I know that there are a lot of people in my 310 class that are looking at standardized testing. This post is for all of you!! Check out this article that I found about the process that tests go through in order to be “non-biased.” The author
the process of bias and sensitivity review is something perhaps more sinister: a particularly stunning demonstration of how the inertia built into bureaucracy can maintain a concept of standardization that actually requires censorship to function.”
Laquer talks about many different sentences and words that had to be cut out of questions just because someone on the panel thought that it would be biased towards one group or another. Anything dealing with religious beliefs, the word wizard, and even a story dealing with mountains had to be cut out. Now, I can understand where words carrying religious connotations need to be cut out, but “mountains”?!?!. Honestly people, just because students do not live in the mountains does not mean that they do not know what they are. But apparently
“children from non-mountainous regions might not understand it.”
Laquer was on a panel that just dealt with vocabulary questions. They had to make sentences that would be used in a vocabulary section on a standardized test. So, my feelings on the whole thing are that trying to “fix” our standardized tests is becoming almost ridiculous. Honestly, the point of vocab is not always whether or not a child knows a word, but if they can derive its meaning based on its context. So, using a story about mountains would not really matter because it is not about personal experience but more so about developing meaning through what a student reads (Yippie for Reader Response Theory). Honestly, I agree with the author that the intentions are good, but all of this review is turning into harsh censorship. Laquer ends by saying,
“Our language is being sanitized by the government, but we should not assume that censorship is always the result of a villain that we can fight head on. It is the result of thousands of well-meaning people trying to create a standard and a way to test everyone against it. Perfect standardization is probably impossible, and it may be time to consider that it is also undesirable. A language meant to fit everyone is meant to benefit no one.”
I especially like her last sentence so I ‘m going to let her end my blog with it as well:
“A language meant to fit everyone is meant to benefit no one.”
Cristi Laquer.”Standardizing Sensitivity.” The College Hill Independent.March 16, 2007.
Experimentation 
Leave a comment