Page 465 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

440 J.L. Atkinson

differences in trees and plants, and discussed the causes for the differences we
noted in the landscapes of temperate deciduous forests around our school. Students
accurately concluded the causes of succession, the stages as evidenced by plants,
and discussed the implications of human-made disturbances. To my surprise and
delight, students began to discuss the merits and consequences of the logging
industry (a significant employer in our area) on ecological succession, stream
ecology, and wildlife. When I assessed them both informally in conversation and
on more formal assessments in the classroom, my students discussed science con-
cepts using vocabulary and correct terminology, and they also integrated science
discourse into their home conversations. Many students returned the following
week and recounted stories of dinner conversations and car rides where they had
discussed ecological succession. When the standardized state assessment was
administered, I was confident that my students would excel in questions concern-
ing ecological succession. After the test was sent to the state for evaluation, some
of my students came to me days later with a puzzled look. To my surprise, they
asked me how ecological succession happened in the tundra biome. After some
discussion, I asked them about their sudden interest in the tundra. They replied that
the questions on their standardized assessment concerning ecological succession
were about a tundra biome. Their confusion added to my confusion. We live in the
southern United States, and to my knowledge, my students have rarely seen snow,
much less traveled to the tundra in Alaska. Why would a standardized assessment
in Georgia measuring student understanding concerning ecological succession
discuss the tundra in a state, which has never seen glaciers? My students success-
fully used science language, concepts, and research skills, yet the context of the
standardized test question positioned them as deficient. Was the deficit a reflection
of my teaching and their learning?
I use my teaching experience to extend Chigeza and Whitehouse’s argument that
standardized assessment positions students as deficient. While they recommend
changes in classroom practice, I argue that the “achievement gap” assumed in their
work cannot be solved with classroom pedagogy or assessment. The “achievement
gap” occurs because standardized assessment robs the teachers and students of
autonomy and creates a false impression of deficit-model thinking in science.
Therefore, I argue that the idea of an achievement gap is based upon a set of ideologies
that categorizes students based on intrinsic factors rather than a lack of knowledge.
Standards-based curriculum and standardized testing create an illusion that public
schools are preparing students for global citizenry. Can students be prepared for
participation in global citizenry when the implicit narratives embedded in the stan-
dards movement are based upon a deficit model of thinking about diverse groups of
students? Is it possible to have a global citizen identity promoted by standardized
tests or should we focus on diversity?
Standardized testing is the principal accounting method behind many standards
movements in Australia and the United States. Embedded in this form of testing is
the real question for students, educators, and politicians: “Who has control of the
curriculum?” One scholar, Pinar (2004) calls the notion of “high-stakes testing” a
“conversion from intellectual inquiry” to a question of who has power (p. 20). When
standardized testing is administered in Georgia, it is not simply a measurement of