struggling academically without acknowledging the complexity of factors impacting achievement. There is likely truth to both the concerns and benefits highlighted, but the approach subtly taps into narratives of educational crisis.
Thus, the iReady marketing material leverages alarming statistics on proficiency gaps and promises of improvement from its tool. Whilst this may technically be truthful (hint: it’s not), the pattern aligns with tendencies regarding the selective use of test data, a lack of insightful context, an overemphasis on shortcomings, and the promotion of private corporate solutions. As educational technologies continue to expand their reach, maintaining a balanced perspective on claims of crisis and silver bullet solutions will remain important. Room remains for improving achievement, but we must also critically examine how efficacy is presented and measured.
When is a solution not a solution?
Capitalist entities operate within economic structures that incentivise and often necessitate perpetual growth of profits and earnings. As a result, large corporations repeatedly look to expand revenue streams through new products, services and markets. Whilst this can drive innovation and economic productivity, the endless pursuit of growth can also motivate dubious practices.
In sectors like education, corporations have financial imperatives to tap into narratives around supposed crises such as achievement gaps or skills shortages. There is truth underlying these societal challenges, but capitalist interests are served when problems appear more severe or intractable. Corporations then present their private, profit-driven products and services as essential solutions.
However, in many instances the market-based solutions offered fail to address root causes and may even exacerbate issues. Educational technologies or charter schools may yield some gains but skirt around wider funding inadequacies and societal inequities. And provoking cycles of panic around educational problems creates instability whilst benefiting providers of costly interventions.
Ultimately, within capitalist models solving intractable problems offers diminishing returns for corporations. Whilst social progress requires sustained collective effort and resources to tackle difficult challenges, profits flow most easily from selling shiny new solutions to constantly emerging or exaggerated crises. Educational debate continues around balancing reforms, ideological biases, and commercial interests.
Thus, the endless growth mandate of corporations motivates selling technology platforms, assessments and other interventions as panaceas to supposed educational crises. However, capitalist imperatives around optimising profits rather than sustainably solving complex societal problems persist. Maintaining accountability around claims and carefully judging proposed solutions remains vital.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Why do journalists lie about standardised test results?
Why do journalists lie about standardised test results?
Why do journalists lie about standardised test results?
A recent opinion piece about the ongoing debate around the validity of different methods for assessing student achievement and progress in education got me thinking. Standardised test scores, produced by large corporate testing companies, are often promoted by the media as more factual than teacher assessments through classroom grades. However, this discourse warrants closer scrutiny.
Media outlets frequently report on standardised test data over classroom grades, despite economic conflicts of interest. Major media conglomerates often have financial ties to standardised testing companies and benefit from promoting these assessments as rigorous and factual benchmarks for educational success. Meanwhile, alarmist stories of failing schools generate more interest than positive coverage. This creates a biased narrative around education, overemphasising shortcomings revealed through standardised testing.
In addition, the media consistently misreports test score data itself. For example, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test results are interpreted as showing two-thirds of students reading below "proficient" levels. In reality, the NAEP defines "proficient" as beyond grade level expectations. Interpreted accurately, these tests show two-thirds of students reading at or above the level appropriate for their grade - a very different headline.
When reporting on discrepancies between rising grades and declining test scores, media outlets simply assume standardised tests are more valid, without justification. This demonstrates an inherent bias towards test-makers and corporations over classroom teachers. Meanwhile, the testing industry generates billions in revenue each year, whist teachers earn below poverty level salaries. Testing companies financially benefit from narratives of crisis and failure in education necessitating increased standardised testing regimes.
Whilst certain issues with aspects of public education rightly warrant open debate, a narrow focus on standardised test data obscures the impact of wider socioeconomic factors like child poverty. When controlling for poverty rates, US test scores compare more favourably to other countries. And increased funding of schools has repeatedly shown positive impacts on student achievement.
Thus, whilst standardised testing data is promoted as authoritative evidence on educational achievement, in reality these corporate-produced metrics require more scepticism. Media culpability in exacerbating the outsized influence of standardised tests is a growing concern, as is the need for greater funding support across school systems.
An example from very close to home
My employer has changed providers this year. We now use the iReady testing platform from Curriculum Associates, a $230m/yr company. When I first learned of the change, I went in search of information on the company and the tools. I wanted to see if there was anything to this stuff.
Based on my standard critique of how standardised test results are often misinterpreted and misreported to paint an overly negative picture of student achievement, I examined the marketing material about iReady with a critical eye. This one, the very first result on a recent Bing search, is entirely AI generated. It’s so silly, it’s almost laughable.
The AI-generated iReady marketing material does seem to follow a similar pattern of using concerning statistics to highlight problems and present their tool as the solution. For example, the material states "Only 35% of students are proficient in reading" which sounds quite alarming. However, it does not provide proper context or explain what measure of "proficiency" is being used. Based on the article, statistics like these can be misleading if the proficiency benchmark is set higher than grade level expectations.
The marketing material then presents iReady as the answer to low proficiency issues. Whilst iReady does appear in the piece to be an innovative personalised learning platform, the marketing leans into rhetoric implying vast swaths of students are struggling academically without acknowledging the complexity of factors impacting achievement. There is likely truth to both the concerns and benefits highlighted, but the approach subtly taps into narratives of educational crisis.
Thus, the iReady marketing material leverages alarming statistics on proficiency gaps and promises of improvement from its tool. Whilst this may technically be truthful (hint: it’s not), the pattern aligns with tendencies regarding the selective use of test data, a lack of insightful context, an overemphasis on shortcomings, and the promotion of private corporate solutions. As educational technologies continue to expand their reach, maintaining a balanced perspective on claims of crisis and silver bullet solutions will remain important. Room remains for improving achievement, but we must also critically examine how efficacy is presented and measured.
When is a solution not a solution?
Capitalist entities operate within economic structures that incentivise and often necessitate perpetual growth of profits and earnings. As a result, large corporations repeatedly look to expand revenue streams through new products, services and markets. Whilst this can drive innovation and economic productivity, the endless pursuit of growth can also motivate dubious practices.
In sectors like education, corporations have financial imperatives to tap into narratives around supposed crises such as achievement gaps or skills shortages. There is truth underlying these societal challenges, but capitalist interests are served when problems appear more severe or intractable. Corporations then present their private, profit-driven products and services as essential solutions.
However, in many instances the market-based solutions offered fail to address root causes and may even exacerbate issues. Educational technologies or charter schools may yield some gains but skirt around wider funding inadequacies and societal inequities. And provoking cycles of panic around educational problems creates instability whilst benefiting providers of costly interventions.
Ultimately, within capitalist models solving intractable problems offers diminishing returns for corporations. Whilst social progress requires sustained collective effort and resources to tackle difficult challenges, profits flow most easily from selling shiny new solutions to constantly emerging or exaggerated crises. Educational debate continues around balancing reforms, ideological biases, and commercial interests.
Thus, the endless growth mandate of corporations motivates selling technology platforms, assessments and other interventions as panaceas to supposed educational crises. However, capitalist imperatives around optimising profits rather than sustainably solving complex societal problems persist. Maintaining accountability around claims and carefully judging proposed solutions remains vital.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.