As many of my American Studies classmates have noted, there is a great divide between low-income and higher-income opportunities when it comes to standardized testing like the ACT/SAT. More people in higher-income areas are able to pay for expensive private tutoring or have access to a test prep class, which can give an advantage to higher-income students and well-funded school. For me, and most New Trier students, it would be ridiculous to go into an ACT unprepared because of the opportunities we are given.
So, if money can buy extra test prep, can it also buy extra time on the test to create yet another advantage for higher-income students?
The fact that many more students in well-off areas like the New Trier Township are receiving extra test time may seem odd. One might initially think that there are no more students with learning disabilities in the New Trier district than any other district, so there would be an equal number of students with extra time on the ACT: "The natural proportion of learning disabilities should be somewhere around 2 percent, the College Board said, but at some elite schools, up to 46 percent of students receive special accommodations to take the tests, including extra time" (Tapper, ABC News).
I would not say that people at higher-income schools who have extra time accommodations are not deserving it. There are many people that do need extra time on tests because of learning disabilities. But, why would the numbers be so disproportionate with many fewer people from lower-income areas receiving extra test time? I believe the answer lies in a flaw in the system: "Whatever the exam, applicants need to demonstrate that their disability substantially limits their daily functioning and their ability to take the test. So legal experts say the best investment is a comprehensive private evaluation, which can cost $1,000 to $5,000" (NY Times, Moore). In order to receive extra time accommodations, a parent or guardian usually must take their child to various physicians for a proper diagnosis of their learning disability. As you might imagine, this cost might not be available to families with low-income and therefore they cannot have the extra time they need. Besides money, the parents/guardian of the low-income students probably has a manual labor job(s) and they are tired and busy much of the time. Therefore, they are more unlikely to advocate for their child and spend a lot of time submitting forms and doctor recommendations for extra time.In what other ways do you think the standardized testing system favors wealthier people? Why do you think this is a problem?
Also, please feel free to comment on the photo--I chose that one for a reason.
I think that the standardized testing system is better for the wealthy because of money but also because of how the money gets to people. My mother, because of her corporate job, is able to take time off of work to go see my college counselor with me and plan for standardized testing. If she had worked in a manual labor sort of job, she might not be given the same time off. I know that when I worked at the Botanic Gardens, I had to fill out a sheet requesting time off in advance and even then it was not guaranteed
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Shannon. I think you address another interesting issue about poverty. Generally, low-income families do not have parents that are around too often, which results in the lack of a role model for children. Could this also have an affect on a low-income child when they are dealing with college or might it give the impression that college is not even an option?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Shannon. I think you address another interesting issue about poverty. Generally, low-income families do not have parents that are around too often, which results in the lack of a role model for children. Could this also have an affect on a low-income child when they are dealing with college or might it give the impression that college is not even an option?
ReplyDelete