Brandon Clemens
Ms. Miandara
Individual Written Report
08 October 2024
What Effects Do Socioeconomic Factors Have on Qualitative Matters in Predicting Future Readiness and Success?
Schools often utilize qualitative assessments to gauge comprehension, but these methods can be inconsistent due to factors like socioeconomic status (SES). This research investigates how SES influences qualitative measures in predicting future readiness and success. It examines two viewpoints: standardized testing, viewed as a valid predictor of success, and the considerable impact of SES on student outcomes, which underscores the necessity for alternative preparation strategies.
Standardized testing is often considered an objective way to predict future success due to its established validity. These tests assess a combination of verbal, quantitative, writing, and analytical reasoning skills, alongside discipline-specific knowledge, effectively measuring competencies essential for mastering a field. Psychologist Nathan R. Kuncel from the University of Minnesota states, “The tests aim to measure the most relevant skills and knowledge for mastering a particular discipline” (Kuncel), emphasizing that content-specific tests are strong predictors of student success. In contrast, Saul Geiser, a research associate in higher education at UC Berkeley, contends that “standardized tests… exhibit greater precision and methodological rigor than high-school grades” (Geiser), suggesting that GPAs are unreliable because of inconsistent standards, while standardized testing offers a clearer assessment of a student’s understanding.
Roger Farr, a professor of education at Indiana University, highlights the limitations of multiple-choice questions, stating, “there's no way to build a multiple-choice question that allows students to show what they can do with what they know” (Farr). This approach often requires mere recognition of answers instead of demonstrating understanding. Alfie Kohn, a University of Chicago graduate and writer, supports this view, arguing that “multiple-choice questions fail to allow test-takers to express diverse thoughts and are rooted in uniform grade performance standards that assume all students learn at the same pace” (Kohn). This can label students needing more time as failures, reflecting a problematic focus on speed in both learning and timed exams. While some advocate for standardized testing as an objective measure of future success, others highlight that factors such as socioeconomic status significantly affect test outcomes, complicating the validity of these assessments.
Socioeconomic status greatly influences student success in testing and emphasizes the need for alternative educational strategies. The No Child Left Behind Act, enacted in the early 2000s, aimed to enhance student achievement and promote equity in education. John R. Slate, a professor at Sam Houston State University, notes that this act was intended to “improve student achievement, promote equality and equity in the education of all students, and reduce gaps” (Slate), underscoring concerns that socioeconomic class contributes to achievement disparities. Research suggests that informing junior high and high school students about faculty expectations and postsecondary standards can help cultivate a college-going mindset, increasing the likelihood of success for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and diverse ethnicities.
Surveys by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reveal that, on average, “minority students lagged behind their White peers in terms of academic achievement” (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Three primary factors contribute to this gap: minority students are more likely to come from “low-income households or single-parent families,” have parents with less education, and attend “under-funded schools” (Sirin). Selcuk R. Sirin indicates that traditional family background factors, such as parental education and income, are less predictive of academic success for minority students, raising concerns for research methodology and social policy. Studies show that neighborhood and school SES may exert a more substantial influence on academic achievement, especially in African American communities, highlighting the need for policies that enhance resources in disadvantaged areas. Furthermore, Geiser notes that “standardized admissions test scores, like the SAT I, are more closely linked to students' socioeconomic background than high school grade-point averages (HSGPA)” (Geiser), raising equity concerns in college admissions. In a study involving nearly 80,000 University of California freshmen, SAT scores correlated strongly with family income and parents’ education, while HSGPA showed only a weak connection. This suggests that standardized tests may disadvantage underrepresented minority students, reflecting socioeconomic privilege more than genuine academic readiness, necessitating a reevaluation of current assessment methods to consider a broader range of factors influencing student potential.
In today’s society, understanding the impact of socioeconomic status on student success and readiness is vital, especially concerning standardized testing. Multiple perspectives must be considered to evaluate the validity of these tests and their correlation with socioeconomic class. While both viewpoints recognize standardized testing as a common measure of predicting achievement, they differ on the objectivity of these tests and the importance of individuality. Given the considerable evidence that socioeconomic factors disadvantage certain students, it is crucial to acknowledge that, regardless of a test's validity or objectivity, students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often face disadvantages. Therefore, there is an urgent need to explore and implement more equitable alternatives to standardized testing.
Works Cited
Barnes, Wally, et al. “College-Readiness and Academic Preparedness: The Same Concepts?” Current Issues in Education, vol. 13, no. 4, Dec. 2010, https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/678.
Geiser, Saul, and Maria Veronica Santelices. “Validity of High-School Grades in Predicting Student Success beyond the Freshman Year: High-School Record vs. Standardized Tests as Indicators of Four-Year College Outcomes.” eScholarship, University of California, 2 Dec. 2008, escholarship.org/uc/item/7306z0zf.
Kuncel, Nathan R., and Sarah A. Hezlett. “Standardized Tests Predict Graduate Students' Success.” Science, vol. 315, no. 5815, 2007, pp. 1080-1081. DOI:10.1126/science.1136618.
Ricketts, Christine R. “End of Course Grades and Standardized Test Scores: Are Grades Predictive of Student Achievement?” Capella University, United States -- Minnesota, 2010. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/end-course-grades-standardized-test-scores-are/docview/755303452/se-2.
Sirin, Selcuk R. “Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research.” NYU Scholars, SAGE Publications Inc., 1 Jan. 1970, nyuscholars.nyu.edu/en/publications/socioeconomic-status-and-academic-achievement-a-meta-analytic-rev.
“The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores...” www.purpletod.co.za/docs/Standardized%20Testing.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept. 2024.
“View of College-Readiness and Academic Preparedness: The Same Concepts?” Current Issues in Education, cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/678/56. Accessed 8 Oct. 2024.


summary