jimwilliam wrote:

I personally think standardized tests are one of the least useful assessment pieces available, whether it's the students or the teachers being tested.

I have never really understood that argument, especially with subjects that are fact based. It seems to me that standardized tests are a good way of ensuring students are learning math, science or even grammar to the expected level. One of the problems I see on a regular basis is people who supposedly have supposedly graduated from highschool or even college but are truly illiterate.


This is going to sound.....argh. Arrogant. But most people untrained in education don't understand the case against standardized tests. But bear with me.

The most important thing to consider when deciding to implement some form of assessment (any form, including tests) is to make sure it tests what you want it to test. That sounds straightforward, but it isn't. You have to specifically target the skills you want to see the testee perform, and make sure your test tests those and as much as possible, only those.

So take the case of standardized tests. Because they are taken by so many people at once, they have to be quick to implement and easy to mark. So they are paper and pencil tests, almost always true false or multiple choice. They involve a lot of reading. So what? you might say, our kids need to read. Ok, fair enough. But do they need to fail every subject because they can't read? Should a child fail math because they can't read? Or possibly, for a reason as simple as they need glasses? What about a kid who's fine motor control is poor enough, or he's just sloppy enough that he can't get the little black circles in the right spots on the page?

So those are the barriers to the kids taking the tests. (Well, it's a very limited list of them anyway.) What about the things that children bring to the table that these tests don't give them credit for? Think of it this way. Do we want kids to graduate school with good working interpersonal skills? Because standardized tests don't test for that. Problem solving? No way. The ability to recognize and use diverse materials to produce something? Sorry, no test for that. Charisma, presentation skills? Forget it. Leadership, debating skills? Sorry, no.

The only things that standardized tests test for well is the ability to take standardized tests. And yes, there are specific skills involved in being successful on those tests. More and more classrooms are demonstrating instruction in just those skills. Manipulatives? Back to the bin. We have to do all our math with pencil and paper, because the test is coming. Debating in language class? Sorry, it's grammar time, here comes the test. Not only that, but we will now have specific time in the curriculum carved out to teach how to fill out the stupid test papers, "c or the longest answer", and all that jazz.

Personally, given the shift in education that seems to follow these tests, I think they're one of the worst things to happen in education in a long time.

Jimwilliam wrote:

Okay, here's my response to you:

They involve a lot of reading. So what? you might say, our kids need to read. Ok, fair enough. But do they need to fail every subject because they can't read? Should a child fail math because they can't read[/i]

Yes to both questions. If, by age ten, (the earliest I've heard of standardized testing) a kid can't read he needs to be identified and his problem sorted out one way or another. What are you going to do, keep pushing him through school because he's got some mediocre basket weaving skills? That is not going to help him when the real world shows up and smacks him in the face. If he can't read or do at least basic math he's useless to employers so he spends the rest of his life on welfare, in jail or in some other sort of grinding poverty because nobody bothered to make sure he acquired the basic skills he needs to survive in the outside world.

Or possibly, for a reason as simple as they need glasses?

If that's the reason, great. He fails the test. Somebody looks and says "why" and maybe he gets glasses.

What about a kid who's fine motor control is poor enough, or he's just sloppy enough that he can't get the little black circles in the right spots on the page?

Same answer as above. Is he just a slow developer? Is there a health problem? Is it a behaviour problem? Shuffling up into the next grade isn't going to resolve that.

Think of it this way. Do we want kids to graduate school with good working interpersonal skills? Because standardized tests don't test for that. Problem solving? No way. The ability to recognize and use diverse materials to produce something? Sorry, no test for that. Charisma, presentation skills? Forget it. Leadership, debating skills? Sorry, no.

Not everything can be tested for. But, by the same token, all the problem solving skills, charisma and presentation skills in the world aren't going to help a kid if he can't read, write or do basic arithmetic.

Debating in language class? Sorry, it's grammar time, here comes the test.

No reason why they can debate in language class. Maybe some of the debating could be in written form so that the kid learns how to communicate his arguments in an understandable manner.

As for teachers....

I could go on about this being the only reason teacher's unions are against standardized testing but I won't because (shudder/shake) I almost agree with them. The reason for the tests should be two-fold:

1. To find out if the children are achieving the standards expected for that age and grade level. If, on an individual level, they are not achieving it then the resons can be looked at.

2. If, on a group level, too many are failing or passing then maybe there is a problem with the curriculum.

Because every student has their own capability and, except in special cases, kids are randomly assigned to classes the fact that one teacher's class does miserably in the tests doesn't reflect on his or her teaching skills anymore than a teacher's class excelling at the test makes that teacher a great teacher. If, however, year after year, an individual teacher's students fail to meet the standards while other teachers students do pass then the problem may lie with the teacher.

gat, I agree! My children spent valuable class time studying for standardized tests. Most of an entire grading period!! How to take it, what subjects would be expected and even how to fill in the damn tiny little circles. lol

For students, I think their accumulated test scores for the year, if based on standard cirriculum, should be more than enough to evaluate their level as well as the cirriculum success. Not a one time, huge test that usually scares the bejesus out of everyone because of the emphasis and time spent "training". I hated them, though I did well.

(For the record, I also hated the Presidents Physical Fitness test and thought that it was unfair! )

They involve a lot of reading. So what? you might say, our kids need to read. Ok, fair enough. But do they need to fail every subject because they can't read? Should a child fail math because they can't read[/i]

Yes to both questions. If, by age ten, (the earliest I've heard of standardized testing) a kid can't read he needs to be identified and his problem sorted out one way or another. What are you going to do, keep pushing him through school because he's got some mediocre basket weaving skills? That is not going to help him when the real world shows up and smacks him in the face. If he can't read or do at least basic math he's useless to employers so he spends the rest of his life on welfare, in jail or in some other sort of grinding poverty because nobody bothered to make sure he acquired the basic skills he needs to survive in the outside world.

I guess my point was that using these tests to gather supposed information about a group of children's math skills doesn't do much good if the language expectations got in the way of some of the childrens ability to express their math skills. If the purpose of the test was to test MATH, then the subsequent data would be completely flawed. Underwater basketweaving skills notwithstanding

Or possibly, for a reason as simple as they need glasses?

If that's the reason, great. He fails the test. Somebody looks and says "why" and maybe he gets glasses.

Ok, but what if we already knew he needed glasses, but his parents werent with it enough to deal with it? What if we'd been modifying for him by seating him near the board, photocopying his work a size bigger, letting him take some assessments orally because of it? And none of that would help him take the board test?

What about a kid who's fine motor control is poor enough, or he's just sloppy enough that he can't get the little black circles in the right spots on the page?

Same answer as above. Is he just a slow developer? Is there a health problem? Is it a behaviour problem? Shuffling up into the next grade isn't going to resolve that.

flunking him isn't going to solve it either. Holding kids back and making them school with kids younger than them doesn't work. That's why we stopped doing it. The chances of a kid who flunked a grade in elementary school graduating highschool went down to about fifty percent at best, before the act was discontinued. Either way, there are better way to diagnose this stuff than flunking a standardized test. The problem with these tests is that they don't test what they think they test--so they don't tell you much at the end. You only know the kid flunked--you don't know why.

Think of it this way. Do we want kids to graduate school with good working interpersonal skills? Because standardized tests don't test for that. Problem solving? No way. The ability to recognize and use diverse materials to produce something? Sorry, no test for that. Charisma, presentation skills? Forget it. Leadership, debating skills? Sorry, no.

Not everything can be tested for. But, by the same token, all the problem solving skills, charisma and presentation skills in the world aren't going to help a kid if he can't read, write or do basic arithmetic.

True. But I would argue that the opposite is also true. Kids who graduate highschool being able to speedread, print prettily, spell their way out of contests and do complicated algorythms in their head don't have a prayer in life if they can't work with people, think creatively, perservere, or problem solve. And letting the tests drive our curriculum ignore many of the skills that today's employers complain our young people lack.

Debating in language class? Sorry, it's grammar time, here comes the test.

No reason why they can debate in language class. Maybe some of the debating could be in written form so that the kid learns how to communicate his arguments in an understandable manner.

Here's the thing. Effort in classrooms follows the accountability. More and more, teachers are being held accountable for test scores. So no, no one is officially going to say that there's no more debates--but knowing they won't be held accountable for their students' debating skills, but they will be held accountable for their testing skills, which are teachers going to focus the time on? It's the way the cogs turn.

As for teachers....

I could go on about this being the only reason teacher's unions are against standardized testing but I won't because (shudder/shake) I almost agree with them. The reason for the tests should be two-fold:

1. To find out if the children are achieving the standards expected for that age and grade level. If, on an individual level, they are not achieving it then the resons can be looked at.

2. If, on a group level, too many are failing or passing then maybe there is a problem with the curriculum.

Because every student has their own capability and, except in special cases, kids are randomly assigned to classes the fact that one teacher's class does miserably in the tests doesn't reflect on his or her teaching skills anymore than a teacher's class excelling at the test makes that teacher a great teacher. If, however, year after year, an individual teacher's students fail to meet the standards while other teachers students do pass then the problem may lie with the teacher.

Ok, and fair enough, except you're assuming one very large thing. You're assuming that there's nothing wrong with the test itself--and I don't agree with that assumption. I agree that teachers, schools, and the curriculum need to be held accountable. (I would argue that children are already assessed in most classrooms in much better ways than these tests.) I just don't agree that these tests are the best way to do it. We have individual inspections of teachers and whole schools done routinely that involve sampling student work, talking to students, observing teachers teach, etc. I believe they are much more reliable assessment pieces than standardized tests. Are they more expensive? Yes. But they are more reliable.

Ok, I know I am the minority opinion on this board, but, thinking that everyone needs to know how to do the same things, the same way is insane. Just because a kid can't read for comprehension to pass a standardized test doesn't mean they cannot be a hugely valuable employee to a computer gaming developer that depends on math and code. You don't have to have the skill of working 9-5, taking orders, and dressing for success to make a great living in today's world. These are not useless skills, but not nearly as necessary as our generation believes them to be. If you ask many employers what they want in an employee, you will get just as many who want the ability to think independently, solve problems, bring creative solutions, be able to talk to people, as you will those who want people to be on time, dress appropriately, and have basic math and English skills.

The big standard tests my kid has been taking involve a helluva lot more than fill-in-the-oval-with-a-#2-pencil.

http://www.nj.gov/education/assessment/ ... h7.htm#44d
http://www.nj.gov/education/assessment/ ... lal567.htm

Sample question:

Writing Task

There is a park in your town used by the residents. A popular fast-food chain wants
to buy the land and build a restaurant on it. Losing the park to get the restaurant has
caused a conflict in the town.

Write a letter to the mayor explaining whether you think the town should keep or sell
the park. Use examples and other evidence to support your position.

You may use the box provided on pages 2 and 3 of your answer folder to plan your
ideas before you begin writing your letter. Then write your letter on the lines that follow.

our grade three and 6 tests are more like that too. They are more effective, i think, but they're also more expensive to impliment and mark.

I like that question.

The big problem is making the kids care. In other words, they would do much better on a writing assignment "Write a letter to the principal to explain why the new parking lot should not pave over the left half of the football field", then this hypothetical scenario. And that's one of the things standardized tests can't provide--real life real time meaningful assignments.

Ok, and fair enough, except you're assuming one very large thing. You're assuming that there's nothing wrong with the test itself--and I don't agree with that assumption. I agree that teachers, schools, and the curriculum need to be held accountable. (I would argue that children are already assessed in most classrooms in much better ways than these tests.) I just don't agree that these tests are the best way to do it. We have individual inspections of teachers and whole schools done routinely that involve sampling student work, talking to students, observing teachers teach, etc. I believe they are much more reliable assessment pieces than standardized tests. Are they more expensive? Yes. But they are more reliable.

I could back and forth you on a number of your comments in post 4 but they would be mainly nit picking. Actually, inherent in the two purposes I set out for standardized testing is the possibility that the tests are wrong. As I said, if too many students are passing them then the test doesn't reflect the level those students have achieved (eg: You are giving a grade 2 test to grade 5 students). By the same token, if too many are failing, the same thing applies (You are giving a grade 7 test to grade 5 students).

What is interesting about your whole response in post 4 is that, while you do mention some problems students may have with the tests, your main objections lie in the fear that the results of the tests may be used to rate teachers. It seems that you are prepared to push students up and out of the school system without them learning anything rather than take the chance of teachers being examined on the outcomes of tests.

As I said, I don't think teachers should be ranked on the tests. The abilities of their students are beyond the teacher's control. The only exception being when a particular teacher's students consistently fall below the standards while other teachers students are passing.

These tests should be to ensure students are learning what they need to learn and to pinpoint problems the student may be having. You mention in one place that a student may not pass a math test because he can't read. If that's the case, shouldn't someone teach him how to read. Pushing students through school regardless of their outcomes may be temporarily good for their little egos and save teachers their jobs but once they leave school they are hooped.

queenoftheuniverse wrote:

Ok, I know I am the minority opinion on this board, but, thinking that everyone needs to know how to do the same things, the same way is insane. Just because a kid can't read for comprehension to pass a standardized test doesn't mean they cannot be a hugely valuable employee to a computer gaming developer that depends on math and code. You don't have to have the skill of working 9-5, taking orders, and dressing for success to make a great living in today's world. These are not useless skills, but not nearly as necessary as our generation believes them to be. If you ask many employers what they want in an employee, you will get just as many who want the ability to think independently, solve problems, bring creative solutions, be able to talk to people, as you will those who want people to be on time, dress appropriately, and have basic math and English skills.

I'll agree there are probably some jobs an illiterate person could do and maybe even make a living at but they really are few and far between. I'll also agree that employers do like employees to have the soft skills you reference. In fact, in some jobs they are critical. But, to a man, what employers want is employees with those skills in addition to their ability to read write and do arithmetic. All the computers skills in the world aren't going to be of any value if the guy can't communicate what it is he's working on. The greatest salesman in the world is useless if he can't write up a purchase order. There's no sense in being a great problem solver if you can't figure out what the problem is.

argh. you've completely misunderstood a great deal of what I previously posted.

In short terms--this is what i object to about standardized tests:

1. They test a specific skill set and do not account for children with different learning styles.

2. Because of the way they drive accountability, they are now altering schools to also focus on the specific kinds of skills that the tests recognize and reward, to the deteriment of programs that do not (the arts, phys ed, manipulative math, problem solving, creativity, social skills, etc.)

3. They are driving schools to identify more and more students (so schools will be allowed to exempt them from the tests, to boost test scores).

4. They are a one size fits all assessment piece that then begs a one size fits all curriculum, which will never be able to fit the needs of all students or catch their interests.

I'm sorry Jim, but your point about being afraid of teachers being held accountable for test scores is a strawman, since to my knowledge teachers (up here anyway) are never held accountable directly for test scores. They don't even have standardized tests in every grade. Schools and boards are held accountable though, which is why the tests are now driving curriculum.

As for teachers passing kids along to protect their jobs--I'm sorry, but that's just not how it works. Teachers are NOT ALLOWED to fail students. Not in Ontario, anyway, not in elementary school. Kids don't fail grades any more. For reasons I stated above. Even if i didn't believe failing grades was bad for kids, it would not be within my power to do it.

Comment on points 1, 2, 3, and 4 above.

It all looks good and keeps the ignorant voters voting enabling school board wonks and politicians to keep their jobs. That the public education system is a failure is irrelevant.

I won't argue with you about it GAT. But if the school system is going to graduate kids who can't read, write or do arithmetic, don't send them to me looking for a job.

I'm not sure that *all* standardized testing can be painted with the same brush. Any test includes a standard by which the test takers are measured.

To a certain extent, accommodations for "different learning styles" is reasonable. But eventually you do have to get to a standard of 2+2=4. While it would be wonderfully creative to have a kid answer "2+2=purple cheerios-oh look! a squirrel", it wouldn't indicate that the kid can do math.

There are certain realities in life, facts that we know kids will need to grasp in order to function in the world. Those realities include being able to prove what you *do* know, prove that you are capable of retaining information, prove that you can work within a set of guidelines, follow instructions, etc.

Sure, there will be conflicts. Humans are all shades of grey. Child or adult, humans sometimes don't easily fit a "standard".

Perhaps I am too tired to make myself crystal clear but I was not referring to absolutes. By "reading for comprehension to pass a standardized test" I was not suggesting that the person would be illiterate, just that they may not have the specific skill sets needed to be equally competent in all aspects of what a standardized test might sample.
In most cases, the test is not a benefit to the student. The student does not walk away from the test having learned something or having gained something for their time and effort in participating in the testing. The test is for the benefit of someone else in evaluating what the student has done, or, more often, the test is of benefit to someone else for comparison, not even to specifically evaluate the test taker. There are multiple ways to evaluate someone's skills and needs and most evaluators or assessors that I know would choose another method over a standardized test. Standardized tests are good for comparing large amounts of data, but we need to be careful that conclusions drawn from the data match what the test is actually sampling.

Please do not assume that I think skills and competencies are not necessary, I just don't think standardized tests are of much value to most people and too many conclusions are drawn from them that are inaccurate and incomplete.

The student does not walk away from the test having learned something or having gained something for their time and effort in participating in the testing.

Student's aren't supposed to learn something *from* the test taking, they are supposed to be able to demonstrate skills that they have already learned. A slight difference, but a difference.

As for "gained something" or "benefit to the student"- heck, what do they "gain" from any grade on any kind of test or report card or whatever? lol A letter or number written on a piece of paper has no "value", really.

But let's imagine trying to evaluate every student based on a method designed specifically for each and every student. How could you arrive at any conclusions at all about what methods of education are most/least effective? There would simply be too many variables to arrive at any conclusions.

Is there room for improvement of standardized testing? Sure. NO system is perfect.

Hey Chaos, I love you but we have often disagreed on education. However, I think we are agreeing on this, it's just that you see the same thing in a positive light that I see in a negative light. We are trying to use data that evaluates certain behaviors in individual students to measure the effectiveness of methods and programs. Not fair to the student to do this, then the student more often than not carries the outcome of the test on their record which is not an evaluation of THEM. Sure, our system is not set up to teach individuals for the most part, but we accept that it cannot do a better job of that and that individuals should conform. I do not accept that we cannot do a better job of it. And I am not sure that the test really does measure the effectiveness of the program across the board as it tests individuals then tries to use the data in aggregate. I think we waste a huge amount of time and money and don't get what we think we get for our trouble.

ok, but I'm not suggesting we loosen standards. I'm not saying that a child shouldn't know that 2+2=4.

In grade one, a child needs to learn adding facts to twenty, according to the curriculum. Fine. but three different children might demonstrate that knowledge three different ways, but still knowing basically the same thing.

One child, who works well with a paper and pencil, might know how to write the standard algorythm, 2+2=4.

Another child, whose learning styles are more kinesthetic, might show you that 2 blocks combined with 2 other blocks will result in 4 blocks.

A visual learner might draw a picture of two bunnies joining two other bunnies for a picnic, and tell you a story about how the 4 bunnies became a family afterwards.

Another child might be able to recite to you 2+2=4 but not be able to read the symbols for the numbers or the adding or the equal sign.

I would argue that all of those children are demonstrating PART of what they need to understand to really know what 2+2=4 means, and to be able to apply it both to real life and to later mathematical complexities. But only the first child will get the score for it on the standardized test. And the one that memorizes rote in grade one their adding facts, without understanding that numbers mean quantities and that adding means the combining those quantities, etc. etc. will be the LEAST able to apply that knowledge later.

And that's the problem with standardized tests--they undervalue a lot of what goes into higher or deeper levels of learning and understanding. People think that standardized tests are useful in avoiding the dumbing down of the curriculum, but i almost feel the opposite is true in a lot of cases.

I think we test too often and the test results are too heavily weighted into tracking decisions, but I think we have to standardize test.

I think by the time students are in 11th grade they have to be able to show that can calculate the area and circumference of a circle. Read a paragraph and answer a few comprehension questions. I don't think we can issue diplomas on a basis of time served.

I have no problem with gat's alternate assessment methods. She teaches a primary grade and at that time (and even later) the focus should be to students' strengths.

I taught lower performing students in 11th grade right before they were going out in the world. These students were somewhat victims of learned helplessness. They weren't very academic and they knew it so they performed accordingly. Some of the things we worked on in Trans Math 3 were writing checks (which I don't think any young adult does anymore), balancing their checkbooks, authoring a budget, planning their vacations within a budget, and figuring out their taxes (EZ Form).

I've been reading and rereading this thread ~ first one post impacts my thinking, then the next post reverses that impact ~ here's where I stand at the moment ~

I think some standardized testing is necessary, especially in earlier grades ~ what I find troubling is the preparation for and impact of that testing ~ at our school, we use a whole week of classtime a couple of times a year to prepare for mandated testing ~ virtually all the kidlets are learning for a couple weeks a year is how to take/pass the test ~ our teachers seem to be split pretty close to 50/50 as to the value ~ so I can easily understand and relate to greeny's frustrations and concerns ~ yes, there is much differentiation in learning styles ~ and that differentiation cannot be fully respected in any public school system, most of which lack the required staff and $$$ to "personalize" the learning experience for every child ~ ergo: standardized testing of learning levels is more a reflection on teaching methodologies than on the students' capabilities ~

I need to think on this some more ~

Sooz

Standardized testing will work as soon as we have standardized students. They're working on it.
Standardized testing will work as soon as we have standardized teachers. They're working on that, too.
After all, we already have standardized school boards and politicians and they're working very hard at being the worst possible.

Sadly, lots of truth in your post, oskar ~

Sooz

lol oskar. There is a small argument for standardized teachers via curriculum. That is, based on the constant mobility of the citizens, children need to be able to transfer from one school system/state to another without being either A) way ahead of the new school's students or B) way behind.

Any "army brat" can tell you about that difficulty, especially in the elementary grades.

HS (10-12) is a different kettle of fish. I've long advocated for a more open curriculum at the HS level. Let kids decide their own path, take the classes they are interested in with some guidance toward the math, history etc. that they may need in their field of interest. That way, you have engage students eager to learn. jmo

The difficulty is staffing for that particular model. To make it easier, you would have kids choose classes/subjects at the end of the year before in order to organize the teaching staff.

The other way to handle that would be to have different HS offer different fields of study. One for the sciences, one for the arts, etc. with support staff in the other subjects like english/math/history.

I know it's a pipe dream, but the teaching profession at large needs to think outside the box. I'm sure they would have much more practical solutions or suggestions.

Where I have a problem is that HS students are expected to learn huge course contents each year while teachers need to be "specialized". Seems the teachers can't meet the same knowledge standard as that expected of the students.
The reason they can't/don't is that they aren't expected to.