1
Running Head: IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING
The Impact of Standardized Testing on Minority Students in Urban Underfunded Settings
Malcolm Taylor
School of Education, Liberty University
February 16, 2025
Abstract
Standardized testing, widely implemented in U.S. public schools since the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2002, has become a central tool for assessing student achievement and school
performance. However, its rigid, one-size-fits-all approach has disproportionately harmed
lowincome and minority students, worsening educational inequities. Socioeconomic disparities,
such as inadequate school funding, lack of after-school programs, and lower teacher quality,
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 2
contribute to lower test scores in underprivileged communities. Furthermore, the high-stakes
nature of standardized testing has intensified the school-to-prison pipeline, often pushing
marginalized students out of the education system. Standardized tests fail to account for
cultural, economic, and social factors, leading to an unfair assessment of student abilities. To
address these issues, equitable school funding, diverse teacher representation, and the
integration of socio-emotional learning into assessments are advocated.. Alternative models,
such as New Hampshire’s PACE program, offer promising solutions for creating fairer, more
inclusive evaluation methods that reflect real-world student experiences.
Keywords: standardized testing, minority student, educational equity, accountability,
socioeconomic status (ses), high stakes testing, achievement gap
The Impact of Standardized Testing on Minority Students in Urban Underfunded Settings
Although many assume standardized testing is an age-old practice, its widespread use in
public schools began with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002. NCLB mandated annual
testing in reading and math for students in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school, making
standardized tests a central component of educational assessment (Korte, 2015). These tests
affect school report cards, forecast student achievement, assess college and career readiness,
control school funding, and affect school populations (Korte, 2015).
However, the heavy reliance on standardized testing has had adverse effects, especially
on low-income and minority students. High-stakes testing contributes to the school-to-prison
pipeline, as schools facing pressure to improve test scores may implement zero-tolerance
policies that disproportionately impact these students (Heitzeg, 2023). Additionally,
standardized tests do not reflect disparities in educational quality caused by inadequate
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 3
funding, teacher shortages, and socio-economic challenges, which results in inequitable
assessment of student abilities.
The emphasis on test scores has also erased classroom instruction toward test
preparation rather than deep learning, reducing opportunities for creativity, critical thinking,
and hands-on experiences (Awad & Adwan, 2024). Many educators argue that standardized
tests fail to measure a student's full potential, as they do not assess skills like problem-solving,
collaboration, and adaptability—qualities essential for success in the modern workforce. There
is a growing call to restructure standardized testing to consider diverse economic and social
backgrounds, ensuring a fairer evaluation of educational achievement. Alternative assessments
could provide a better picture of a student’s abilities while reducing the negative impact of high-
stakes testing on low-socioeconomic populations.
Definitions of Key Terms
1. Standardized Testing - tests given to all students in the same way, with the same
questions and scoring system (Pietromonaco, 2021).
2. Minority Student - belong to racial, ethnic, or socio-economic groups that are historically
marginalized or underrepresented in educational systems (Underwood et al., 2020).
3. Educational Equity – a concept that suggests that every student should get the
resources, support, and opportunities they need to succeed, regardless of their
background
(Landsman & Lewis, 2023).
4. Accountability - schools being held responsible for how well they educate students
(Rury,
Below, & Hurst, 2022).
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 4
5. Socioeconomic Status (SES) - A person’s or family’s social and financial position in society
(Lane, 2021).
6. High Stakes Testing - tests where the results have major consequences for students,
teachers, or schools (Knoester & Au, 2017).
7. Achievement Gap - The disparity in academic performance between groups of students,
particularly those based on race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status (Sjogren &
Melton,
2021).
Related Literature
Despite the widespread belief, standardized assessments often fail to account for
disparities in educational resources, particularly in underfunded urban school districts, where
students face systemic barriers that hinder academic success (Pietromonaco, 2021; Au, 2020).
Socioeconomic disparities impact access to after-school tutoring, teacher quality, and school
funding. Furthermore, the reliance on standardized testing exacerbates the school-to-prison
pipeline. Studies indicate that rigid test-based policies negatively affect students. This review
explores the intersection of standardized testing, socioeconomic disparities, and the school-
toprison pipeline.
Socioeconomic Disparities and Educational Outcomes
The belief that standardized testing, as it is, is an effective measurement tool of student
achievement is concerning on many levels. Primarily, it is concerning considering the application
of quality education isn't the same across all school districts. Moreover, students from
underprivileged and urban backgrounds often overpopulate school districts that are low in
federal funding, which directly impacts their education quality. Most students in urban areas
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 5
come from low-income households (Gadsden & Dixon-Román, 2017). Specifically, these low
socioeconomic school districts do not have the necessary funding for after-school programs for
tutoring, nor do they have teachers being paid livable wages to care about their quality of
education (Morehouse, 2020). Granted, there are some dedicated teachers who have an
unwavering passion for education who truly understand its significance. These teachers go
above and beyond to ensure their students have access to the same resources as those in
predominantly white school districts. Unfortunately, many of those teachers are few and far
between.
There is a blatant disparity in the quality of education received when comparing
predominantly white school districts against low socioeconomic school districts (Green III,
Baker, & Oluwole, 2020). Yet, a vast majority of data within the education field says otherwise.
Specifically, there is a misrepresentation of data in low-income and minority communities
(Renzulli, 2021). In the same vein, there is other research that directly conflicts with the
former's findings, showcasing how steep the disparity goes when comparing low-income and
minority communities (Knoester, 2017). This disparity matters concerning standardized testing
because it shows how standardized testing doesn't take into account other factors that play a
role in low test scores. Aside from the low-to-nonexistent school funding and after-school care
programs, other factors like non-two-parent households, community violence, and lack of safe
and productive recreational facilities affect the quality of a student's education. Failing to
consider these factors when assessing the materials being taught to students in preparation for
their assessment continues to widen the disparity to accurately measure the effectiveness of
standardized testing. Moreover, standardized testing shouldn't be a blank one-size-fits-all
product. Instead, standardized testing should be relevant to different cultures and backgrounds.
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 6
Specifically, standardized testing materials should be relatable to the economic and
social background of the students being serviced. It is not to imply that students of low
socioeconomic backgrounds should have "easier" questions. It's to imply that the materials
need to match the quality of education that the student can understand. Moreover, there is
more than one way one could ask the same question. Adjusting standardized testing formats to
align with the needs of students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds can promote equity
across urban, rural, and suburban schools (Landsman & Lewis, 2023).
School-to-Prison Pipeline
Standardized testing contributes to the school-to-prison pipeline, where students,
particularly in districts with large non-white populations, face pressure to perform well
(Knoester & Au, 2017). This pressure comes from teachers, school staff, and educational boards
focused on high test scores, as federal funding often depends on them. Obviously, students with
low test scores should indicate they need more attention. Since teachers, school faculty, and
local educational board staff know the reward system, they focus heavily on standardized test
performance (Darling-Hammond, 2020). This creates a cycle where students from underfunded
schools, often with low test scores, may disengage, struggle academically, or drop out. Some of
these students may eventually turn to criminal activity.
Schools in low-performing areas often implement strict disciplinary policies like
zerotolerance, leading to higher suspension rates and pushing students, especially Black
students, into the juvenile justice system (Losen et al., 2015). Some examples include zero-
tolerance policies and exclusionary discipline (Donelson, 2020). These policies result in
increased suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to law enforcement. In turn, they push students
— particularly Black students—directly into the juvenile justice system. These policies also align
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 7
with an adjacent agenda to push out students who fail to meet test performance expectations.
These policies skew test data, improving a school’s performance by excluding students who may
lower scores (Donelson, 2020). The rationale is, if they aren't present, they are not a part of the
statistical data used to measure the school's performance overall.
Students of color are disproportionately placed in special education, which can lower the
quality of their education (Redfield & Nance, 2016). While some student’s comprehension level
may be lower than the average student, it is not lower on the scale of special education either. A
slower processing doesn't necessarily indicate a need for special education; it simply means
they require more time to grasp concepts. Special education provided to those who do not need
it lowers their quality of education. This is an example of the achievement gap. Everyone learns
differently. Yet, many schools do not reflect this notion. Students in the achievement gap are at
risk of more marginalization and disengagement (Sjogren & Melton, 2021). Labeling them as
special education students can stunt their growth and increase the likelihood of them turning to
criminal activity (Sjogren & Melton, 2021).
Alarmingly, some states use third-grade test scores to predict future prison needs,
disproportionately targeting low-income students (Walz, 2020). There wouldn't be a need to
suspect criminal activity if all students had access to an equal level of quality in their education.
This predatory practice unfairly impacts students from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are
expected to succeed despite lacking adequate resources, while better-off schools face fewer
challenges (Lane, 2021). Despite calls for change, standardized testing under the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) continues to dominate how student
achievement is measured (Rury, Below, & Hurst, 2022).
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 8
Steps Taken to Address the Problem
The biased application of standardized assessments not only leads to "inequitable
educational opportunities for youth but also results in the unnecessary exclusion of these
students from their schools" (Rezai-Rashti & Lingard, 2020). Resolving the disparity of poor
standardized testing scores will require a comprehensive approach. As with any other significant
political issue, there will be positive and negative components to address. A first step in the
right direction would be providing the same funding to all schools regardless of their test scores.
Frankly, more should be provided to lower test performance schools to address the long-
standing biased funding and blatant neglect.
School performance should not hinder funding (Ortagus et al., 2020). Education is a
necessity for future success. Regardless of testing, students deserve a high-quality education..
As it relates to funding, increased hiring for Black and minority teachers for low-socioeconomic
schools is critical. When given opportunities to work with Black male teachers, Black male
students' test scores increase, and their disciplinary infraction percentages decrease
(Underwood et al., 2020). Moreover, students learn better when they have access to teachers
that look like them (Gershenson, Lindsay, & Hansen, 2021). This is particularly important for
male students in low-socioeconomic backgrounds because they are the highest demographic at
risk for criminal activity.
Secondly, standardized testing must shift from the one-size-fits-all standards-based
assessments to including socio-emotional learning and assessments. Again, students learn
differently (Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. D. (2024). Also, the lower socioeconomic environmental
messages are completely different than those in higher socioeconomic environments. For
example, students in higher socioeconomic backgrounds do not have to live in fear of becoming
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 9
a statistic related to community violence or hostile interactions with law enforcement. Students
who do face those harsh conditions process information differently (Lacoe, 2020). Adjusting the
standardized testing to reflect the socioeconomic backgrounds emphasizes student well-being
and stress management to assist them when taking standardized assessments (Sjogren &
Melton, 2021). As of now, some states are taking the initiative to improve the quality of
assessments and preparation for these standardized assessments to meet the needs of different
socioeconomic backgrounds in urban communities.
A leading example of these improved revisions is New Hampshire's alternative approach.
New Hampshire has implemented the Performance Assessment of Competency Education
(PACE) program, which offers an alternative to traditional standardized tests (Becker et al.,
2017). It highlights locally developed assessments that emphasize real-world applications.
Indiana implemented a new phonics curriculum to support educators in applying the science of
reading (Davis, 2022). A school in Lamar, Texas, has experienced significant improvement by
adopting individualized student goal-setting and small group instructions (Westerfield, 2023). By
improving these factors, the data assessed to measure the effectiveness of standardized testing
will reflect real-life scenarios.
Learning Theory Association
Assessing the information presented in the section on socioeconomic disparities in
standardized testing and educational outcomes, the social cognitive theory (SCT) is highly
relevant. In his work, Dale Schunk describes SCT as a framework that focuses on how cognitive
processes play a key role in learning through social interactions (Schunk, 2020). According to the
theory, people learn behaviors and skills by observing others (Rumjaun & Narod, 2020). This
means learning is not only influenced by individual thoughts and actions but also by interactions
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 10
with others and the environment. The social cognitive theory was developed by Albert Bandura,
who dedicated much of his work to understanding how people learn and how their behavior is
shaped by both internal and external factors (Koutrouba & Galanakis, 2022). SCT is helpful when
examining the negative effects of standardized testing on minority students. It emphasizes the
role of self-efficacy, or the belief in one's ability to succeed, and highlights how social
environments and observational learning impact individuals.
In terms of self-efficacy, SCT stresses that people perform better when they believe they
can succeed. Unfortunately, many low-income students face barriers that affect their self-
esteem, making them feel as though they are less capable (Sebele, 2023). When these students
take standardized tests, which often don’t reflect their educational reality, their poor
performance only deepens their sense of failure. Over time, they internalize the idea that
they’re not “good enough,” and this belief is reinforced by low test scores. Minority students
often lack access to teachers who share their backgrounds (La Selle et al., 2020). Applying the
SCT component of observational learning, students who have teachers who look like them can
make a big
difference. It sends a strong message to students that they, too, can succeed academically
(Baysu et al., 2021). When students see role models who resemble them, it helps them believe
in their potential. On the other hand, when students don’t have teachers they can relate to, it
can be harder for them to envision themselves achieving success.
Relatable teachers not only serve as role models but can also help students better
understand lessons. They can explain concepts in ways students are more likely to understand,
especially if they share the same cultural or linguistic background. For example, many African
American students speak African American Vernacular English (AAVE), sometimes informally
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 11
called Ebonics (Russell II, 2024). Teachers who are familiar with this dialect can communicate
more effectively, helping students feel seen and understood. This connection helps build
students' confidence, making them more likely to succeed academically.
Gaps in Research
Considering the widespread misbelief that standardized testing is an accurate
measurement tool of student achievement affirms that there is a gap in research. The data is
wrong (Lai, 2023; Heisig & Schaeffer, 2019). There is a disconnect between test creators and
students who take the test. Currently, test creators rely on a combination of curriculum
standards, cognitive research, field testing, and psychometric principles. These aspects are
developed by generic U.S. Education guidelines that stem from the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Some states (i.e., Texas) have
specific educational guidelines. None of these reflect real-world scenarios in their entirety
(Polleck & Jeffery, 2017). Instead, test creators should work closely with state officials, especially
those in underprivileged communities, to better understand and produce equitable preparation
of materials (Bennett,
2023). By revising the components used as inspiration for test creators, better test assessments
are made. Consequently, those tests will lead to better data retrieved in research to assess the
effectiveness of standardized testing.
Biblical Worldview
The Bible repeatedly relays the same message of showing compassion. Jesus always
showed compassion to the poor and oppressed. Biblically, the underfunded and the lesser
privileged students would be a prime example of the "poor and oppressed" people Jesus
helped. In Matthew 25:40, Jesus says, "I assure you and most solemnly say to you, to the extent
that you did it for one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it for Me."
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 12
(Matthew 25:40, AMP). Again, it is not to imply that all students in urban area schools come
from poor or unfortunate living circumstances. But, most do and they are the ones who need
the most resources. Christians are called to be agents of positive change in the world, helping
those who struggle the most. Jesus’ constant example shows that people should seek to uplift
and support those who face hardships.
Micah 6:8 says, "the only thing that He requires is to be just, and to love, and diligently
practice kindness" (Micah 6:8, AMP). In this verse, God lays out simple but powerful guidance.
Being just means treating others fairly, ensuring that everyone has access to the same
opportunities regardless of their background. Students in urban schools deserve the same
access to education, support, and resources that others have. When students are given these
tools, they can reach their full potential and overcome challenges that may have once seemed
impossible. Different backgrounds and settings, plays a role in how students process information
and navigate the world around them. Again, students in underfunded areas may face more
challenges at home, and they may not always have the resources or the time to focus on their
education as much as students in wealthier areas. This is where compassion comes in.
Compassion is understanding the unique needs of each student and helping them find success
despite their challenges.
Christians are called by God to practice justice and kindness not just through words, but
through actions. By ensuring that all students, especially those from disadvantaged
backgrounds, receive the support they need, Christ’s love is reflected. Compassionate action can
make a huge difference in a child’s life as if offers them hope and the possibility of a brighter
future. It is a reminder that Christians are called to lift others up, especially those who are most
in need.
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 13
Conclusion
In conclusion, standardized testing has had a profound and largely detrimental impact on
the American education system since its widespread implementation under the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2002. While intended as a tool to measure student achievement and school
effectiveness, its rigid and one-size-fits-all approach has disproportionately harmed students in
low-income and minority communities. The correlation between standardized testing and
school funding has created a cycle where underprivileged schools, already struggling with
inadequate resources, are further penalized for low test scores. This systemic issue worsens the
educational disparities that exist along socio-economic lines, leaving students in disadvantaged
communities at a severe loss. Furthermore, standardized testing plays a significant role in
perpetuating the school-to-prison pipeline, as pressure to meet performance benchmarks often
results in punitive disciplinary policies. Additionally, the misrepresentation of data and failure to
account for socioeconomic and cultural factors further invalidate the credibility of standardized
assessments.
To address these deep-rooted inequities, a more comprehensive approach to student
assessment is needed. This includes providing equal funding to all schools, hiring diverse
educators who reflect student demographics, and integrating socio-emotional learning into
standardized testing frameworks. Additionally, adopting alternative assessment models, such as
New Hampshire's PACE program, could offer more accurate and fair measures of student
learning. Again, students learn differently, and the social conditions of their environment affect
how they process information. Ultimately, educational policies must be restructured to prioritize
equity. It is long overdue for the United States to revamp the Department of Education tactics
that have a trickle-down adverse effect on students subjected to biased standardized testing.
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 14
References
Au, W. (2020). Testing For Whiteness? How High-Stakes, Standardized Tests Promote Racism,
Undercut Diversity, And Undermine Multicultural Education. In Visioning Multicultural
Education (Pp. 99-113). Routledge.
Awad, M. J., & Al Adwan, M. A. (2024). Alternative Assessment Methods: Moving Beyond
Standardized Testing. In Cutting-Edge Innovations in Teaching, Leadership, Technology,
And Assessment (Pp. 303-320). IGI Global.
Baysu, G., Hillekens, J., Phalet, K., & Deaux, K. (2021). How Diversity Approaches Affect Ethnic
Minority and Majority Adolescents: Teacher–Student Relationship Trajectories and
School Outcomes. Child Development, 92(1), 367-387.
Becker, D. E., Thacker, A. A., Sinclair, A., Dickinson, E. R., Woods, A., & Wiley, C. R. (2017).
Formative Evaluation Of New Hampshire’s Performance Assessment of Competency
Education (PACE).
Bennett, R. E. (2023). Toward A Theory of Socioculturally Responsive Assessment. Educational
Assessment, 28(2), 83-104.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2020). Accountability In Teacher Education. Action In Teacher
Education, 42(1), 60-71.
Davis, K. E. (2022). Kindergarten, First, And Second Grade Teachers’ Perceptions, Knowledge,
And Attitudes Regarding Teaching Early Literacy Skills Incorporating the Science of
Reading. Robert Morris University.
Donelson, L. V. (2020). Alternatives To Out-Of-School Suspensions and Expulsions and Zero
Tolerance Disciplines: A Case Study (Doctoral Dissertation, Northcentral University).
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 15
Gadsden, V. L., & Dixon-Román, E. J. (2017). “Urban” Schooling And “Urban” Families: The
Role of Context and Place. Urban Education, 52(4), 431-459.
Gershenson, S., Lindsay, C. A., & Hansen, M. (2021). Teacher Diversity and Student Success:
Why Racial Representation Matters in The Classroom. Cambridge.
Green III, P. C., Baker, B. D., & Oluwole, J. O. (2020). School Finance, Race, And
Reparations. Wash. & Lee J. Civ. Rts. & Soc. Just., 27, 483.
Heisig, J. P., & Schaeffer, M. (2019). Why You Should Always Include a Random Slope for The
Lower-Level Variable Involved in A Cross-Level Interaction. European Sociological Review,
35(2), 258-279.
Heitzeg, N. A. (2023). The school-To-Prison Pipeline. The Routledge International Handbook on
Decolonizing Justice, 290.
Knoester, M., & Au, W. (2017). Standardized Testing and School Segregation: Like Tinder for
Fire?. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(1), 1-14.
Korte, G. (2015, December 10). Every Student Succeeds Act: Explained. USA Today.
Https://Www.Usatoday.Com/Story/News/Politics/2015/12/10/Every-Student-Succeeds-
Act-Explained/77088780/
Koutroubas, V., & Galanakis, M. (2022). Bandura’s Social Learning Theory and Its Importance in
The Organizational Psychology Context. Psychology, 12(6), 315-322.
Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. D. (2024). Educational Testing and Measurement. John Wiley &
Sons.
La Salle, T. P., Wang, C., Wu, C., & Rocha Neves, J. (2020). Racial Mismatch Among
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 16
Minoritized Students and White Teachers: Implications and Recommendations for
Moving Forward. Journal Of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 30(3), 314343.
Lacoe, J. (2020). Too Scared to Learn? The Academic Consequences of Feeling Unsafe in The
Classroom. Urban Education, 55(10), 1385-1418.
Lai, Y. (2023). The Double Effects of Standardized Testing on Students and
Environment. Journal Of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 8, 1615-1620.
Landsman, J., & Lewis, C. W. (Eds.). (2023). White Teachers/Diverse Classrooms: Creating
Inclusive Schools, Building on Students’ Diversity, And Providing True Educational Equity.
Taylor & Francis.
Lane, R. (2021). Improving The Educational Experience of Trauma-Impacted Students: Identifying
Emerging Best Practices for Teaching Low-Socioeconomic Status Urban Students
(Doctoral Dissertation, University of The Pacific).
Losen, D. J., Hodson, C. L., Keith II, M. A., Morrison, K., & Belway, S. (2015). Are We Closing the
School Discipline Gap?.
Morehouse, L. A. (2020). The Challenges After-School Programs Face Due to Reductions in
Funding: A Qualitative Case Study of Decision-Making (Doctoral dissertation,
Northcentral University).
Ortagus, J. C., Kelchen, R., Rosinger, K., & Voorhees, N. (2020). Performance-Based Funding in
American Higher Education: A Systematic Synthesis of The Intended and Unintended
Consequences. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(4), 520-550.
Pietromonaco, C. (2021). The Effects of Standardized Testing on Students.
Polleck, J. N., & Jeffery, J. V. (2017). Common Core Standards and Their Impact on
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 17
Standardized Test Design: A New York Case Study. The High School Journal, 101(1), 126.
Redfield, S. E., & Nance, J. P. (2016). School-To-Prison Pipeline. Defending Liberty Pursuing
Justice. Preliminary Report.
Renzulli, J. S. (2021). Assessment For Learning: The Missing Element for Identifying High
Potential in Low Income and Minority Groups. Gifted Education International., 37(2),
199–208. Https://Doi.Org/10.1177/0261429421998304
Rezai-Rashti, G. M., & Lingard, B. (2020). Test-Based Accountability, Standardized Testing and
Minority/Racialized Students’ Perspectives in Urban Schools in Canada and Australia.
Discourse: Studies In the Cultural Politics of Education, 42(5), 716–731.
Https://Doi.Org/10.1080/01596306.2020.1843112
Rumjaun, A., & Narod, F. (2020). Social Learning Theory—Albert Bandura. Science Education in
Theory and Practice: An Introductory Guide to Learning Theory, 85-99.
Rury, J. L., Belew, R., & Hurst, J. (2022). The Origins of American Test-Based Educational
Accountability and Controversies About Its Impact, 1970–1983. Teachers College
Record /, 124(1), 143–163. Https://Doi.Org/10.1177/01614681221086094
Russell II, T. E. (2024). Ecologically Culturally Informed Assessment for Black Students Who
Speak Ebonics (Doctoral Dissertation, Alliant International University).
Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective (8th ed.). Pearson.
Sebele, P. B. (2023). The Exploration of Self-Perception in The Educational Attainment of High
Achieving Students from A Low Socioeconomic Background in South African.
IMPACT OF STANDARDIZED TESTING 18
Sjogren, A. L., & Melton, T. N. (2021). The Complexities of Student Engagement for Historically
Marginalized Youth in An After-School Program. Journal Of Youth Development, 16(5),
105-121.
The Amplified Bible. (1983). Zondervan Bible Publishers.
Underwood, K., Taylor, J., Smith, D., & Roberts, J. M. (2020). Exploring The Career Trajectories of
Black Male Educators In P-12 Education. Journal For Multicultural Education,
14(3/4), 255–267. Https://Doi.Org/10.1108/Jme-02-2020-0012
Walz, J. S. (2020). The Impact of Third-Grade Reading Proficiency on Post-Secondary
Readiness. Missouri Baptist University.
Westerfield, A. D. (2023). Tailoring Classroom Instruction to Serve Elementary Texas Students:
Implementing Differentiation for Student Success.
