|
|
|
|
#1
03-01-2003, 11:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
School Testing- One more reason why it sucks
According to this article, high school students as Sacramento High School may have failed a state exam on purpose.
Sacramento High is in a state of limbo right now. It's always been a tough school- about as "inner city" as it gets in Sacramento. Because they did not improve test scores, they face "reorganization"- which means anything from the whole staff being fired, to the school being taken over by a for profit organization. Right now nobody really knows what's going to happen except that something big is going to change, and the needs of the students arn't really the highest thing on the list when decideing what happens. So then this story comes out. Apparenly the stats on test score look suspect. The white kids scores dropped 30%, while Latino and Asian scores rose and African-American scores dropped slightly. Some people allege that white students were failing the test intentionally, in order to force out the black principal. Other say that teachers purposefully downplayed the importance of the exam for the same reason. What does this mean for the concept of school testing? Kids arn't dumb, nor are teachers. It seems like they've quickly learned that test scores can be used for all kinds of manipulations. School testing is a fundamentally flawed concept because it reduces something as complex as a school to a set of numbers, and it mandates actions made up by people who are not professional educators and have little understanding of what is good or bad for students. I won't be surprised to hear of a lot more cases like this. 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
03-01-2003, 12:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: School Testing- One more reason why it sucks
Quote:
Poor test results can lead to a loss of funding or other punitive actions by the state. This puts a lot of pressure on administrators and teachers to make sure that as many students pass as possible. In Texas this has resulted in many schools spending 1-2 weeks teaching students how to take the test. They're afraid of losing funding or otherwise being punished. On the other hand if a student slated to graduate can't pass the test during his senior year then there is a serious problem. Marc
|
|
#3
03-01-2003, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
MGibson: the problem, as has been pointed out, is that students have the option of failing on purpose for nefarious schemes. Heck, were I still in high school, I may well get a petition signed that states that should they keep the dress code/0-tolerance policy/not fire a horrible teacher, X people would deliberately fail all standardized tests.
Yet another argument to majorly overhaul the public school system.
|
|
#4
03-01-2003, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Standardized testing is flawed and grossly overused. Yes, I think that occasional standardized tests are needed, because there are many teachers who don't teach and just pass everyone, students who don't learn yet graduate, and there needs to be some sort of standard measure for graduation criteria.
But let's analyze the situation. I'm a junior in high school this year. Public school, but one of the best districts in the state according to test scores. And I have taken at least one standardized test every year. Every single year of my public school career, we've dedicated about six hours to filling in bubbles. IOWAs, CAT, GEPA, NSRA, NSRE, HSPA, HSPT. I've also now taken the PSATs twice. This year, I took the PSAT, will take the HSPT (might be HSPA now, not sure, doesn't matter anyway), SAT, and ACT. All right, fine, PSAT, SAT, ACT are all my choice to take. It's rediculous, though. In first grade, the Standardized Test of the Year (STOTY, because cryptic acronyms seem to be very fitting ot the topic) said I was reading at something like a ninth-grade level (partly because I'm just freakish like that), and my math skills were slightly less, but still above average. Yet I still needed tot ake the same test (at a different level, of course) the next year. Test scores can very, very easily be manipulated. You just fill in the wrong answer. Even open-ended questions (which are starting to get popular) can easily be left blank. And I can think of one exam in my case (which I'm about to take this coming week) which I must pass to graduate. Had I wanted to, and it's been VERY tempting sometimes, any past year, I could have just botched the test. Public schools as a whole need to be re-looked-at, and standardized tests need to be toned down and made way less promenant. It just results in teachers teaching to the test, and that, AFAIK, is something that's highly discouraged by good teachers.
|
|
#5
03-01-2003, 06:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm also a junior in High Schoo - you're right on, NinjaChick. The standardized tests my state gives are basically what takes up the entire curriculum at my school. Most subjects teach to the test, and offer "incentives" to us to score on the highest level, as that = more funding. I was one of two students who made the highest level (in math and science) last year , and the first to get the highest level for my school (in math and science, again... there were a couple high scores in the freshman test... P.E. and Health, but none in the L.A./ Social Studies test). My friend was the other high score-er, and we're both on the Cross Country team... which got a big funding booth this year. We were both congratulated by the school board and it was a big deal (it's a small town...).
I agree that public schools as a whole need to be re-evaluated; teaching what to mark on a test isn't good teaching.
|
|
#6
03-01-2003, 07:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Man, I definately think standardized testing sucks. Kids spend way too much time these days stressing out about tests.
Especially on tests likes the SAT's, where you have to know huge amounts of strange vocabulary that you'll probably never use for the rest of your life. What exactly is the point? How does knowing a bunch of really long useless words make one person smarter than someone else? All it really means to me is that one person spent 4 hours with their nose in a dictionary while the other person was doing something more useful.
|
|
#7
03-01-2003, 07:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have a real hard time understanding the objection to standardized tests. Should we have un-standardized tests? That would make it hard to compare students in different classes, shools, districts, etc. Should we have no tests? How, then, would we measure what students have learned? Oh, "grades" you say. OK, how are grades determined?
I personally was glad for standardized tests. I was an obnoxious little white trash child with the "wrong religion" for my area. Standardized tests were the only place where I was treated fairly.
|
|
#8
03-01-2003, 08:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Marc
|
|
#9
03-01-2003, 08:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Marc
|
|
#10
03-01-2003, 09:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
For a comical note on this subject/topic, i will note that scoring high on a test never won a war.
Well from my experience, most test accurately assess how well a student knows the material. But many of these tests incorporate the effort that a students places in studying for that test. I know for damn sure that i understand more information than many peeple on the SAT. The fact is that my school did not force the techniques involved in scoring high on the SAT. Well, maybe the SAT is just bias anyways and not very effective. My problem with the SAT is the timed format that it works with, but i am now tinkering off the main subject. Tests are made to get students to learn things. This does create an incentive for "most" students. The ones that have less regard for the tests usu. are beond the point of passing anyways and become passive towards the tests. The only problem that i can really see in tests is that the people that know less sometimes come out on top because he/she put more effort into studying and answered correctly on a few more of the specific-detailed questions. Now come the question: Should grades reward effort?
|
|
#11
03-02-2003, 01:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The problem is that, and the weight of the evidence supports this, zillions of students are graduating from high school without being close to prepared to read street signs and count their money. So we looked to the teachers... who seemed a bit dim. So now we make everyone jump through test hoops which does a little bit toward getting some students up to speed, and lot toward boring the life out of good students. The state of our schools is terrifying. Really. *Those of us who are out of school and still there are certainly familiar with people who only studied what would be on the test. To me, it seemed like a harder way to work, but what do I know - I'm a reader.
|
|
#12
03-02-2003, 01:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I teach high school in Chicago and we have numerous standardized tests that compare our school to others in the city as well as others in the state. The dirty little secret that many don't understand about standardized tests is that the vast majority of the students who take them do not try very hard on them. Why not? Because the score they receive does not affect their grade in any particular class. Appealing to them to try their best so that the school can get off probation or appear to be more prestigious might work on 5% of the students, but the rest will put in minimal effort because they don't see how it impacts them personally. Releasing their individual scores to prospective colleges might cause more students to try harder, but that won't motivate the ones that have no plans to go to college (which at my school is 70% of the Senior class.) That is why too much emphasis should not be placed on these tests.
|
|
#13
03-03-2003, 12:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I’m a junior in high school, as well, and I can tell you that me and my friends take great enjoyment in messing with these tests.
I don’t want to whine, complain, or to try and come across as some bad ass rebel, but the truth is, we’re just not very happy. Our building is like a massive prison complex, we have a uniform policy in a public school, kids are suspended for espousing unpopular views, and the education is utter crap. Some of the teachers are great, and I really do love them, but the administration and the government really make it a miserable place. Then, the standards are set so low that I go wild when I have a chance to apply myself, as with the psychological survey I’ve done in IMHO. The sabotage is done for different reasons. Apathy, boredom, rebellion. I use writing tests as a forum for expressing protest and dissatisfaction. Before anyone scolds me, I know very well what I’m doing and I accept any consequences for my actions. (I can elaborate or give details if anyone is interested. I’m a bit strapped for time as it is.)
|
|
#14
03-03-2003, 12:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The thing I love about these tests is that the teachers could spend the time they take showing the kids how to take the test and devote it to something more useful...like, maybe, teaching, for instance?
|
|
#16
03-03-2003, 04:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In Kentucky, anyway, schools are judged based on how well they improve their scores over so many years. Those that do especially well get money for "rewards". Theoretically, this money goes toward bonuses for teachers, but this is politically unpopular for some reason, so it often funds special programs within the school. (Why people can't make the connection between motivated teachers and better teaching, and between bonuses and more motivated teachers, I'll never understand.)
Schools that perform particularly poorly are given a chance to get it together, after which they are declared to be "in crisis". A Distinguished Educator is sent in by the state to examine how the school does things, with almost dictatorial power over every aspect of the school's operation. It may not have ended up this way, but at first the idea was that the DE could fire tenured teachers who weren't up to snuff. This is, to put it bluntly, a Bad Thing, but there are funds available to help the flagging schools; the whole reform was movitated by a Supreme Court decision declaring our school system unconstitutional due to poorly distributed funds. My mother, a middle school teacher who has seen both sides of this and who has been at the forefront for most of it, says that their system is very similar to a lot of what has been proposed at the national level. There are good and bad points; yes, they teach to the test a lot of the time, but in some cases, that's better that teaching to nothing at all. Dr. J
|
|
#17
03-03-2003, 07:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sad fact is, there is no good, easy answer. Parents and politicians understandably want to know whats going on at all their schools. Testing is the only fair way to achieve this, and a once-every-two-years test seems fair.
I went to a Catholic school, and got a first rate elementary and Junior High education. We were never taught to the test, though they did show us the basic multiple-choice strategy. ANythiung else on the test they taught us as part of our normal courseork, like vocabulary, math, and science. In fact, I can't think of a single thing on the test that was given to us just because it was on the test. In any event, if a test is comprehensive and it changes, then the teachers shouldn't have any particular onus for "teaching to the test". I mean, the students should all know it anyway.
|
|
#18
03-03-2003, 08:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#19
03-03-2003, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
How well a school does is often a direct reflection on the background of the students. For the most part, rich (and white) schools do better on tests. Schools experiencing improvment are likely to be schools in areas undergoing gentrification- not inner city schools pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Now if your salary was tied to what school you taught at, wouldn't you try pretty hard to get hired on at one of the better schools? Teaching in a poor school is hard enough without you getting paid less for it. All the good teachers are going to want to get into the good schools, leaving the poor and harder-to-improve schools with the worst teachers in the system- exactly wha these schools don't need. I went to a very poor high school. When California was voting on if they should link teacher pay to school performance, I had teachers say that while they love teaching us, it's just plain not worth it if it's also going to cause them to take a financial hit. Of course they're gonna want to go teach in some easy rich suburb and get paid better for it. We had a hard enough time retaining good teacher as it was.
|
|
#20
03-03-2003, 01:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is nothing wrong with the concept of standardized tests. The provide useful benchmarks and metrics for measuring school performance. The problem is, like with any other metric, people often fail to understand the limits and usefulness of what the measurement can tell you.
|
|
#21
03-04-2003, 09:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Last week one of the local school districts held a district-wide PEP RALLY for all the kids to get them "ready" to take the LEAP test, whatever that is. A PEP RALLY. What happened to, oh, teaching them something? We're talking the kids being given hats, flags, there were hundreds of cheerleaders...all to try to convince the kids that the test is a BIG DEAL and VERY IMPORTANT. It may well be that, but I was horrified. My mother told me she wouldn't have let me or my brother attend something like that.
I had to take some standardized tests, but nothing like what kids have to go through now. I always found them insultingly easy, aside from the math parts. I know there's got to be some way to figure out how the schools are doing, but from what I've been hearing the last few years, pushing standardized tests just isn't working. A PEP RALLY. How insulting!
|
|
#22
03-04-2003, 09:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've always been skeptical of the 'no, tests won't accomplish anything' argument. It always hit me that those doing the work were arguing that there was no measurable means to evaluate the effectiveness of the workers. I don't think any of us would accept an analog number like grades for such a thing. An independent outside measure is worth pursuing.
I hate the idea of 'teaching to the tests' as well (and I speak as one who taught in grad school). Seriously, I'd love to see some other measure of school and student performance. But I don't see anything other than standardized testing that would be cost effective.
|
|
#23
03-05-2003, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Originally posted by Dan Blathers
Quote:
Lemme explain this to you nice and slow, and hopefully, it might just sink into your insanely dense cranium. Government standardized testing is used primarily to indicate a school’s performance, not an individual’s. These scores will be on my record, and will be reported to me, but other than that, they don’t matter. I don’t ever have to show them to an college admittance officer or an employer (there’s an ongoing debate on the weight they should carry, but the ‘not much’ side is still winning.) So using them as a medium of protest is a very safe prospect. What matters to my career is my GPA (very high currently) and my boards; ACT, SAT, SAT2. As far as they go, I’ve already scored well enough on the SAT’s to get me into a good school, and this was in 8th grade. I know the dynamics of this situation very well, and I know when to stand straight and salute, and I know when I can show a little steel. And yes, I will enjoy these anecdotes, with friends, doing a job I love and supporting myself. I imagine you’ll be getting through the way you always have: by the ceaseless fellation of the officials and your superiors.
|
|
#24
03-05-2003, 07:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#25
03-05-2003, 07:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#26
03-05-2003, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#27
03-05-2003, 07:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
DemonSpawn:
Quote:
Also, the real world isn't all about getting to flaunt your creativity. Hell, I'm in an industry that is pretty much nothing but creativity, and I still don't get to do whatever the heck I want. There's always going to be someone telling you what to do. Even Bill Gates has to answer to others (namely, his stockholders his customers). You may as well get used to it now. And frankly, as a form of protest, intentionally screwing up on your test ranks right up there with scrawling dirty limericks on the bathroom wall in terms of effectiveness. Sorry to burst your bubble. Jeff
|
|
#29
03-05-2003, 08:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Check it out one day. Talk to some teenagers. You'd be surprised just how much schools resemble prisons. And I think you'd be surprised at how unwarrented all the contempt against youth is- they really are intellegent, fully-human creatures with thoughts and ideas that have merit and growing maturity.
|
|
#30
03-07-2003, 11:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A couple of thigs without reference to any names...I'm a bit too tired now to reference anyone...
1. School Testing: I'm on the fence here. I understand that schools have to be improved and there has to be some sort of ranking to see whether students are being taught well. If students can do well on basic math or w\english exams, then at least they can function in the real world. Caveat here: it doesn't always work so objectively. I remember teachers actually coming around when I was in elementary school and going "you'd better check #4 over again" just so that more students scored better. If you pay schools more for students doing better on tests, schools will begin to cheat. I'm just not sure how else students can be tested and schools compared...if anyone has ideas then be my guest...if not., the I say keep the system. 2. I just took my SATs this year and did very well. I've found it amazing that so many of the wordfs I learned when studying for the SATs are in the NYTimes, WSJ, books I read, magazines, etc. If you think that increasing your vocabulary is a waste of time, you're absolutely wrong. Studying for the SAT, at least for me, was a start. Now that I encounter so many of these words in daily activities, I get a more concrete sense of what they mean and how they should be used. I'm also finding that I can read progressively "harder" texts as I continue to try to learn words. 3. The school as a prison thing - failing tests is just going to make the faculty more pissed off because the district will come down harder on the principal, principal will come down harder on the teachers, etc. The students at my school actually staged a sit-in to protest policy at school, and got parents and teachers involved. We were successful for the most part. Nevertheless, I totally agree with this one. Students are being treated like criminals, and being treated thusly just causes more animosity and crime. Totally unacceptable how schools are being run. Seems like faculty just doesn't care enough to take care of problems at school in other ways, and just choose to hire security guards to harass students into being model students.
|
|
#31
03-08-2003, 12:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Besides, it will make college seem that much more fun.
|
|
#32
03-08-2003, 01:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is a bit off topic, but bear with me.
First of all, pertaining to testing in schools, I just want to say I have both intelligence and ambition, in comparison to many of my friends. I really hate it when kids say "I am intelligent enough, I just chose not to be" It's not that I think that these kids are dumb, they usually have the same innate abilities to rationalize that I do, or at least somewhat nearing this. I share more in common with them than the kids who have great ambition and yet have a sort of mental barrier on their ability to learn, or their speed of learning. However, these kids are participating in what I like to refer to as compounded ignorance. Basically, whereas I learn chapter 1 to help me through chapter 2, they never really learn chapter 1, thus chapter 2 is out of the question. Compound this to years of high school and you end up getting kids who have no practical knowledge, no impractical knowledge (or knowledge specifically useful for limited job occupations), yet still "able" to learn this. In my opinion, these tests pick up on kids who have enough ambition and intelligence; these two skills are important to most people's future jobs. Both are somewhat innate, but are able to be encouraged by testing. One of my good friends is completely unambitious, but perhaps it isn't out of lack of ambition in any general sense; perhaps it's unwillingness to accept how practical the knowledge he is learning is. I guess I understand that, musicians don't need calculus any more than I need band, but until any person is ready to make the decision on what his or her profession is, ie: junior-senior in high school, or even later, I think they should take all knowledge gained in school as practical.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
