Standardized Tests: Have we gone too far?

[micromass]

As a big John Oliver-fan, I watched his new video as soon as it appeared:



And what I saw was really shocking. I can't imagine taking more than 3 standardized tests in my entire life. Why did they let things get so far in the USA? This system must be quite off-putting for a lot of students and teachers. Not to say that standardized tests don't really say a lot about your abilities to begin with. It appears some major overhaul in education is needed.

 

[gfd43tg]

It's not as bad as china, where one standardized test essentially maps out the rest of your life and potential earnings

 

[axmls]

Unfortunately, misguided politicians from both parties have enacted policies that tie increased federal funding to better school performance, measurable of course by more standardized tests.

Combine that with the ACT and SAT--at my old high school, we probably spent 10 minutes in each class just practicing for these tests. And it's out of the question to stop, because we would be at a disadvantage compared to the other schools around the nation prepping their students for these tests.

Quite frankly, I don't remember ever being pushed to learn for the sake of learning. Everything was about tests.

 

[Evo]

As a big John Oliver-fan, I watched his new video as soon as it appeared:



And what I saw was really shocking. I can't imagine taking more than 3 standardized tests in my entire life. Why did they let things get so far in the USA? This system must be quite off-putting for a lot of students and teachers. Not to say that standardized tests don't really say a lot about your abilities to begin with. It appears some major overhaul in education is needed.

I don't get it. In my day we had Iowa tests only, and they weren't annual. My kids had similar tests. There were not a bunch of tests. Where, when and what are these supposed tests? We aren't talking about optional tests such as ACT and SAT.

 

[mesa]

The school my children attends puts all their effort into having the kids work assignments that have similar questions to these tests. They skip over conceptual understanding entirely and replace it with rote regurgitation. Some things do require memorization, multiplication tables for example however many of you would be shocked how many elementary and middle schoolers do not know these but are expected to understand associative and commutative properties. Next time you see a 12 year old ask them what 7x8=, in most cases you won't like what you hear.

On a completely different note, welcome back micromass :)

 

[lisab]

A strong tide is growing against all the testing, at least in Seattle:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/24/us-usa-education-washington-idUSKBN0NF22920150424

The title of the article makes it sound like it's just one school, but it's across the city (and probably beyond). The students are fed up with it and their parents seem to agree.

 

[Evo]

A strong tide is growing against all the testing, at least in Seattle:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/24/us-usa-education-washington-idUSKBN0NF22920150424

The title of the article makes it sound like it's just one school, but it's across the city (and probably beyond). The students are fed up with it and their parents seem to agree.

I think it's the state and local testing, it varies even between school districts with the same city, it's not federally mandated.

 

[BobG]

I think there's a few different issues here.

1. What do you want a school system to accomplish? Is their job to make certain knowledge available or is their job to produce educated students? One part of this is controllable by the school system - the other part isn't completely within their control.

2. Is it good to measure the school system's performance? It takes time and money to measure things, so there is a cost to the measurements you make.

3. How should you measure the school system's performance? Obviously, the answer to #1 will have a big influence on how this question is answered. #2 will have a major influence, as well.

For example, if you do believe the school's job is to produce educated students, you could ask the students essay questions, complete labs with the accompanying lab reports, etc. That would be the expensive way to do it, but it would also get you more accurate answers. Or, you could ask multiple choice questions. Those are cheap, but will give a less thorough picture.

4. What do you do with the results? The answer to this depends on the answer to #3. Cheap multiple choice tests can indicate you may have a problem in certain areas, but really won't do a good job pin-pointing what those problems are. Your options are to invest more time and money into figuring out why results in some areas were low or do things the cheap way and just fire people. After seeing their predecessors get fired, the new batch of people will work overtime for free to figure these things out on their own so they don't get fired, too. Or not. They could just look for a better job somewhere else.

In other words, it sounds strange to identify "standardized testing" as the villain for our educational woes. There are reasons to use them. Just don't spend a $1.98 and expect your diamond ring to cut glass.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Is all the standardized testing due to Common Core? From the articles read and videos I've watched, Common Core seems like a good idea that just needs to be refined.

Anyway, my wife who is a teacher is a huge fan of Montessori schools.

 

[barryj]

Huckeby recently announced that he will run for president. As I heard it, he wants the local school districts to determine what will be taught. In our district this would only be football. We don't need a Huckeby!

 

[Intraverno]

I just took the PARCC, and I didn't have to sign any agreement. I can tell you that one of the questions was about an article about, get this, a fictional future where all of your clothes are scanned. I had to analyze what the character's feelings were despite there being no dialogue or background other than name, gender and age, in another question. Most of the questions are completely opinion based and would be perfectly suited to an English class where you are based on writing an analysis or essay outlining your thought process. Instead it was multiple choice with one correct answer for the one apparently correct interpretation based on absolutely nothing at all. The way to get the questions right is to figure out what they want to hear and say it.

And in the mathematics section, no calculators are permitted and all of the difficulty comes from having to do long and tedious calculations either with limited scrap paper or in your head. One problem said something along the lines of "Three coffee beans weigh 3.3134 x 10^-7 and three rice grains weigh 6.9801 x 10^-8. How much more does a single coffee bean weigh than a single rice grain?".

The biggest problem is the time. If we have 25 minutes of work to do, we get an hour and 15 minutes to do it. That is not an exaggeration. One boy next to me fell asleep because he was done at the 46 minute mark and he snored so loudly he woke up the other 4 kids I was testing with that were also sleeping. I was really surprised to hear in that vid that people were actually nervous about taking the PARCC. Sure, there were lots of questions you can't be reasonably expected to figure out, but the rest of them were stupidly easy. The few algebra questions were virtually all systems of equations that, again, relied on long calculations to be difficult, except we have so much time to do it that we can just check each of the answers for every single problem and still have time left over.

After day 1 I filled my scrap paper every single day front and back with an essay critiquing the test, providing a psychological analysis of just how inaccurate and pointless it was, suggesting ways to fix it, and doing a question by question review with how to improve the questions to be better designed. Every single time I have to go on to the formula reference sheet if taking math, or ask for more paper is doing English, to fit all of it. I do all of this (though not the question review obviously) before I even open the test book to start, and I still get bored for having too much time.

 

[Mark44]

I just took the PARCC, and I didn't have to sign any agreement. I can tell you that one of the questions was about an article about, get this, a fictional future where all of your clothes are scanned. I had to analyze what the character's feelings were despite there being no dialogue or background other than name, gender and age, in another question. Most of the questions are completely opinion based and would be perfectly suited to an English class where you are based on writing an analysis or essay outlining your thought process. Instead it was multiple choice with one correct answer for the one apparently correct interpretation based on absolutely nothing at all. The way to get the questions right is to figure out what they want to hear and say it.

And in the mathematics section, no calculators are permitted and all of the difficulty comes from having to do long and tedious calculations either with limited scrap paper or in your head. One problem said something along the lines of "Three coffee beans weigh 3.3134 x 10^-7 and three rice grains weigh 6.9801 x 10^-8. How much more does a single coffee bean weigh than a single rice grain?".

"Long and tedious"? I don't think so. The three coffee beans weigh 3.3134 x 10^-7 (lb? kg?) and the three rice grains weigh .69801 x 10^-7 (lb? kg?). Just subtract to get how much heavier the three coffee beans are than the three rice grains, and then divide that number by 3 to get the difference between a coffee bean and a rice grain. This is only slightly more complicated (the scientific notation) than kids used to do in US schools in sixth grade back in the 50s and 60s and before. Not to mention there were no calculators.

The biggest problem is the time. If we have 25 minutes of work to do, we get an hour and 15 minutes to do it. That is not an exaggeration. One boy next to me fell asleep because he was done at the 46 minute mark and he snored so loudly he woke up the other 4 kids I was testing with that were also sleeping. I was really surprised to hear in that vid that people were actually nervous about taking the PARCC. Sure, there were lots of questions you can't be reasonably expected to figure out, but the rest of them were stupidly easy. The few algebra questions were virtually all systems of equations that, again, relied on long calculations to be difficult, except we have so much time to do it that we can just check each of the answers for every single problem and still have time left over.

After day 1 I filled my scrap paper every single day front and back with an essay critiquing the test, providing a psychological analysis of just how inaccurate and pointless it was, suggesting ways to fix it, and doing a question by question review with how to improve the questions to be better designed. Every single time I have to go on to the formula reference sheet if taking math, or ask for more paper is doing English, to fit all of it. I do all of this (though not the question review obviously) before I even open the test book to start, and I still get bored for having too much time.

 

[Mark44]

A strong tide is growing against all the testing, at least in Seattle:

The state teachers' union (WEA) seems to be dead set against any mechanism for rating the performance of teachers.

 

[ModusPwnd]

I think its a conflict of interest for the person doing the educating to also make up their own tests as an evaluation of their and their students performance. Its a conflict of interest many or most teachers are keen to keep for themselves.

If standardized tests truly are not effective or meaningful then how can a non-standardized test somehow provide better data than a standardized test? What is the point of testing?

 

[vela]

Is all the standardized testing due to Common Core? From the articles read and videos I've watched, Common Core seems like a good idea that just needs to be refined.

I doubt it. From what I gather, it's largely a result of Bush's No Child Left Behind. Schools are judged based on standardized test scores, so there's pressure on the schools and teachers to teach to the test. I've often heard high school teachers complaining about how they feel they have no choice but to do this in order to keep their jobs and stay out of trouble.

 

[atyy]

commutative properties. Next time you see a 12 year old ask them what 7x8=, in most cases you won't like what you hear.

7X8 = 8X7

 

[micromass]

I think its a conflict of interest for the person doing the educating to also make up their own tests as an evaluation of their and their students performance. Its a conflict of interest many or most teachers are keen to keep for themselves.

If standardized tests truly are not effective or meaningful then how can a non-standardized test somehow provide better data than a standardized test? What is the point of testing?

The best education system in the world is apparently Finland. And guess what? The students have only one standardized test ever. I'm not saying that this fact alone explains why Finland's system is better than the USA's. But it sure gives evidence that standardized testing isn't really that important as the american politicians think it is.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-schools-successful-49859555/?page=2

Here in Belgium, there are no standardized tests in high school at all! Schools are evaluated by an independent committee checking the classroom material, the classroom examination, etc. It seems to work fine for us.

 

[JorisL]

Here in Belgium, there are no standardized tests in high school at all! Schools are evaluated by an independent committee checking the classroom material, the classroom examination, etc. It seems to work fine for us.

They exist for primary schools, OVSG for example which I took. I doubt this is obligatory though. (I did find a dutch blog talking about this if you are interested)
They have open questions contrary to multiple choice tests.

 

[jtbell]

Is all the standardized testing due to Common Core?

As I recall, the big push for annual standardized testing began with the No Child Left Behind act, back in the Bush 43 era. Before that, individual states went at their own paces. (added: now I see Vela beat me to it.)

 

[jedishrfu]

Everybody here are forgetting the Iowa Basic Skills tests which have been around since the 1950's long before Common Core.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Tests_of_Basic_Skills

They were used in New York state and elsewhere in the early grades to measure student performance across the state. I never knew if they were used to improve individual student performance though as we never saw any result from the test unless our parents got something.

In High School, we were given the NYS Regents tests which also measured performance, were used as the final exams of many courses and were used to dispense scholarship money to students attending colleges in NY state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_Examinations

We also took the SAT or ACT for college entrance as they became more and more popular. Now the testing industry has grown so large that they can lobby for additional tests which could lead to a future of test after test after test...

 

[jbunniii]

7X8 = 8X7

Which shows that the correct answer is $7 \times 8 = 8! / 6!$

 

[Andy Resnick]

As a big John Oliver-fan, I watched his new video as soon as it appeared: <snip>

The real problem, IMO, is not testing per se, but that test results are used to set school funding levels and impact teacher evaluations. That builds in incentive at all levels to replace instructional time with test-prep time. That, combined with the ever-increasing number of tests (there are 3 distinct standardized tests this year, two of these are taken multiple times: once at the beginning, once mid-way through the year, and once at the end of the school year), has completely altered the academic environment.

It's helpful to review why these tests are omnipresent- there is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that the US public school system is not adequately preparing kids for adulthood- either in terms of job training, but also 'life skills'- being an informed citizen, able to read, write, and balance a checking account. There is also a contrary perception (rightly or wrongly) that kids should not repeat grades (i.e. social promotion).

We can't have it both ways- require students graduating with a high school diploma to have a minimal skill set, but also requiring schools to graduate all students on schedule.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

It's helpful to review why these tests are omnipresent- there is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that the US public school system is not adequately preparing kids for adulthood

My wife works at an inner city school. She works with small groups with really struggling kids. Kids who at grade 3 don't know the sounds letters make. Really tragic stuff. She does a lot of testing called MAPS. The problem is these kids never get read to at home and have no parental involvement. Teachers get some blame, but the reality is that kids need parents to work with their kids before they reach kindergarten and during elementary school or they will be behind.

 

[micromass]

They exist for primary schools, OVSG for example which I took. I doubt this is obligatory though. (I did find a dutch blog talking about this if you are interested)
They have open questions contrary to multiple choice tests.

Yes, and after I took them, they advised not to do something math intensive.

 

[micromass]

Which shows that the correct answer is $7 \times 8 = 8! / 6!$

A more geometrical solution would say that this is the area of the rectangle of sides $7$ and $8$.

 

[UncertaintyAjay]

It's the same the world over. I've had to give the SAT and the SAT subject tests, because I'm applying to the U.S and my friends who are applying to Indian Universities have their own worries. Anyone ever heard of the e IIT- JEE exam? It is actually a lamentable fact that schools don't teach us things for the sake of education but so we can ace tests. Although, anyone who's really interested in a subject can learn as much as they can about it, without regard to tests, via the internet and books. So, really, if you're motivated enough you can always self learn and, at least in my opinion, self learning is in some ways better than school because you have to puzzle things out for yourself and think over things a lot more instead of having everything spoon fed. And if you have any doubts , you can always ask teachers ( or people here on PF, :p).

 

[vela]

"Long and tedious"? I don't think so. The three coffee beans weigh 3.3134 x 10^-7 (lb? kg?) and the three rice grains weigh .69801 x 10^-7 (lb? kg?). Just subtract to get how much heavier the three coffee beans are than the three rice grains, and then divide that number by 3 to get the difference between a coffee bean and a rice grain. This is only slightly more complicated (the scientific notation) than kids used to do in US schools in sixth grade back in the 50s and 60s and before. Not to mention there were no calculators.

This reminds me of a high school kid I used to tutor for geometry. Many of the proofs he had to do only required one inference, so they pretty much amounted to listing the givens, invoking some theorem, and writing down the conclusion. Every once in a while, there'd be a slightly more complicated problem where he'd have to do one or two additional steps before reaching the conclusion, i.e., he had to write down six or seven lines instead of four. He'd immediately start complaining about how long and tedious the problem was, how unreasonable it was to expect students to do that, etc. I would just laugh at him.

 

[Fredrik]

John Oliver mentioned Pearson, a company that makes some of these tests. He suggested that the confidentiality agreement that ensure that test takers can't legally discuss exam questions with anyone make it difficult or impossible to get bad questions replaced.

I have some experience with this myself. In 2013 and 2014, I took a couple of expensive Pearson VUE tests. I had to take one of them four times before I finally passed. I discovered a few questions that were absurdly wrong, a few that were really badly worded, and a few that were probably wrong, but I wasn't able to verify it in the given time.

I informed them about this, and it led to nothing good. They sent me multiple messages saying that the exam had been reviewed and there's nothing wrong with it, but they never addressed any of my specific points. When I asked to see some of the questions again so that I could provide better feedback, they refused. When I mentioned something that someone else had said about one of the questions, they didn't respond to the point I had made and instead just told me that I was in violation of the confidentiality agreement.

When the discussion was over, I had come to the conclusion that these tests are essentially a scam. I don't think they're trying to make the tests as bad as possible, but I think they're made by incompetent people who spend very little time on them, presumably because Pearson has found that this is the way to make the most money. They have no incentive to fix the issues, because bad questions will increase the fail rate, and that will get people to pay the same amount to take the test again. It will also give the tests a reputation for being hard, which, ironically, elevates the status of the certification you get by passing the exam.

This experience makes me think that maybe the problem isn't that there are too many standardized tests, but that these tests are really, really bad.

 

[JorisL]

This experience makes me think that maybe the problem isn't that there are too many standardized tests, but that these tests are really, really bad.

This is absolutely frightening. It means all conclusions people report are based on bad data and a total breakdown of the idea.
In essence its just a waste of time, money and, worse, a bad perception of the quality of education provided by schools.

Yes, and after I took them, they advised not to do something math intensive.

I didn't really get any advise, although they were semi-chocked I went to a trade school. But in the end I'm certain it was the best choice.
That's another problem for another thread, those providing advise have poor understanding of the possibilities/requirements.

Same as them advising against math-intensive education in your case.
Maths is so much more than memorizing stuff and doing "calculations".

 

[Andy Resnick]

My wife works at an inner city school. She works with small groups with really struggling kids. Kids who at grade 3 don't know the sounds letters make. Really tragic stuff. She does a lot of testing called MAPS. The problem is these kids never get read to at home and have no parental involvement. Teachers get some blame, but the reality is that kids need parents to work with their kids before they reach kindergarten and during elementary school or they will be behind.

This is a reality for many urban schools (and universities, who are also becoming tasked with improving student outcomes)- and is a factor that standardized tests (and interpretations/consequences of test scores) completely ignore.

 

[WWGD]

The best education system in the world is apparently Finland. And guess what? The students have only one standardized test ever. I'm not saying that this fact alone explains why Finland's system is better than the USA's. But it sure gives evidence that standardized testing isn't really that important as the american politicians think it is.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-schools-successful-49859555/?page=2

Here in Belgium, there are no standardized tests in high school at all! Schools are evaluated by an independent committee checking the classroom material, the classroom examination, etc. It seems to work fine for us.

This is maybe a bit off-topic, since it is about education in general and not testing, but another main difference between education in Finland and other places is homework. It seems less HW is assigned in Finland, but the assignments are more carefully thought out. Not just regurgitating , nor plain drills (which are necessary), but assignments that require more thought and some level of integrating material.

 

[Evo]

The PARCC test has only been adopted by 9 states and Washington DC. The problem with the United states is that individual states are allowed to decide for themselves. You can't just make a blanket statement about standardized tests in the US unless you say there is no standardization, not in the tests, not in the number of tests, even within states there is little or no standardization.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2015/02/a_map_of_states_2015_testing_p.html

 

[Dale]

Is there a better device for measuring education than standardized testing?

I mean, it is easy to criticize a device, but a device which performs a useful function poorly is necessary until another device is developed which performs the function well.

 

[micromass]

Is there a better device for measuring education than standardized testing?

My Post #17 seems to answer this as yes.

 

[Evo]

This is maybe a bit off-topic, since it is about education in general and not testing, but another main difference between education in Finland and other places is homework. It seems less HW is assigned in Finland, but the assignments are more carefully thought out. Not just regurgitating , nor plain drills (which are necessary), but assignments that require more thought and some level of integrating material.

The high school both of my daughters attended had no homework, and no final exams, it was the public school district's "alternative education" high school. They LOVED it.

 

[SteamKing]

I think there's something wrong if we start taking public policy advice from comedians and hosts of fake news shows.

Obviously, there is no standardized test one can take to become a certified comedian. Anything they know at all about testing probably comes from when they were in school.

Are standardized tests being overused now? Probably.

Education as practiced in recent years, especially in the primary and secondary grades, is more driven by administrators and politicians signing up for the latest fads than deciding, based on results, what material students should learn and how best for them to show that they've learned the material. Standardized testing is a no-brainer for most people supervising public education because there's a company or two with a readily-available test which they can market to an interested school district.

 

[WWGD]

It would be interesting to see how well graduates of the Finnish system do farther along in their lives by some measures, e.g, number of patents, published papers, etc.

 

[stevendaryl]

Here's my ideal system: Instead of having a single, high-stakes test, you have lots of low-stakes assessments. The meaning of a low-stakes assessment is purely to decide how well a student understands a subject. The point of such an assessment would not be to decide someone's future destiny--Harvard or automechanics--it's simply to find out what the student still has trouble with, and what the student has mastered. The assessments would determine what happens next, as far as whether the student goes on to an advanced topic, or is given more help with the current topic.

This might not be universally the case, but it seems to me that for a student to get much out of a course, that student has to be at the right stage of academic development. If the course is at too advanced a level, and requires pre-requisites that the student hasn't really understood yet, then he's going to be lost. On the other end of the scale, if the course is at too basic a level, and just goes over what the student already knows, then that's a waste of time, as well.

 

[mathwonk]

my dad taught me to read by reading to me as i sat on his lap looking at the words. by the time i was 5, i could read a little in the newspaper and tried to do so from his new york times. in school they spent all their time on kids who could not read at all so i learned nothing more. my mom taught me basic arithmetic with flash cards, and spelling from the old blue back speller, and i added nothing to those areas in school either. i recall learning one thing in 8th grade when a substitute teacher came in for a couple days from the college, namely that a = a + ar + ar^2 +... - r(a + ar + ar^2 +...) = (1-r)(a+ar+ar^2+...) so (a + ar + ar^2 +...) = a/(1-r), (correct when |r| < 1). I thought that was so cool.at the end of the year they gave us iowa basic skills tests and i recall my score graph was just a straight line literally off the chart at the top of the page in every category. of course all the questions were trivial.In high school algebra we learned that r is a root iff (x-r) is a factor, and that n things can be arranged in n! different orderings, and that sqrt(2) is not rational, and basic plane geometry facts like ”triangles are equal that look equal”. finally in senior year we learned something, namely propositional calculus of logical expressions, and i finally knew what a negation, and a contrapositive, and a converse were after hearing those meaningless words used in plane geometry. I loved that stuff. We also learned that complex numbers were ordered pairs of reals, the basic definition of a group, and the meaning of countable and uncountable infinity. By reading on my own I learned cantor’s diagonal arguments to prove the rationals countable and the reals uncountable. that’s about it, as bubba gump said.when i took the SAT I kind of enjoyed it. It was an easy test I could do all but one problem of in my head, and then on the basis of the score i got a merit scholarship. so i always viewed standardized tests as found money. you spend a couple hours answering easy questions and they give you a scholarship! you don’t even need to know anything.The basic rule of passing a test is that it is almost impossible to write a single question so that it can only be answered by someone who actually knows the general theory it is testing. Thus with a little cleverness you can almost always answer any specific question with enough time, especially if it is multiple choice. Of course you can’t answer one like “state taylor’s theorem” unless you have some idea what that is, but skipping those regurgitation questions just gives you more time to deal with the specific numerical or conceptual ones. So I was never bothered by standardized tests, they were kind of a fun challenge, with a financial payoff.then i went to college and found out i knew nothing at all, and that i actually needed to work hard and read and think to make up for that. the previous 12 years were basically wasted except for the time playing baseball and basketball, but eventually it didn’ t matter that much, i still got a phd in mathematics and became a hard nosed college professor expecting everyone to work hard all the time. in my 60's i even read euclid and finally learned some plane geometry. i never really figured out how to teach effectively to anyone other than those who were willing to work hard though. that's why i wound up on physics forum where the only people here are pretty much those who want to learn.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>than deciding, based on results, what material students should learn and how best for them to show that they've learned the material. <snip>

This is the essence of the "pro-test" argument. But the reality is that it's impossible to generate statistically significant results in the first place- there are too many uncontrollable variables (e.g. home life) that strongly impact student ability. Further, while there is growing agreement with what minimum content constitutes a 'proper' STEM course, this concordance has not yet been reached for subjects like history, languages, art, etc.

 

[dlgoff]

Just thought I'd throw in my School Funding in Kansas thread, if anyone cares to read it.

 

[stevendaryl]

This is the essence of the "pro-test" argument. But the reality is that it's impossible to generate statistically significant results in the first place- there are too many uncontrollable variables (e.g. home life) that strongly impact student ability. Further, while there is growing agreement with what minimum content constitutes a 'proper' STEM course, this concordance has not yet been reached for subjects like history, languages, art, etc.

I certainly agree that things like home life affect a student's performance on tests, but why does that make the test results not statistically significant? Certainly, tests can't accurately measure inherent ability, but that's only relevant if you're trying to use the test to decide a student's entire future. But if you're only trying to decide what courses the student should take next, and whether the student needs additional help in a subject, then I think a test can give you a lot of information about that. That's why I advocate lots of small, low-stakes tests. They would just be a snapshot of where the student is, academically, not some kind of Tarot reading of what they are capable of next year or 10 years from now.

Your point about external factors such as a home life that is not conducive to learning is very good, but I'm not sure how schools should address those kinds of inequalities, other than to give students lots of opportunities for extra help.

 

[Evo]

What I don't understand is why these tests are needed. Wouldn't the child's every day school work be the best indicator? Many kids have test anxiety and will do worse on tests like this than in normal school work. Of course some kids hate school and don't do well even though they are very bright and capable but a special test isn't going to change that.

 

[TheDemx27]

I can't imagine taking more than 3 standardized tests in my entire life.

Ha, I took the SAT last week, and will take the SAT Math 2 subject test and SAT physics subject test less than a few months from now. What annoys me the most is that the SAT claims to be an aptitude test, yet you can significantly improve your score by preparing for it. Preparing doesn't really improve your abilities, it just makes you good at taking the test.

I view test scores in the same way Al Gore views GDP.

It appears some major overhaul in education is needed.

AMEN.

Not test related, but I have a single physics class at my school. It isn't AP, just introductory. Its the middle of the last quarter, and we are answering questions phrased like this: "The seasons change because the Earth gets closer and further away from the sun?". The teacher is wrong half the time when dealing with something outside the book, is terrible at explaining things, and spends most of the class making small talk about sports. We get so little work that I have literally spent the last week doing absolutely nothing. It is extremely frustrating for me, because a class about physics - physics! - should be the most interesting, and the school somehow butchers it. I'm definitely going to a local college for physics with calc next year because my school is a joke.

It doesn't stop there. There is mediocrity and apathy penetrating every corner of my high school, and it isn't just me with this opinion. Me and everyone I know finds almost class at my school extremely easy and boring. Take for example my AP US History class. We had a paper assigned in December to be due in a month. Its May now and still hasn't been collected because the teacher saw people weren't doing it. Now its an "ongoing project". All classes follow this pattern but the math courses taught by a particular teacher.

Whatever the case is at other schools, for me high school is so boring it is painful, and I know the majority of students at my school would agree with me.

If I choose not to get a doctors in physics I would be just as happy to pursue a teaching career at the high school level. I would make sure that my students would have the best freaking physics class of their high school career. There is SO much you could do. Make a Rubens' tube and explain sound waves and pressure and make a cloud chamber and get to see the trails of beta and alpha particles. I would be satisfied in life just to teach others to love the subject, to give them the physics class I never had.

 

[rollingstein]

I don't understand the common critique of standardized testing, in general. Maybe because I'm unfamiliar with the US HS system.

But is the argument against any standardized testing, or are we only saying that the particular tests used are crappy? If so, I can understand but then we can focus on improving standardized testing not getting rid of standardized testing. I am sure nobody argues against testing itself (say, at MS or HS level) so how does standardization suddenly make it crappy?

I admit it would be problematic if we had a China-style college admissions system where a single standardized test was the only one that mattered. But the US universities seem to weigh multiple metrics including standardized tests but not only standardized tests. That seems an OK system to me.

I think the problems of US educational systems are multifold e.g. tying funds to local taxes, lack of parental support, general poverty, a societal apathy to school education, poor teacher salaries, a mocking of high academic achievement as nerdiness, evils of unionization, bureaucracy etc. But standardized testing seems like the one feature everyone loves to attack. I don't get that focus. Perhaps standardization is an evil but it is a necessary evil.

Say, we got rid of standardized testing, how do we transition to a better scenario. It is fundamentally the training that is the major problem. Testing is the minor ill. If David cannot compute 8x7 it does not matter what sort of testing methodology you use to assess him; you still have a big problem.

OTOH, take the oft cited high quality student from Finland: I'm sure he'd do well on the many vilified standardized tests of USA if you had him take one.

 

[atyy]

What's the problem with googling 7X8?

It surely is much more important to know that 7 X 8 = 8 X 7 than to know that 7 X 8 = 56.

For example, in a mechanics problem, what is important is setting up the force diagram and writing the right equations down - in other words, it's the structure and logic that is important. Once you get to the final step, what;s wrong with plugging in the numbers and using a calculator?

 

[Fredrik]

I think there's something wrong if we start taking public policy advice from comedians and hosts of fake news shows.

I disagree with this view on comedians. Obviously we shouldn't just take someone's advice without first verifying that they're right, but the fact that Oliver is a comedian isn't a reason to think that that he's wrong. "Last week tonight with John Oliver" and "The daily show with Jon Stewart" (where Oliver's career started) seem to be doing more thorough research than all the actual news shows.

 

[rollingstein]

but the fact that Oliver is a comedian isn't a reason to think that that he's wrong

True. Even a madman can speak out silvers of sense sometimes.

I guess the point behind a comedian is "Don't take me seriously". So although, you are right that just because Oliver says the "Sun rises in the East" that doesn't automatically make it false.

But OTOH, a comedian isn't the source you ought to be looking for your dose of facts. Though it doesn't harm if he motivates you to look deeper into something.

 

[Fredrik]

What's the problem with googling 7X8?

It surely is much more important to know that 7 X 8 = 8 X 7 than to know that 7 X 8 = 56.

For example, in a mechanics problem, what is important is setting up the force diagram and writing the right equations down - in other words, it's the structure and logic that is important. Once you get to the final step, what;s wrong with plugging in the numbers and using a calculator?

I agree with what you're saying here, but it's certainly very useful to be able to do the most basic calculations without a calculator or Google. It's also natural to teach the multiplication table very early, so it's odd if someone who hasn't been taught the multiplication table is forced to take any test on math.

Also, somone who uses a calculator to find things like $\big(\frac 1 2\big)^2$ and $\frac{-1}{2}$ has a very seriously flawed understanding of multiplication. I don't think such people should be encouraged to keep using the calculator.

 

[JorisL]

What I don't understand is why these tests are needed. Wouldn't the child's every day school work be the best indicator? Many kids have test anxiety and will do worse on tests like this than in normal school work. Of course some kids hate school and don't do well even though they are very bright and capable but a special test isn't going to change that.

This.
About kids hating school, this could be the start of a new topic. "How can we improve quality in education?"

What's the problem with googling 7X8?

It surely is much more important to know that 7 X 8 = 8 X 7 than to know that 7 X 8 = 56.

For example, in a mechanics problem, what is important is setting up the force diagram and writing the right equations down - in other words, it's the structure and logic that is important. Once you get to the final step, what;s wrong with plugging in the numbers and using a calculator?

Fredrik beat me to it

I mostly agree but (there's always a but :-) ) how can one assess the result?
Given you never make a mistake in the first 100 problems you solve this way the intuition comes naturally. This is highly unlikely.
But if they are very confident in their calculating abilities it is easy to spot mistakes in my opinion.

I would conclude from this that we should find some sort of middle road here.
A slightly better example to support my point, integrals. Computer algebra packages sometimes cannot find the result while you can find a simple solution by hand.

I disagree with this view on comedians. Obviously we shouldn't just take someone's advice without first verifying that they're right, but the fact that Oliver is a comedian isn't a reason to think that that he's wrong. "Last week tonight with John Oliver" and "The daily show with Jon Stewart" (where Oliver's career started) seem to be doing more thorough research than all the actual news shows.

I wish we had such a comedian over here. We came to a point where the most popular news papers do some of the worst research.
No background checking etc.
Lets hope he makes people think critically (over time perhaps)