And today we are testing for----------

[Ishmael]

I read an article in the op-ed portion of the paper today written by a local educator. He was making a case against standardized testing.

He consumed a quarter page making two points.

1. Needs change. He supported this by citing how the parts on his old car don't work on his new car.

2. If you have a standard test. The students will be taught to the test.

Both valid points, but shallow logic IMHO.

The technical needs of society may change, but to the best of my knowlege English, addition, subtraction, reading comprehension, division, history, etc. really haven't changed all that much. The purpose of primary and secondary education is to impart the core elements of learning so that the student is capable of pursuing more education, and/or deal with the basics of life.

As far as the "teaching to the test" is concerned. Yep, it IS a fact. Same in college. However, if having a test means teaching to the test, what is taught if there is no test?

Comments?

Ishmael

 

[alexandraaah]

To begin with, standardized testing does not take into account the different levels at which students learn. Learning at a different pace, or being stronger in certain subjects does not make for a lesser student, just one not well equipped for a standardized test.

Secondly, a large percentage of students do not take written tests well; this leaves an enourmous margin of error in assessing results.

Thirdly, the material on which standardized tests are written is quite narrow when you take into account the different curriculums of schools across the country. An example: many teachers in the Chicago Public School system do not have a budget for the most basic needs of their classroom, including textbooks.

Additionally, standardized tests are culturally biased in favor of white, middle-class students. Another obvious discrepancy is ESL, which a growing percentage of students are.

Education needs to change. Period. I would like to say farewell to standardized tests as they are merely a vehicle for making a student feel like shit about themselves. Teachers I know (this is not an arbitrary source) do teach for the test, and unfortunately so.

It doesn't inspire learning or passion; rather, it breeds ugly labels, and not even accurately at that.

 

[alexandraaah]

and another thing.

I am a former teaching student; standardized tests is one of (many) reasons I chose a different path. So many aspiring teachers have hopes of......teaching, and many of them do. What an unfortunate diversion it must be to have to prep for such bullshit.


I challenge you to come up with five solid reasons why we need any form of standardized testing.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: and another thing.

I challenge you to come up with five solid reasons why we need any form of standardized testing.

1. There has to be an acceptable way to measure achievment.

2. Teachers have to know what is important to teach and what isn't.

3. Parents deserve to know what the 'true' level of learning their child has achieved.

4. Everyone has to know when a child is failing so that they may be diverted to a 'special' program if it is a learning difficulty, or a seperate school if it's an emotional difficulty.

5. "Feel good, outcome based education" has to be eliminated from the public schools. Each year we are spending more money for lesser results. The standard can change, the requirement for a standard can't.

We don't change IQ tests because everyone can't be a 160, do we?

Ishmael

 

[morninggirl5]

Ishmael,

I've posted about this issue several times. Do some research and you'll find that the problem with standardized test are that they are norm referenced. They are designed to give an extremely wide range of scores. If 75% of students answer a question correctly, the question is thrown out.

Standardized (norm-referenced) tests are reported as percentiles. This score reflects not how many correct responses the student gave, but rather how many students gave the same number or fewer responses. Students are being compared to each other NOT to a standard criterion.

The reason the tests are biased against poor and minority children is that the tests scores can be traced back not to what is taught in the classroom, but to outside experiences.

The standardized tests in use today fail to meet any of your reasons for testing. They simply don't work.

Criterion referenced tests (the kind required by the recently passed Education Bill), on the other hand, meet your reasons. In Georgia, the only "standardized" test we do in Kindergarten is a criterion referenced test. There are 39 items on the test and each one is a skill or concept that is included in the state curriculum for Kindergarten. Do I teach to the test? Sure i do, because the test is based on the curriculum that i'm contractually required to teach.

I find your comment that parents deserve to know their child's true level of achievement most interesting. If they are involved in their child's life, they already KNOW their child's true level of achievement. For example, one of my students will probably score below average on his final GKAP score. Will I be upset? Will his parents? No, definitely not. That score is meaningless in the face of the tremendous acheivement that child has shown this year. He entered Kindergarten with NO knowledge of letters and with "writing" that looked like a 2 year old had scribbled across the paper. He is now reading and writing complete sentences. Does he still struggle? Yep, he does but i'm so proud of how far he's come. That below average test score doesn't even begin to tell the story of his acheivement. In fact, it misrepresents the tremendous progress he has made.

The problems with education will never be solved as long as we try to reduce children to test scores.

mg

 

[alexandraaah]

Re: Re: and another thing.

Originally posted by Ishmael


1. There has to be an acceptable way to measure achievment.

Why? And furthermore, you can't spell achievement and you seem to be doing fine.

2. Teachers have to know what is important to teach and what isn't.

Standardized tests haven't changed enough, nor have they done anything to help this effort.

3. Parents deserve to know what the 'true' level of learning their child has achieved.

"True level?" According to whom? Talking to a child is a better determinant than standardized testing, which is why Special Ed testing, et al, encompasses far more tools than a written test.

4. Everyone has to know when a child is failing so that they may be diverted to a 'special' program if it is a learning difficulty, or a seperate school if it's an emotional difficulty.

It's s-e-p-a-r-a-t-e, and standardized testing has never been such a factor, in my experience. A good teacher will know a student's strenghts and limitations from classroom work. Teachers usually know if a student has a specific learning disorder, such as dyslexia, but they must refer for testing to confirm. This effort will not be aided by a standardized test.

5. "Feel good, outcome based education" has to be eliminated from the public schools. Each year we are spending more money for lesser results. The standard can change, the requirement for a standard can't.

I'm a little tired, but I don't see how this is a reason. It sounds more like you're trying to make a point that you feel testing is necessary but have not given me a fifth reason why.

We don't change IQ tests because everyone can't be a 160, do we?

This is a weak attempt at a curve ball.

 

[Ishmael]

There ya go!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ishmael,

I've posted about this issue several times. Do some research and you'll find that the problem with standardized test are that they are norm referenced. They are designed to give an extremely wide range of scores. If 75% of students answer a question correctly, the question is thrown out.

Standardized (norm-referenced) tests are reported as percentiles. This score reflects not how many correct responses the student gave, but rather how many students gave the same number or fewer responses. Students are being compared to each other NOT to a standard criterion.

The reason the tests are biased against poor and minority children is that the tests scores can be traced back not to what is taught in the classroom, but to outside experiences.

The standardized tests in use today fail to meet any of your reasons for testing. They simply don't work.

Criterion referenced tests (the kind required by the recently passed Education Bill), on the other hand, meet your reasons. In Georgia, the only "standardized" test we do in Kindergarten is a criterion referenced test. There are 39 items on the test and each one is a skill or concept that is included in the state curriculum for Kindergarten. Do I teach to the test? Sure i do, because the test is based on the curriculum that i'm contractually required to teach.

I find your comment that parents deserve to know their child's true level of achievement most interesting. If they are involved in their child's life, they already KNOW their child's true level of achievement. For example, one of my students will probably score below average on his final GKAP score. Will I be upset? Will his parents? No, definitely not. That score is meaningless in the face of the tremendous acheivement that child has shown this year. He entered Kindergarten with NO knowledge of letters and with "writing" that looked like a 2 year old had scribbled across the paper. He is now reading and writing complete sentences. Does he still struggle? Yep, he does but i'm so proud of how far he's come. That below average test score doesn't even begin to tell the story of his acheivement. In fact, it misrepresents the tremendous progress he has made.

The problems with education will never be solved as long as we try to reduce children to test scores.

mg

Pardon the semantic problem. Criterion is the method that I had in mind.

Regarding the parents. That will always be a problem as long as the attitude is that the schools are a free "day care center".

Congrats on the pupil that you spoke of. Regardless, my thoughts are that the test results are used to grade the school, not the child. However, at some point there has to be a minimum threshold for graduation. Without that a high school education will continue to be the joke that it's become.

Ishmael

 

[medjay]

I grew up as a "gifted student" and excelled on standardized tests, not because I studied and knew the material but because I "test well". Another student who might know even more than me about a particular subject would score lower because he/she didn't have the particular test taking skills. Does this mean I'm smarter? No. Is it fair? No. Standardized tests do little to measure a student's level of intellegence.

 

[morninggirl5]

Re: There ya go!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pardon the semantic problem. Criterion is the method that I had in mind.

Regarding the parents. That will always be a problem as long as the attitude is that the schools are a free "day care center".

Congrats on the pupil that you spoke of. Regardless, my thoughts are that the test results are used to grade the school, not the child. However, at some point there has to be a minimum threshold for graduation. Without that a high school education will continue to be the joke that it's become.

Ishmael

Test results are used to grade the school. BUT again, they're norm-referenced tests and percentile scores. That means that no matter what 50% of schools will always score 50-99 and 50% of schools will score 0-49.

One reason a high school education has become a "joke" is that our society has grown and evolved into such a technological society that the current education system in K-12 simply cannot keep up. The information explosion has made it impossible for teachers to teach everything in the time allotted. I teach K and i struggle to fit everything in. Can you imagine what it's like to teach 8th grade science or social studies? With new information in these fields daily is it any wonder that teachers and students are suffering from overload?

There are some very good high school graduation tests already developed, they're called General Equivalency Diploma Tests. They haven't been used as such, but they were designed to test the knowledge that high school graduates should have, they just need to be put to that use.

As for "all day day care," i worked in day care for nine years before working in the elementary grades. There is only one profession that is given less respect than teachers and that is day care workers. Yet, both are responsible for the only truly irreplacable thing of value we have, our children. Today, teachers ARE providing all day day care, couseling, parenting, social services, and hundreds of other things. If we're lucky, we have time left over to teach.

 

[ksmybuttons]

As a mother and not an educator, I believe in standardized testing for initial mastery.

I think it is essential that the schools be graded on what they are teaching and also in finding out what they need to teach. If the schools teach, my child will learn. If in 3rd grade he does not have mastery, the school needs to change the way they teach for him to be able to learn.

The most important thing a teacher can teach a student is how to learn. In the early grades the basic skills of reading, writing and math need to be mastered so that students can continue to learn throughout their lifetime. I now believe basic typing skills and use of mass communication/technology is also essential.

I have always felt that it is not as much as what you know but that you have the skills to find out if you need or desire. Basic research, experiential learning and critical thinking are the skills that will allow a person to grow. Without basic mastery you can never attain this ability to find out. We need to know basic groups of subjects so that when we need more in-depth information we can know where to get it. We also need exposure to many different forms of knowledge so that we can find what out what is truly an interest.

Our schools also have added public speaking as a skill of initial mastery. I remember as a child being so frightened to speak out in a group. It has been an essential skill that I struggled with as my career took off: to speak and express myself succinctly. I found my stride a few years in and it would have been so much better if I had learned those skills much earlier.

With the huge volume of knowledge we have available today, we cannot learn it all. With basic mastery a person can achieve all they want because with it, the world opens.