The lower limit of standardized testing

[Duke87 1,070]

Kindergarten.

Because standardizing away all shreds of creativity is just how we do things now.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Hmm 3 people said "we should know better"

well we should.

Heck you cant get a 5 year old to run in a straight line. Much less take test to determine if they will be an astronomer or a ditch digger.

  Edited September 25, 2012 by Easy Bakes  

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

The educaterers are at it again. This is bloody nonsense of the worst kind. "Standardization" produces mediocrity.

[Duke87 1,070]

"Standardization" produces mediocrity.

Which is precisely the goal. Everyone must be equal, which means everyone must be average. Anyone falling below average needs to be the subject of massive effort so they can be shaped up to be average. Anyone showing signs of being above average can be ignored because they're more than good enough already and making them better is a waste of time and money.

It's a sad reality, but political correctness demands that implying that some people are better than others is simply not right. And so now we have a system where we invest the most in the students who have the least potential. And you wonder why America fails at education.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

"I'm glad I'm a Gamma"??? The PC ID 10 T errors continue to stultify America. Equal in opportunity does not mean equal in fact.

What a horrible misinterpretation of the vision of America. In the end, while "no child is left behind" America will die of mediocrity. Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and Co. must be spinning in their graves. Is there a crack in the Lincoln Memorial??

[LexusInfernus 908]

Wait wait wait, standardized testing does not have to result in mediocrity, nor does it 'shred away all creativity'. Standardized testing simply put means only one thing and that is that everyone does the same test. Thats it. And quite rightly so. I mean, whats the use of diplomas if they arent comparable? This way makes it simply easier to exercise oversight and control over schools, and if necessary identify schools that perform weaker and help them (dont mention NCLB, I know its a terrible way of helping weakly performing schools).

That said, I do think there is a bit of an overemphasis on making everything standardized. Its a great way of testing students on things like math, geography, history, language, etc, but it has its limits and we should recognize them. And meh, one or two standardized tests, looking at certain aspects of a childs development is a great way of detecting possible weak points. For example, you can test a 5 year old for Dyslexia, imagine how much trouble it can safe a child if he diagnosed as Dyslexic when hes 5 instead of constantly lagging behind in school until hes 10 when someone finally decides to test for Dyslexia.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

As I was discussing in the Politics section of MCF, American Public Schools are cesspools of mediocrity that drain creativity and free thought and leave students unprepared for real life unless they go to preparatory school or community college.

--Ocram

[LexusInfernus 908]

Oh come on, its silly to expect that in this knowledge economy high school is enough to prepare you for any kind of job other than burger flipping at McDonalds?

Even countries that have a superior highschool system than the US do not believe that highschool alone is enough. Everyone is encouraged to go to college/uni or something like that after they have completed high school everywhere.

Also, just free thinking and creativity are worthless if they arent based on a certain standard level of knowledge. And I dont like it either, but a lot of that standard knowledge is boring to learn.

  Edited September 26, 2012 by LexusInfernus  

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Regular High School is not good enough to get you into University unless you take College Prep Classes or go to Community College beforehand.

--Ocram

  Edited September 26, 2012 by OcramSeattle  

[Easy Bakes 253]

Wait wait wait, standardized testing does not have to result in mediocrity, nor does it 'shred away all creativity'. Standardized testing simply put means only one thing and that is that everyone does the same test. Thats it. And quite rightly so. I mean, whats the use of diplomas if they arent comparable? This way makes it simply easier to exercise oversight and control over schools, and if necessary identify schools that perform weaker and help them (dont mention NCLB, I know its a terrible way of helping weakly performing schools).

That said, I do think there is a bit of an overemphasis on making everything standardized. Its a great way of testing students on things like math, geography, history, language, etc, but it has its limits and we should recognize them. And meh, one or two standardized tests, looking at certain aspects of a childs development is a great way of detecting possible weak points. For example, you can test a 5 year old for Dyslexia, imagine how much trouble it can safe a child if he diagnosed as Dyslexic when hes 5 instead of constantly lagging behind in school until hes 10 when someone finally decides to test for Dyslexia.

you are correct. there is nothing wrong with standardized testing.

We could fix this by making the schools go back to the type of curriculum's that they had in the late 70's ad early 80's [ of course you add computer science's and stuff that's newer then those times] and THEN make the kids take a non school system sponsered

test. If your really just checking to see how much they learned there is no reason for the school system to be involved in these tests at all. maybe thats were they went wrong, tying the kids score's into funding and pay raises, thats why they spend 1/2 the school year preparing for these tests.

there was nothing wrong with going thru the school system then taking the SAT's. to find out how much you really knew.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

The whole point is that school systems, even the over-bureaus of the government running the show should not be the ones to evaluate themselves. Kid placement is irrelevant to proper testing. What should be tested is the schools ability to impart the knowledge necessary to make a life in society.

Trying to place or stream kids at any age is cruel and unusual punishment. Kids need to be carefully developed to their full potential however limited or advanced that may be. Most school systems are not equipped to do this, but try and cram all the kids into a single model. Foolishness. They have probably already removed any ambition or creativity that might have existed in any possible new creative kids in all disciplines.

Standardized testing should evaluate the teachers, not the kids.

[LexusInfernus 908]

you are correct. there is nothing wrong with standardized testing.

We could fix this by making the schools go back to the type of curriculum's that they had in the late 70's ad early 80's [ of course you add computer science's and stuff that's newer then those times] and THEN make the kids take a non school system sponsered

test. If your really just checking to see how much they learned there is no reason for the school system to be involved in these tests at all. maybe thats were they went wrong, tying the kids score's into funding and pay raises, thats why they spend 1/2 the school year preparing for these tests.

there was nothing wrong with going thru the school system then taking the SAT's. to find out how much you really knew.

Well yes, but at the same time, why not use the results of these tests to identify poorly performing schools. And actually, why not attach it to the amount of funding a school gets? I think the main problem is that when a school performs poorly, the US cuts it funding as an incentive to perform better. But in order to perform better, schools need more funding, not less, so they can buy better material or hire better teachers or improve the schools facilities.

Sure, you will always have smarter people who will perform better then anyone else. But the nice thing about standardized testing is that you look at averages of the whole school. So if your school scores below average, it is not because there are some people who are generally less smart, its because on average everyone participating in the test is less smarter than the rest of the country. And that is not natural, nor is it something that should just be ignored.

@A Nonny Moose how does standardized testing actually lead to the diminishing of creativity? I mean, drilling kids to learn boring facts about history and math and language and what not is not exactly creative I agree. But how does that actually diminish someones interest in doing something creative? If anything, the creative part should then be considered by children as fun, so it becomes a hobby, something they do in their spare time. Even with standardized testing, children still have plenty of spare time, have they not?

  Edited September 26, 2012 by LexusInfernus  

[Easy Bakes 253]

you are correct. there is nothing wrong with standardized testing.

We could fix this by making the schools go back to the type of curriculum's that they had in the late 70's ad early 80's [ of course you add computer science's and stuff that's newer then those times] and THEN make the kids take a non school system sponsered

test. If your really just checking to see how much they learned there is no reason for the school system to be involved in these tests at all. maybe thats were they went wrong, tying the kids score's into funding and pay raises, thats why they spend 1/2 the school year preparing for these tests.

there was nothing wrong with going thru the school system then taking the SAT's. to find out how much you really knew.

Well yes, but at the same time, why not use the results of these tests to identify poorly performing schools. And actually, why not attach it to the amount of funding a school gets? I think the main problem is that when a school performs poorly, the US cuts it funding as an incentive to perform better. But in order to perform better, schools need more funding, not less, so they can buy better material or hire better teachers or improve the schools facilities.

Sure, you will always have smarter people who will perform better then anyone else. But the nice thing about standardized testing is that you look at averages of the whole school. So if your school scores below average, it is not because there are some people who are generally less smart, its because on average everyone participating in the test is less smarter than the rest of the country. And that is not natural, nor is it something that should just be ignored.

of course, those test results are like any data, you can use it to identify the poor performing schools and give them what they need

to help shore up the scores. But as i said these tests should be AFTER the school year to get a proper evaluation of the students ability's and a evaluation of the schools curriculum and how it performs, not how well you spend that last 2 grading periods prepping them for the test.

Oh and these tests will be free but required to advance to the next grade, you don't have to ace them just show you have learned enough to move on. maybe give them 2 chance's to do that before you hold them back. ( or am i dreaming this will be implemented?)

and no testing should be done by the schools.

[LexusInfernus 908]

of course, those test results are like any data, you can use it to identify the poor performing schools and give them what they need

to help shore up the scores. But as i said these tests should be AFTER the school year to get a proper evaluation of the students ability's and a evaluation of the schools curriculum and how it performs, not how well you spend that last 2 grading periods prepping them for the test.

Oh and these tests will be free but required to advance to the next grade, you don't have to ace them just show you have learned enough to move on. maybe give them 2 chance's to do that before you hold them back. ( or am i dreaming this will be implemented?)

and no testing should be done by the schools.

Agreed, these tests should be done at the end of the school year or at the very start of a year. Personally I dont even think they would have to be done for every year. Doing them at the start of the first school year, somewhere halfway through someones school career and at the end of the highschool career should be sufficient to track a students personal progress (and whether he scores above or below average) and of the quality of the school itself.

Anyways, the main problem that I see with these kind of tests are some of the parents. Even if as a school you dont spend to much time on preparing for such a test, you end up with parents that want their child to perform above average on these tests. While normally these tests are designed to test how smart kids normally are, you get parents that want to cheat on it by forcing their child through all kinds of pre test prep up programs. This not only skewers the result of the test as the results become unnatural themselves, it also defeats the purpose of the test and makes the test results highly unreliable.

[Duke87 1,070]

My issue isn't the tests themselves so much as the habits and attitudes they promote. If getting a good score on the test is everything, then teachers will teach to the test rather than teaching to pragmatism, and anything the test fails to capture will be neglected.

There is also the fundamental problem that we expect everyone to be similarly skilled and have no value for special gifts.

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

- Albert Einstein

[LexusInfernus 908]

My issue isn't the tests themselves so much as the habits and attitudes they promote. If getting a good score on the test is everything, then teachers will teach to the test rather than teaching to pragmatism, and anything the test fails to capture will be neglected.

That is the result of giving 'punishments' to teachers who teach a group who performs below average, while giving 'rewards' to those that perform well. If you dont give them rewards or punishments regardless of the test results you will also see a decrease in teachers teaching the test instead of teaching math, geography, history, etc.

There is also the fundamental problem that we expect everyone to be similarly skilled and have no value for special gifts.

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

- Albert Einstein

That isnt really the fault of a test. A test simply tests your ability to do a certain subject. A standardized test simply tests the things that it test by asking everyone the same question. But dont you think that someone who is talented at drawing or working with his hands will eventually find his or her way to a school or job that requires these skills over math or history?

And its not true that we assume that no one has a gift for a special subject. We do, quite a lot. But technically, its true that people are not really specially 'gifted' in the sense that they are born with such a gift. Instead, they merely have a preference, which causes them to do it more often, which in turn leads them to become better at it, which is then noticed by other people who praises these people for their efforts, thus encouraging them to go on, which under the right circumstances turns into a sort of cycle.

  Edited September 26, 2012 by LexusInfernus  

[krbe 193]

My issue isn't the tests themselves so much as the habits and attitudes they promote. If getting a good score on the test is everything, then teachers will teach to the test rather than teaching to pragmatism, and anything the test fails to capture will be neglected.

Indeed. While standarised tests are valuable statistical tools, it is wholly wrong to base decisions on them. Maybe more and different tests, selected randomly each year and no rewards or punishments would help. Would it aid public management directly? No. Would it help the individual decide on a career / university field? Maybe, but why would you want a test to decide that for you? When I began law school, almost none had any formal experience of the law and the teaching of it -- so naturally, there was a rather high drop out rate, as it is hard to judge from your first year experience whether it's worth hanging on to it for four more years (note to those in the English tradition, here you start law school directly after high school).

You don't need standarised testing to find out whether you're fit to be a carpenter or climb the corporate ladder (do they tell you which ladder to climb, too?). But you need them to know what the education system really produces. And then you need to have a perspective that stretches maybe 10-20-50 years, rather than until the next annual report / election cycle.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Unfortunately, these tests are not written with impartiality. A standard test for one area cannot in conscience be given in another area due to cultural differences that exist from place to place. In a culture of opossum hunters, mechanical skills with firearms will shade the tests towards "engineering", etc.

Children often do not understand the purpose of these tests, and might just as well be ants being observed in an ant-farm. The whole desire to pull statistics by testing is rather stupid since one can get a 95% confidence level with a universe of less than 1,000 random samples. The entire premise is silly. "By their fruits, ye shall know them". A poorly performing school (too many drop outs and failures) is an indication of bad performance on the part of the school, especially the teachers, not the student victims.

The suggestion that funding should be increased for a poorly performing school is rewarding failure. Before one undertakes such a venture, the first thing is to allow the teachers to reapply for their jobs after first taking a test to determine if they are qualified, diplomas notwithstanding. Money can't buy performance when the material to perform is not present. Tenure and union seniority must be done away with for the benefit of our children. A bad teacher needs to do something other than attempt to teach. Dismissal should be for cause (incompetence).

However, first the Spockian idea of "no child left behind" needs to be erased from the policy of all education. One of the things good education does is select a child's peer group, and it is not by age. Bruising their little egos is one way to get their attention. A nice big zero or F is a good thing, because it can be a great motivator for either good, or bad depending on the child. There is a perfectly good adage "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". A kid that consistently fails is deficient in some way and needs the attention of professionals, not just to be shoved along because of some false Freudian theory. These "special" children, through no fault of their own, need to have their talents and abilities discovered by someone other than an overworked teacher. Each child is precious. We can't afford to waste any of them because of silly policies set by people who have political goals.

Where will we get the professionals? Try encouraging more people to achieve advanced degrees in social sciences other than law. There are too many lawyers around now, so law schools should restrict admission to a fixed number needed to replace somewhat less than those leaving the profession. Law is a profession that specializes in pettifogging, so such people might well be better off elsewhere, perhaps as sanitary engineers walking behind the garbage truck. What we need are people who are educated to recognize and repair problems with our future.

  Edited September 27, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[LexusInfernus 908]

Unfortunately, these tests are not written with impartiality. A standard test for one area cannot in conscience be given in another area due to cultural differences that exist from place to place. In a culture of opossum hunters, mechanical skills with firearms will shade the tests towards "engineering", etc.

Generally these tests are written in an as impartial way as possible, and the cultural differences within a country are usually relatively small, except in certain ethnic sub cultures. Then again, the subjects that benefit the most from standardized testing are subjects that have no real cultural difference anyway. Math is the same everywhere around the world. It doesnt matter if youre American, Mexican, Canadian or European, 2+2 is always 4. Or geography. The US is also always on the same continent. On top of that, these standardized tests are designed to test how much you have learned at school. Thus, if you have done 4 years of school, one can expect that you have retained a number of facts on the subjects that your school taught. Again, culture shouldnt matter.

Now that I think of it, the only kind of test that suffers from cultural bias are actual Intelligence tests, that measure intelligence and not specific facts.

Children often do not understand the purpose of these tests, and might just as well be ants being observed in an ant-farm. The whole desire to pull statistics by testing is rather stupid since one can get a 95% confidence level with a universe of less than 1,000 random samples. The entire premise is silly. "By their fruits, ye shall know them". A poorly performing school (too many drop outs and failures) is an indication of bad performance on the part of the school, especially the teachers, not the student victims.

Thus useful for policy makers when looking what school needs extra help in order to perform better.

The suggestion that funding should be increased for a poorly performing school is rewarding failure. Before one undertakes such a venture, the first thing is to allow the teachers to reapply for their jobs after first taking a test to determine if they are qualified, diplomas notwithstanding. Money can't buy performance when the material to perform is not present. Tenure and union seniority must be done away with for the benefit of our children. A bad teacher needs to do something other than attempt to teach. Dismissal should be for cause (incompetence).

Thats the kind of thinking that brought the US the NCLB act and it has been doing wonders to the US school system. Do tell, how are you gonna attract more competent teachers if you cant afford them? How are you going to buy proper school material such as books and class methods when you dont have enough money for it? Giving these schools more money because they fail is not rewarding them, its investing in them so that they may improve in the future. All you need is some inspector making sure the extra money doesnt disappear in the pocket of the school management, but is actually used to buy better materials and attract better qualified teachers.

[Duke87 1,070]

It also needs to be understood that schools do not exist in a vacuum. Every kid has plenty of life experience outside of school which has just as much influence on him as his experience in school does. Why do you think schools in poor neighborhoods struggle so much more than schools in wel-to-do areas? It's the difference between having a local culture of people who are driven to succeed and well-nurtured at home and having a local culture of people who are dysfunctional and don't raise their kids properly.

There are stark contrasts to be seen: I went to school in an area of Connecticut where, not everyone, but a lot of people had money, and had parents who took parenting seriously. If I or any of my friends in high school were cutting class, our parents would be on our asses the instant they found out and making sure the misbehavior was corrected. And we knew this, so we didn't cut class. And we also knew that similar penalties would be incurred if we did not get good grades. And our parents made sure we were doing our homework and were constantly monitoring how we were doing in school, ready to intervene if any problem arose of any sort.

Compare this to where I now live in New York City. I fairly frequently have cause to walk past the local high school during the day, and frequently kids can be found loitering around the area. Fortunately not doing drugs or anything like that, at least, but certainly not in class where they're supposed to be, either. Occasionally the cops will come by and yell at the kids to go to class, but they can't do much since no crime is being committed and the behavior is not deterred. And while I do not know any of their parents I can only logically conclude based on the rate of truancy that they are not doing a sufficient job of keeping their kids in line. There are some housing projects not too far away, and it's probably a fair bet that many of these kids are being raised by single parents and other forms of dysfunctional family, even if it's just parents who don't have their crap together enough to care that their kids are cutting class. And since lots of kids are doing it the bad behavior is encouraged by peer pressure.

Point ultimately being, good schools are not and cannot be a cure-all to education woes. You need good parenting and good culture, too, or it just won't work. Poor education in America is not just the result of problems with our education system, it is the result of problems with our society - and no education policy can fix those. The best teachers in the world cannot effectively teach students who do not want to learn, especially if the students never even show up to class!

  Edited September 27, 2012 by Duke87  

[Easy Bakes 253]

Duke is right you have to have parents who care about their kids education,Stupid lazy parents raise stupid lazy kids.

My sister is a single mom but both my nieces did very well in school since she took a hand and made sure they did their school work+ more that wasn't assigned by the teachers.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

You also have well-to-do parents who believe their children can do no wrong and let their children get and do whatever they want.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

There needs to be a synergy in the the relationship between the schools and the community. On the whole, social intervention when poor results are obtained will not improve things for people who see themselves as downtrodden. These social workers are just seen as another cog in the machinery that drives them down (blame game).

It is too late in many cases for some neighbourhoods whose problems can only be solved with a bulldozer. What many "poor" people in America don't understand is what real poverty means. Perhaps the community leaders in these areas should be sent to some place like Pond Inlet for a three month's stay with our poorest native peoples. We are not proud of the situation, there, but after years of throwing money at the problem, there are still no results.