Missing the mark: Standardized testing as epistemological erasure in U.S. schooling

Abstract

For the past century, standardized testing in the United States has been a measure of school success on both the individual and organizational level. A seemingly benign measure, such testing has informed the allocation of resources and placement of students in coursework commensurate with their perceived abilities. However, I argue that standardized tests serve a more malicious function in schooling by systematically erasing epistemologies that differ from the dominant society. Tracing the history of U.S. standardized testing in the 20th century, I conclude that such tests have marginalized low-income students and students of color, and will continue to do so as long as they are heavily relied upon as measures of intelligence and success.

Keywords

Standardized testing students of color erasure funds of knowledge critical race theory

Whenever there is a conversation about the educational crisis in the USA, students of color are at the center of this discourse. It is widely known that students of color—especially those identifying as African American, Latino, and Native American—are more likely to attend under-resourced schools (Darling-Hammond, 2004) and to have less qualified teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Lankford et al., 2002; Peske and Haycock, 2006) than white peers. They also have higher dropout rates (Christle et al., 2007) and lower standardized test scores (Jencks and Phillips, 2011). A plethora of factors, from structural to cultural, have been named as the cause(s) of student failure in schools. Some scholars have suggested that in order to improve academically, these students need more grit, perseverance, and passion for long-term goals (Duckworth et al., 2007). Others contend that structural racism, evident in the inequitable resourcing of schools, explains their poor academic performance (Vaught and Castagno, 2008). Although structural explanations appear more benign, both cultural and structural explanations perpetuate deficit beliefs about these student populations. Students of color are consistently viewed as academically inferior to white peers. However, the standards by which these students fail to measure up are hardly interrogated. For example, we know that urban schools with large students-of-color populations tend to be under-resourced, with outdated textbooks and a lack of technological equipment, compared to suburban, predominantly white schools (Condron and Roscigno, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 2006 ).

Who determines what resources in schools are valuable? What do we know about the resources that suburban white schools lack in comparison to urban schools? I argue that these questions are rarely examined because they do not support the narrative framing students of color as academically inferior. As those in power determine which epistemologies are valued, we marginalize the knowledge of communities of color in favor of the dominant ideologies. As such, liberal capitalism requires epistemological erasure (see Hong, 2015) in order to maintain its perfection (Ferguson, 2004). Only epistemologies that align with capitalist ideologies can be accepted; others must be concealed so as not to challenge the dominant belief system. Erasure prevents alternative knowledge from achieving dominance, as those who fail to conform to capitalist ideologies and epistemologies are left at the margins of society. As a product of capitalism, the U.S. school system is one such institution where epistemological erasure unfolds. In schools, we only value knowledge formations that can be measured in order to evaluate the quality of students, teachers, and institutions. Increasingly, standardized tests have been relied on as evaluation tools. In this essay, I argue that the utilization of standardized testing systematically erases the knowledge of communities of color, preserving achievement for those who can master liberal-capitalist knowledge formations.

Instead of finding the strengths and the knowledge that students of color possess, efforts are made to close the “achievement gap,” which essentially requires assimilating students of color so that they think and perform more like their white peers (Dyson, 2015). Because whiteness is the norm, it can never deviate from itself, and therefore never be pathologized. As such, it is always the task of non-white students to become more like their white peers in order to be viewed as academically successful. In doing so, students of color must leave behind the knowledge embedded in their communities and take up the knowledge valued in schools. Although there are many ways in which epistemological erasure unfolds in schools, in what follows, I focus on standardized testing as a tool to erase the epistemologies of communities, and therefore students, of color.

Historical context of standardized testing

Progressive Era

Since its inception during the Progressive Era, standardized testing has been used to racialize school success by penalizing populations that deviate from whiteness.¹ Although today whiteness pertains to all individuals of European origin, previous xenophobic sentiments racialized European immigrants as the “other” (Ferguson, 2004). Education reform during the Progressive Era reflected the broader ideals and sentiments of the era: the desire for efficiency, promotion of science and professional expertise, and concern with individual differences, as well as nationalism and xenophobia (Chapman, 1981) . Concerns about working-class immigrant students’ school performance and dropout rates led to an emphasis on saving money and resources (Mehta, 2015). These fears permeated school reform, most notably through the tracking of students supported by intelligence testing. Intelligence quotient (IQ) tests were revered as unbiased scientific tools capable of efficiently assigning children to a curriculum appropriate for their intellectual ability. Although more recent research suggests that these tests are culturally biased (Ford, 1990), even then family background and immigration status were strong predictors of test scores (Mehta, 2015). However, as the 20th century went on, whiteness shifted. As Ferguson (2004: 33) notes, European immigrants were eventually granted whiteness after World War I: “While ethnically different, European immigrants enjoyed racial similarity to native whites. Rather than threatening racial virility, such immigrants enhanced it.”

Civil rights era

Although Europeans were granted whiteness, standardized testing continued to marginalize other non-white groups. In 1966, the findings of the Coleman report were used to justify government spending cuts in education initiatives to support low-income students and students of color (Coleman and US Department of Health, 1966). The Coleman report was expected to reveal the inherent fallacy of “separate but equal” schooling during the Jim Crow era by showing that differences in resources at schools with minority students would explain the gap in outcomes between them and their white counterparts.² Surprisingly, the report revealed that “differences in outcomes were more attributable to differences in family background and peer composition than school resources” (Mehta, 2015: 66). Specifically, only 10% of the variance in achievement outcomes could be explained by school resources (Carver, 1975). These findings catapulted efforts for more efficient school spending. In a 1970 address on education reform, President Nixon said: “we are not getting as much as we should out of the dollars we spend … the best available evidence indicates that most of the compensatory education programs have not measurably helped poor children catch up.” In other words, if the money being poured into Title I equity programs and school resources only made a marginal difference, then school districts were wasting taxpayer dollars.³ Consequently, the educational focus shifted from school inputs to outputs; expenses (inputs) were monitored and scaled back, while teachers and administrators were increasingly held accountable for student performance (outputs) by increasing the distribution of standardized testing. As funds decreased, the use of standardized tests increased.

No Child Left Behind

More recently, we have witnessed the ways standardized tests have erased non-conforming epistemologies when the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 introduced “high-stakes” testing, which had a disproportionately negative impact on students of color (Darling-Hammond, 2007). NCLB diminished instructional quality by narrowing the curriculum to content covered on tests, and encouraged exclusionary tactics to keep low-performing students out of school in order to boost schoolwide test scores (Darling-Hammond, 2007). NCLB was a prime example of the deleterious effects of rationalizing schools. Under NCLB, schools receiving Title I funding were required to make Adequate Yearly Progress to secure funding for subsequent school years (Hursh, 2004). In order for a school to show Adequate Yearly Progress, 95% of students were required to take standardized tests and show improvement on previous test scores. Failure to meet Adequate Yearly Progress standards for two consecutive years meant a school was marked “in need of improvement.” For each subsequent year a Title I school had this status, it incurred the following additive penalties: Year 1: a school transfer option—parents can transfer students to another school that is not “in need of improvement”; Year 2: supplemental services (such as tutoring) are provided for students outside of school; Year 3: corrective action is taken (such as extending the school day/hours, staff replacement, or a new curriculum); Year 4: a plan for restructuring the school is devised (such as replacing all or nearly all staff or closing and reopening the school as a charter school); and Year 5: the restructuring plan is implemented.

There is a troubling emphasis on penalizing schools and students for low performance in this legislature. Even more troubling is the fact that students of color are disproportionally represented amongst low performers, and therefore are most penalized by high-stakes testing (Ladson-Billings, 2006) . Such consequences suggest that low-performing schools (which tend to have high numbers of students of color) are unworthy of Title 1 funding, supported by taxpayer dollars. This is not surprising as, historically, the US government has bounded the terms of citizenship to exclude non-conforming groups. Just as Lowe (1996) argues that immigration and naturalization laws have been used to police the terms of citizenry, NCLB used standardized test scores to distinguish between schools (and students) entitled to the benefits of citizenship (tax dollars) and those that are undeserving. That this distinction occurs along racial lines, but is masked by school performance, constitutes erasure. Just as New Deal reformers perpetuated the cycle of poverty in Black homes by denying protection to unwed mothers (Ferguson, 2004), NCLB’s removal of federal funds ensured the permanent failure of low-performing schools. When parents remove their children from a school, enrollment declines and, with it, per-capita federal funding. External supplemental services are then expected to compensate for inadequate schooling, only exacerbating the remaining parents’ distrust in the school. Yet somehow, with less funding and disgruntled parents, a school is expected to take corrective action, such as extending the school day or changing the curriculum, either of which will be an additional expense. When the school fails to correct the issues that loss of students and funding heightened, the final solution is then to fire the staff and rebuild the school, likely as a corporate-run charter school. That business professionals are profiting from the demise of schools serving underserved students is no coincidence. NCLB served as an agent of social reproduction by federally sanctioning the punishment of those who fail to conform to capitalist ideologies. Although NCLB has been replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, we are still recovering from its effects today.

When test performance is racialized in the ways described above, whiteness is perceived as the norm, and therefore justified as the only acceptable source of knowledge. Efforts are then made to lessen the achievement gap for students of color, as evidenced by disparities in test scores. These efforts involve fixing students rather than the method of examination, regardless of the evidence suggesting that standardized testing is a poor measure of student knowledge (Darling-Hammond, 1991; Haladyna et al., 1991). As such, we must examine the knowledge formations that standardized testing fails to capture, as well as the harmful capitalist ideologies that it does measure, and subsequently reinforces.

Theorizing standardized testing as epistemological erasure

Critical race theory

Many scholars in education have theorized around issues of erasure in the field. One theory that has received attention in the field is critical race theory (CRT). Borrowed from the legal field, CRT has been used to examine issues of inequality in education by maintaining that race, and consequently racism, is central to the structure of US society (Ladson-Billings and Tate, 1995). As such, structural racism impedes the lives of people of color on a daily basis, as this form of racism is very subtle and ubiquitous. Theorists contend that because of their unique historical experience, the perspectives of people of color often differ from those of their white counterparts (Leonardo, 2013). In a society dominated by whites, these perspectives are often silenced, leading to deficit narratives about people of color (Leonardo, 2013; Solórzano and Yosso, 2002). Mills (1997) argues that this arrangement is no coincidence, describing this phenomenon as a “racial contract”—the social agreement where whites are deemed as full persons and non-whites as a subset of humans who are inferior in status. Thus, knowledge acquired from any group other than whites is presumed inferior.

Such silencing constitutes epistemological erasure, as students of color are perceived to be lacking the knowledge valued by the dominant society, which simultaneously emphasizes the knowledge students lack while devaluing the knowledge these students possess. The use of standardized tests exemplifies how structurally racist policies that are seemingly race-neutral often disregard the knowledge of people of color and reify white supremacy. Research shows that standardized tests are biased against students of color and induce stereotype threat or performance anxiety related to beliefs about deficiencies in one’s own race (Ryan and Ryan, 2005; Steele and Aronson, 1998). Yet we see that the dominant narrative suggests that students, not the tests, are the problem. Test scores are then used to track students based on perceived ability, gatekeeping their access to the upper-level courses required for college entrance (Oakes, 1990).

Funds of knowledge

As a theoretical framework, funds of knowledge (FoK) also helps us to see the ways knowledge embedded in communities of color is often erased and ignored in schools generally, and with the practice of standardized testing specifically. FoK contends that classroom instruction can capitalize on the household and community resources possessed by students, particularly those of color (González et al., 2001; Moll et al., 1992) . However, an implicit assumption here is that knowledge in these communities is often ignored, as they are presumed to be lacking educational qualities. Collaborating with teachers, Moll et al. drew on ethnographic observations and interviews within a working-class Mexican community in the southwest of the USA; the authors explored students’ FoK or the “historically and accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being” (Moll et al., 1992: 133). Efforts to connect home and school with a FoK approach have shown improvements in student outcomes (Epstein, 2001; González et al., 2001).

Despite FoK showing promise, the troubling practice of “teaching to the test,” where content not covered by standardized tests is overlooked in the classroom in an effort to improve test performance, is still commonly practiced in schools with high numbers of students of color ( Wright, 2002 ; Horn, 2003 ). Capitalism’s fixation on individualization has led to isolated assessments of knowledge. The individual nature of standardized tests inherently conceals the learning gained through interactive classroom and real-world experiences. This is evident in the fact that teachers must often teach students specific test-taking strategies and procedures. Students are often advised to read directions carefully, write responses neatly, and manage their time effectively (Nitko, 2001) . The rules around test administration also emphasize the need for students to complete tasks independently. On standardized tests, test-takers usually cannot ask the proctor clarifying questions, and must independently complete their answer sheets. FoK has been used to explain the alleged underperformance of marginalized communities (e.g. students of color) as the knowledge acquired at home is not measured or valued in the same way as in-school knowledge. FoK forces us to reconsider what standardized testing is truly measuring. If the school environment is systematically ignoring knowledge embedded in communities of color, then one can assume that the successful performance of standardized tests provides—at best—a unilateral perspective of students’ knowledge. Despite this shortcoming, the intellectual abilities of students of color are constantly being judged by these tests.

Both the structure and the content of standardized tests reflect the capitalist ideologies of rationality, individualization, and progress. First, we must examine the notion of rationality. Proponents of standardized tests claim that they are unbiased scientific assessments. However, scientific inquiry is not the only source of knowledge. This preference for objectivity reflects the myth of progress that Benjamin (1999: 478) warns us about: “as soon as it becomes the signature of historical process as a whole, the concept of progress bespeaks an uncritical hypostatization rather than a critical interrogation.” Our fixation on rationality stems from the Enlightenment; however, we must remember that other epistemologies existed prior to the western Enlightenment, and still exist today. It is dangerous, therefore, to equate recency with progress, as we lose the ability to critique societies and belief systems that are deemed progressive.

Unfortunately, rationality has become ideologically exempt from critique under capitalism. If we examine rationality more critically, we find that the idealization of objectivity is a form of bias against alternative knowledge formations. As Ferguson (2004: 85) argues: “we must articulate a theory of rationality that accounts for processes of marginalization, disenfranchisement, and enslavement.” In other words, despite claims of neutrality, rationality has been racialized and gendered such that groups that do not conform to heteropatriarchy are deemed irrational. The FoK and CRT theoretical frameworks highlight the alternative knowledge embedded in communities of color to show other ways of being, and therefore knowing, that exist outside the bounds of rationalization. That we insist on discrediting these alternative knowledge formations constitutes epistemological erasure. Standardized testing erases other knowledge formations by insisting that students express their knowledge in what is purported to be an objective, measurable way. In order to perform successfully on a standardized test, a student must master silently sitting at a desk for an extended period of time, and reading and correctly filling out an answer sheet. These tasks have little to do with content and more to do with the test-taking procedure.

For decades, some educators have championed alternative assessments to replace or at least supplement standardized testing. Supporters of alternative assessments claim that they are more authentic measures of students’ ability to apply their knowledge to real-world contexts. Proponents criticize standardized tests for their reliance on “proxy” tasks or inauthentic measures (Worthen, 1993). They claim that alternative assessments, such as portfolios, journals, or think-aloud tasks, are more authentic to the real-world application of school content. Of course, some scholars have noted the difficulty in developing a standardized rating system for assessments such as portfolios and journals (Maeroff, 1991; Watt, 2005). Others question the ability to reliably measure the metacognitive skills that alternative assessments claim to support (O’Neil and Abedi, 1996). However, such criticisms stem from assumptions that rationalization is the gold standard. They hold alternative assessments to a standard they cannot meet. We must resist the urge to measure learning numerically and focus on examining learning authentically. With a goal of authenticity in mind, we allow for the integration of alternative epistemologies that represent the knowledge acquired both in school and at home.

Conclusion

In sum, standardized testing represents epistemological erasure, both in its limited ability to measure meaningful learning and in the ways scores are used to marginalize non-conforming groups—namely, students of color. The question, then, is how do we overcome such erasure once we have identified it? CRT theorists argue that through counter-storytelling, which centers the experiential knowledge of people of color, master narratives can be disrupted (Howard, 2010 ; Ladson-Billings, 1998 ) as people of color begin to name their own reality (Ladson-Billings and Tate, 1995). This tenet is often visible in the methodologies of CRT scholars which challenge seemingly objective research that has for too long silenced the knowledge people of color possess (Solórzano and Yosso, 2002). Through counter-storytelling, CRT scholars in education have dismantled harmful narratives about students of color, including beliefs about black males as poor students (Harper, 2009; Harper and Davis, 2012; Stinson, 2008) and parents of color as uninvolved (Jeynes, 2014). The more prevalent these counter-stories become, the less credibility the dominant narratives have. Stories of intelligent and successful students of color directly challenge beliefs about them as academically inferior students. Thus, evidence of student knowledge and ability, in spite of poor test scores, may lead to a re-evaluation of the testing tools that have been used to marginalize these students.

Similarly, FoK challenges epistemological erasure and allows us to question the use of standardized tests by acknowledging the epistemologies embedded in communities of color. Such knowledge may not reflect the mainstream values as upheld by standardized testing, but nevertheless this theoretical perspective gives credence to the knowledge within communities of color. Theoretical perspectives such as CRT and FoK represent resistance against the erasure of knowledge that has been erased for not representing the dominant perspective.

However, there is a risk in exposing and challenging epistemological erasure. By making erased knowledge visible, the dominant culture may attempt to further conceal the knowledge by questioning the trustworthiness of alternative epistemologies. For example, CRT has faced much criticism for lacking a solid empirical foundation. As such, counter-storytelling methodologies have been critiqued as “anecdotal” (Ladson-Billings, 2013). Regardless of these potential obstacles, we must continue to challenge epistemological erasure, not to gain approval from the dominant culture, but for self-validation. As Robinson (1983: 171) notes in reference to the Black radical tradition, we must continue the “development of a collective consciousness informed by the historical struggles for liberation and motivated by shared sense of obligation to preserve collective being, the ontological totality.” Students of color need to know their cultural knowledge, and their world view is valuable, regardless of the (dis)approval of dominant society. They need reassurance of their academic abilities in the face of reminders of their deficiencies. It is not likely that the dominant culture will change its ways for any reason other than self-interest. Standardized tests will not disappear anytime soon and, even if they are replaced, their successor will still uphold capitalist values as long as our education system functions within a capitalist society. If we encourage students of color to embrace their collective consciousness and challenge the western epistemologies imposed on them, such collective resistance may be the catalyst we need to effectively combat erasure.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author would like to comment that the Eugene Cota-Robles Fellowship funded his graduate studies during the course of writing this piece.

Notes

References

Benjamin

(1999) N: On the theory of knowledge, theory of progress. In: The Arcades Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 456--458.

Carver

(1975) The Coleman report: Using inappropriately designed achievement tests. American Educational Research Journal 12(1): 77–86.

Chapman PD (1981) Schools as sorters: Testing and tracking in California, 1910-1925. Journal of Social History 14(4): 701--717.

Christle

Jolivette

Nelson

(2007) School characteristics related to high school dropout rates. Remedial and Special Education 28(6): 325–339.

Coleman

and US Department of Health (1966) Equality of Educational Opportunity. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: Office of Education, US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Condron

Roscigno

(2003) Disparities within: Unequal spending and achievement in an urban school district. Sociology of Education 76(1): 18–36.

Darling-Hammond

(1991) The implications of testing policy for quality and equality. Phi Delta Kappan 73(3): 220–225.

Darling-Hammond

(2004) The color line in American education: Race, resources, and student achievement. Du Bois Review 1(2): 213–246.

Darling‐Hammond

(2007) Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of “No Child Left Behind”. Race Ethnicity and Education 10(3): 245–260.

10.

Duckworth

Peterson

Matthews

et al . (2007) Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(6): 1087–1101.

11.

Dyson

(2015) The search for inclusion: Deficit discourse and the erasure of childhoods. Language Arts 92(3): 199–207.

12.

Epstein

(2001) Building bridges of home, school, and community: The importance of design. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 6(1–2): 161–168.

13.

Fairclough

(2001) Teaching Equality: Black Schools in the Age of Jim Crow. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

14.

Ferguson

(2004) Aberrations in Black: Toward a Queer of Color Critique. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

15.

Ford

(1990) The coloring of IQ testing: A new name for an old phenomenon. Urban League Review 13(1–2): 99–111.

16.

González

Andrade

Civil

et al . (2001) Bridging funds of distributed knowledge: Creating zones of practices in mathematics. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 6(1–2): 115–132.

17.

Haladyna

Nolen

Haas

(1991) Raising standardized achievement test scores and the origins of test score pollution. Educational Researcher 20(5): 2–7.

18.

Harper

(2009) Niggers no more: A critical race counternarrative on black male student achievement at predominantly white colleges and universities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 22(6): 697–712.

19.

Harper

Davis

III (2012) They (don’t) care about education: A counternarrative on black male students’ responses to inequitable schooling. Journal of Educational Foundations 26(1–2): 103–120.

20.

Horn C (2003). High-stakes testing and students: Stopping or perpetuating a cycle of failure? Theory into Practice 42(1): 30--41.

21.

Hong

(2015) Death beyond Disavowal: The Impossible Politics of Difference. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

22.

Howard TC (2010) Why race and culture matters in schools: Closing the achievement gap in America’s classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

23.

Hursh D (2004) No Child Left Behind: The rise of educational markets and the decline of social justice. In: O’Donnell J, Pruyn M and Chávez RC (eds) Social Justice in These Times. Charlotte, NC: Information Age, 173–190.

24.

Jencks

Phillips

(eds) (2011) The Black–White Test Score Gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

25.

Jeynes

(2014) Parent involvement for urban students and youth of color. In: Milner

Lomotey

(eds) Handbook of Urban Education. London: Routledge, 149–166.

26.

Ladson-Billings (2006) From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in US schools. Educational researcher 35(7): 3--12.

27.

Ladson-Billings G (1998) Just what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a nice field like education? International journal of qualitative studies in education 11(1): 7--24.

28.

Ladson-Billings G (2013) Critical race theory–What it is not! In: Lynn M and Dixson A (eds) The handbook of critical race theory in education. New York, NY: Routledge, 34--47.

29.

Ladson-Billings G and Tate W (1995) Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers CollegeRecord 97: 47–68.

30.

Lankford

Loeb

Wyckoff

(2002) Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24(1): 37–62.

31.

Leonardo

(2013) Race Frameworks: A Multidimensional Theory of Racism and Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

32.

Lowe

(1996) Immigrant Acts: On Asian American Cultural Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

33.

Maeroff

(1991) Assessing alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 73(4): 272–281.

34.

Mehta

(2015) The Allure of Order: High Hopes, Dashed Expectations, and the Troubled Quest to Remake American Schooling. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

35.

Mills

(1997) The Racial Contract. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

36.

Moll LC, Amanti C, Neff D, et al. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into practice 31(2): 132--141.

37.

Nitko AJ (2001). Educational assessment of students (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

38.

Nixon R (1970) containing the public messages, speeches, and statements of the president.Nixon, Richard M. (Richard Milhous), 1913-, United States. President (1969-1974 : Nixon), United States. Office of the Federal Register.Washington: Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration, For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., 1971.

39.

Oakes

(1990) Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

40.

O’Neil

Jr Abedi

(1996) Reliability and validity of a state metacognitive inventory: Potential for alternative assessment. Journal of Educational Research 89(4): 234–245.

41.

Peske

Haycock

(2006) Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality: A report and recommendations by the Education Trust. Washington, DC: Education Trust.

42.

Richardson

Johanningmeier

(1998) Intelligence testing: The legitimation of a meritocratic educational science. International Journal of Educational Research 27(8): 699–714.

43.

Robinson

(1983) Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

44.

Ryan

(2005) Psychological processes underlying stereotype threat and standardized math test performance. Educational Psychologist 40(1): 53–63.

45.

Solórzano

Yosso

(2002) Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry 8(1): 23–44.

46.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1998). Stereotype threat and the test performance of academically successful African Americans. In: Jencks C and Phillips M (eds) The Black-White test score gap, 401-427.

47.

Stinson

(2008) Negotiating sociocultural discourses: The counter-storytelling of academically (and mathematically) successful African American male students. American Educational Research Journal 45(4): 975–1010.

48.

Vaught

Castagno

(2008) “I don't think I’m a racist”: Critical race theory, teacher attitudes, and structural racism. Race Ethnicity and Education 11(2): 95–113.

49.

Wright WE (2002) The effects of high stakes testing in an inner-city elementary school: The curriculum, the teachers, and the English language learners. Current Issues in Education 5.

50.

Watt HM (2005) Attitudes to the use of alternative assessment methods in mathematics: A study with secondary mathematics teachers in Sydney, Australia. Educational Studies in Mathematics 58(1): 21--44.

51.

Worthen

(1993) Critical issues that will determine the future of alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 74(6): 444--454.