ing "denies some students the opportunity to be other than hewers of wood and . . . betrays the fundamental precepts on which America was founded" (Bracey, 1998, p. 9).
Standardized tests are used in multiple ways, not all of which are educationally or socially legitimate. They are meant to "objectively" monitor student proficiency vis-à-vis subjective classroom dynamics, though the tests themselves may reflect the subjectivity of test originators. They are used to diagnose presence or absence of aptitudes and skills, though they cannot cure problems they identify. They may measure teacher accountability, with high or low scores reflecting a teacher's competence as an agent of learning, but teachers fearing job loss might shortchange student learning by "teaching to the test" (pp. 10-11). Student accountability can be measured by in theory, but test scores may reflect test-taking rather than academic skills. Even the creator of the original SAT conceived of it as "'merely a supplemental record' to the rest of the high school record" (p. 11), a fact often ignored by psychometrics advocates. Just as the tests are used to track students academically, so are they used to make selection decisions with regard to education and career planning.
Tests are valorized unrealistically by educators and, in particular, by test creators. But the creators are the ones who set the standards--in secret--by which test takers are judged. Takers who have no idea of what standards the creators have set may not have the skills that the creators anticipate as decisive for high scores. The result is that the test creators exert power over the takers all out of proportion to the dynamics of the full learning experience.
Bracey cites variables that affect test scores up or down for individuals and groups--even countries: family income, parental educational level, community poverty, student motivation and health, cultural factors (e.g., special tutoring)....