Rise and Popularity of GED Tests in America

Rise and Popularity of GED Tests in the US

GED tests are widely employed in the U.S. to certify academic knowledge and skills at high school level.  The tests have gained much popularity since 1970 with more than 700,000 individuals taking the test annually.  A peak testing volume that numbers more than a million was attained in 2001.  The U.S. Census of 2000 indicated that approximately 40 million adults aged 15 years and older did not possess a high school diploma (American Council of Education, 2007).

The GED is largely seen as a major second chance” program for adults who did not complete high school for various reasons (Danielle, 2006).  The past three decades have seen the institutionalization of GED and preparation programs through state, federal and local adult education workforce investment programs.  Public spending on the tests and preparation for them has reached a remarkably high level (Song & Hsu, 2008). Supporters of the program believe that the recipients of GEDs have attained the same skills as individuals who hold traditional high school diplomas, and that they share equal chances of employment and access to higher education.

Numerous studies (Andrew & Whitney, 1981; Cameron & Heckman, 1993; Song & Hsu, 2008) about the implications of obtaining a GED certificate have been motivated by the high popularity and influence of the GED.  A majority of researchers have concentrated on the outcome of labor markets and the GED recipients’ post secondary success, especially when compared to ordinary high school graduates.  Most studies on GED recipients’ labor market outcomes have made comparisons across gender, age, race or geographical regions.  Studies have often yielded mixed results depending on the applied research methodologies and sample used.

A majority of recent studies seem to argue that holders of GEDs should not be categorized as high school graduates, and should be separately documented.  Greene and Winters (2005) asserted it is not appropriate to consider recipients of GED as graduates in the calculation of graduation rates since this will “credit the very schools that failed to graduate these students with their successes” (p. 76).  The fundamental reason that the rate of graduation is calculated is to assess the performance of schools.  Greene and Winters contended that the recipients of GEDs are not truly graduates of any specific school.  Instead, they are high school dropouts who take it upon themselves to earn an alternative certificate later in life.

Other studies (Haveman & Wolfe, 1995; Heckman, & Vytlacil, 1998) have excluded all recipients of GEDs from high school graduate calculations.  Costs and benefits of finishing high school with ordinary diplomas are affected by the presence of GEDs, and therefore, completely omitting GEDs may not provide an adequate picture.

Again, the number of GED certificates that were issued significantly increased in the 1990s.  An increasing number of these certificates went to individuals aged 19 or less.  An increased accessibility to GEDs is evident, especially for younger individuals, even though the content of academics within the program has become tougher (Laurence, et al., 1993).  Finally, an important role is played by economic considerations in whether a student obtains a GED or completes a traditional high school diploma.

How Culture and Socio-Economic Status Contribute to Achievement Gaps

How Culture and Socio-Economic Status Contribute to Achievement Gaps

Culture

Tomasson (2000) observed that differences in the accomplishments of different segments of U.S. society would always exist.  In a fluid society like the U.S., ethnic categories change form and fluctuate, but differences always exist.

The level of high achievement is an ethnic category in the U.S. dependent on the culture of origin, sector, length of time in the U. S. and rate of assimilation. Huge differences exist in levels of high achievement among different ethnic groups.  Current standardized tests are based on “what Caucasian people think high achievement should look like” (p. 44).

Most African Americans see the importance of education and obtaining superior grades just as much as Caucasian. Lee and Slaughter-Defoe (2004) studied the correlation between youth culture and academic achievement.  According to the data gathered, the correlation was low.  Youth culture most likely influences both minority and Caucasian academic growth, and thus has an indirect impact on student academic achievement.  Some studies suggest that the social costs and benefits of academic success are about the same for African Americans as for Caucasians, thus casting doubt on the negative peer pressure theory, which asserts that, for a variety of reasons, Black student culture is averse to high academic achievement.

Singham (2003) suggested that racial differences are also found to be negligible for skipping school. It appears that the achievement gap between African Americans and Caucasians is sometimes caused by African American student’s uncertainties about succeeding in school and being labeled as acting white.  Neal-Barnett, (2001) conducted a study on the phenomenon known as acting white, and wrote her findings in a book titled, Forging Links: African American Children Clinical Developmental Perspectives.
Neal-Barnett concluded that the psychosomatic allegations for being known as acting white are explicit to each individual.  Among the African American high school students that participated in the study many spoke about their anxiety and anger for being labeled by their African American peers as acting white.   

Socio-Economic Status

Lubienski (2002) found that socio-economic status (SES) influenced student achievement, as students from higher SES families tended to have higher achievement compared to students with lower SES.  First, gaps appeared to be more closely tied to SES than race.  Students from wealthier backgrounds tended to have better access to computers and to learning tools, such as calculators.  Teachers were able to provide better assessments for students with high SES to improve learning achievement than for students with low SES.  Many students who do not have easy access to better learning tools strongly believed that mathematics learning simply involves memorizing facts and also of the view that there is only a single correct mode of solving math related problems  which adds to low achievement.

Lubienski also found that African American students moved away from this belief about mathematics as they were more deeply involved in a mathematics curriculum.  Lubienski recommended that teachers should be aware of these perceptions and attitudes and be more effective with teaching methods that assist African American students to become critical thinkers, not just answer seekers.

English (2002) found that nearly 50% of the variance in test-passing rates was determined by demographic opportunity structures such as financial capital, human capital level of parental education, cultural status, expectancy, and geographic capital level of urban influence.  Existing economic power in the community strongly influences how students learn.  English suggested that providing fair learning opportunities to different populations would help narrow the achievement gap.  A fair learning opportunity would include learning opportunities about other cultures and languages.

How Curriculum Quality and Standardized Tests Affect Achievement Gaps

How Curriculum Quality and Standardized Tests Affect Achievement Gaps

Curriculum Quality

Singham (2003) stated that academic resources have much greater power than SES in predicting college degree completion.  School administrators need to use the best research available about what makes students want to learn, and then provide teachers with the kinds of mentoring, training, and feedback that can take them from average teachers to highly skilled professional teachers who have a transforming effect on students.
Singham observed that such curricula would narrow the learning gap between Caucasians and minorities, at the same time increasing the performance on tests of both groups in every category.  The quality of tests has a direct impact on how well different segments of U.S. society are represented in the statistics, as discussed in the following section.

 Standardized Tests

In the 1800s, Horace Mann introduced the concept of using examinations in Boston schools to gain “objective information about the quality of teaching and learning in urban schools, monitor the quality of instruction, and compare schools and teachers within each school” (Gallagher, p. 85).  The tests revealed differences in student knowledge, and subsequently additional testing was implemented to facilitate judgments about student advancement (Scott, 2004).

Mann’s exams were so successful they were adopted by school systems across the country.  Achievement tests, considered objective and comprehensive, became a popular method for assessing learning.
World War I also had a significant impact on testing strategies in the early 20th century.  The U.S. Army required a method for quickly identifying potential officers among large numbers of recruits.  To do so, Arthur Otis and Robert Yerkes developed the Alpha Army Test, which gauged a soldier’s mental capabilities.  The Alpha Army Test, which had an efficient and effective scoring method, became a model for many future standardized tests.  The test changed the image of standardized testing, and as a result, patent and copyright requests for tests soared.  Student tracking became widely used in schools as standardized tests were used to sort students into different curricula based on abilities.

Nothing is simple about educational testing, though popular belief holds otherwise (Ickes-Dunbar, 2005).  Ickes-Dunbar found that the illusion of objectivity is extremely appealing to everyone’s deep wish for fair and precise tools to assess learning and to predict the future success for students.  Tests, in various forms, hold high credibility in U.S. society as valid and reliable indicators of achievement and aptitude.  The intuitive trust that the public places on standardized testing reflects a widespread naiveté, which discourages questioning test validity.  Current public demand for test results is apparently motivated by a reasonable need to measure whether students are acquiring knowledge, and a perceived need to hold teachers and programs accountable for competency and efficacy (Ickes-Dunbar).

The complexities of test reliability and validity are poorly understood, even by those who are directly impacted by standardized tests, including teachers, who generally lack the expertise to evaluate assessment tools, students, who accept their role as passive consumers of tests, and parents, who want children to do well on any and every test (Ickes-Dunbar).  Despite the appealing cachet of the NCLB, standardized tests are high-stakes and have the effect of sorting students along SES and linguistic divides.  Standardized tests that are a result of the NCLB also have the deleterious backwash effect of blaming teachers and students themselves for substandard performance (Ickes-Dunbar).

Waters and Boyes-Watson (2005) found that, as prediction mechanisms, standardized tests are somewhat ineffective in predicting the future performance of prospective students or employees.  Such tests cannot predict or assess drive, motivation, or the values an individual brings to career or future contributions to society.  As methods for ensuring fairness, standardized test scores are highly correlated with SES and reflect the cumulative advantages of class, rather than the inherent abilities of the candidate (Waters & Boyes-Watson). Sturm and Guinier (2005) reported that tests are fundamentally unfair in some respects.

In addition to standardized tests, youth culture, as opposed to societal culture, as it impacts student achievement, has been studied by researchers, as summarized in the following section.
Research done by Quintero and Cooks (2002) showed that, to measure the achievement fairly, standardized tests must continue to be closely examined and changed to include more relevant content for all cultures, especially for students of color.   All students would benefit from some type of authentic assessment.  Authentic assessment allows students to illustrate important information in more informal ways.  Quintero and Cooks presented some points about the quality of current standardized tests, positing that the scope of skills and concepts assessed on a standardized test are greater than necessary.

The purpose of the test, which is to assess a student performance on the curriculum, is largely forgotten.  Sometimes the context used for testing prompts on standardized writing tests is too narrow and exclusive.  “For students, whose cultural backgrounds are rich and varied, cultural bias poses an equally strong potential barrier to exam success in the current standardized test form” (p. 63).

Application of Standardized Tests in the US Army

Application of Standardized Tests in the US Army

Standardized Tests in the US Army
After World War II, the US Army instituted its Soldier Qualification Test (SQT) to test the knowledge of all recruits (U.S. Department of the Army, 2009).  The SQT is taken yearly by all members in the enlisted ranks in the US Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corp.  The SQT was supplemented with tests after training exercises.  In approximately 1990, the US Army stopped using the test due to budget constraints.  The cost of maintenance and implementation of the SQT were determined to be an expendable commitment of resources.  Cancellation of the SQT program left a void in the US Army’s capabilities for certifying a soldier’s qualifications for job assignment based on performance on the test, and was supplemented by the AFQT.

The U.S. Army is currently in the process of developing a cost-effective standardized test with which to determine the capabilities of recruits to perform the changing jobs and organizational structures expected with the transformation toward the Future Force US Department of the Army, (1999).
A battery of standardized tests is administered for varying purposes by all branches of the Armed Forces (Department of Defense, 2008). Department of Defense information releases state that the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) is a part of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) (2009).  The ASVAB is a standardized multiple-choice test administered to enlistees by the US Military Entrance Processing Command (MEPCOM).

The test is used to determine needed qualification for a person to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. A high school student in the eleventh grade is eligible to take the ASVAB, and is also given to anyone who is eligible and wants to enlist in the US Armed Forces (US Department of the Army, 2009. The Army subsequently designed a program that would allow young people who have been out high school for at least six months to enlist in the Army without a GED or high school diploma.

The Army’s GED Plus program allows a young person to enlist in the delayed entry program.  Before they enter the Army, they must complete the GED Plus program and pass the GED test, all of which is paid for by the Army.

Standardized Test: Predictability

Test Predictability

The ability of a test to predict is known as validity.  Murray and Herrstein (1994) pointed out two fallacies with standardized tests as they relate to African American and Caucasian groups.  Tests can under-predict the performance of African American students in college, as indicated in a SAT example examined by the researchers.

A low score would lead to the conclusion that the student would be a low achiever in college.  Murray and Herrstein argued that adding an appropriate number of points is offered as an acceptable method to breach the gap for the Black applicants who find themselves in these circumstances.  No justification exists for using this method of compensation of scores.  Use of this method of social promotion for African American students indicates the fallacy of the entire process of testing regarding its measurement or predictability.

Murray and Herrstein (1994) discussed an example of standardized tests used to select Police Sergeants.  The assessment had excellent predictability for Caucasian candidates.  Caucasian applicants who performed satisfactorily on the test also performed satisfactorily in the position as Police Sergeant.  African American applicants who performed satisfactorily on the assessment did not perform satisfactorily as Police Sergeant.  The assessment was deemed not valid and reliable regarding the African American population.

The outcome can be interpreted to mean the test predicted fairly accurately for Caucasians, but failed to predict with any level of accuracy how African Americans applicants would perform in the position.  The researchers concluded that the natural remedy would be to give less weight to the test scores of African Americans than to Caucasians (Murray & Herrstein, 1994).

A seminar held at Howard University was intended to debate the issue of whether the African American mind was genetically inferior.  The seminar was in response to Murray and Herrstein’s (1994) book, The Bell Curve, wherein they contended that African Americans achieve lower standardized tests scores because they are genetically inferior and therefore possess an inferior mind not as mentally capable as that of Caucasians.
One of the guest panelists from Howard University, Washington, D.C., was asked that if standardized tests fail to truly measure intelligence, could there be another motive for the purpose and function of them.  The panelist agreed that the tests serve as an additional tactic of exclusion, and stated that tests could not measure intelligence because intelligence cannot be defined.