You’re right, that’s a bad analogy It’s not that bad actually. But this assumes equal value between the different vitamins, in that sacrificing one to promote another would have a neutral or detrimental effect. My position is that sacrificing some things like how to write a research paper, or band, or some other item that does not have as much value as the core items that are being tested, is on balance a net positive.
Ok - we’ll have to disagree on this one then. If I have to choose a well rounded student who can’t do math, or a person who is proficient at math and isn’t exposed to those other things like art and music, I’m still choosing the math person. And really, how well rounded can you be without being able to demonstrate proficiency in math, reading, and science? I think being proficient at the basics that are tested is a perquisite for developing in the other areas.
But you know that’s not feasible with large volumes of kids. Administrators are not going to be able to sit down with individual students so they can explain their thinking to demonstrate proficiency. The way they do this is through testing.
When students can’t do math, we have citizens who can’t balance their checkbook or get a good deal on a car loan.
When students aren’t allowed to study the arts, we have higher dropout rates, and we have citizens who don’t graduate, can’t balance their checkbook or get a good deal on a car loan, and can’t get a job.
Again, though, remember that ultimately what’s tested is ability to pass a math test. There’s a minor difference between that and math ability–but there’s a major industry in testing materials and curricula built into that difference. Would you sacrifice knowing how to write a research paper in order to get students who know how to pass a math test?
I genuinely don’t think that’s a good trade.
I don’t think that’s a reasonable way to frame the issue. As long as we’ve got these tests, though, that’s how it’ll get framed: the solution to our educational woes will appear to be finding a way to get kids to score highly on standardized tests. And that’s a terrible solution.
(Incidentally, our educational woes tend to be highly exaggerated. As a nation, we fucking rock international tests. Peculiarities in who’s tested in the US compared to other nations skew results. That said, I still think we have plenty of room for educational growth–but the testing industry stands in the way of that growth).
I don’t know enough about the SAT to have an informed opinion on it. I hope that doesn’t come across as a dodge; I’d rather not opine on something if I don’t know enough to opine on it.
And yes, Admins can’t sit down with individual kids. But if a test is a poor source of data, they may as well be reading kids’ astrological charts. It’s akin to a “God of the gaps” situation. It’s much better, when there’s something you don’t have the means to know about, to admit you don’t know about it, than it is to come up with a spurious source of certainty on the subject. Standardized tests offer a sense of certainty, but it’s spurious.
you actually think the tests are designed to challenge students? Seriously? They’re set to a low bar of achievement and represent the barest of minimums.
Those are pretty good numbers, given that the tests in question cover 70 countries. Now, we’re not number 1, so perhaps I should have said that “we have plenty of room for educational growth”–or perhaps you should have just not cut off the post you quoted before I said that part.
Yes, ability to pass the test which ostensibly is designed to measure proficiency. At a minimum passing the tests demonstrates ability to pass the test (reflexive property!) and IMO, would have a high correlation with actual proficiency. If we line up all the things that can’t be tested for, like writing a research paper, art, etc. and weigh those against the things that can be tested for - I think proficiency in the areas of the test outweighs the other areas. Those items that can be tested for should be a minimum baseline. Once those perquisites are satisfied, then the other material can be focused on. I’m talking, reading, writing, math. Walking before running.
Hmm…I think that’s a accurate way to frame the position I’m taking. And I don’t think testing is a solution. It’s a weigh to calibrate, measure, and analyze. If 3/4 of the kids at Normandy High School can’t pass their grade level tests, that’s a problem. If 2/3 of those students go on to graduate highschool without being able to pass grade level tests, isn’t that a problem? How would that be measured? What basis would a school like Normandy lose its accreditation? (I pick Normandy because I just listened to a podcast of This American Life that talked about it).
Well…I’m not an expert on it. I did take it though. It’s a standardized test, several hours, multiple sections, all multiple choice. Lots of analogy questions. Lots of math questions. In the end, you get a score, I think there is a weighting that penalizes wrong answers more than non-answers so guessing is discouraged, however based on the weighting if you can eliminate some choices then guessing is better than a non-answer. In the end, the SAT is weighed heavily in college admissions. So schools across the country, use SAT scores, among other measures, to determine whether to accept or reject. Of course, they also take into account lots of other things, like the quality of the school itself I believe. With a poor SAT score, I would expect the chances of being accepted into a top tier school are poor. So here we have a widely accepted measure that has a huge impact, and is a standardized test.
And there is no claim of certainty. But data in large volumes across the country is rich with information.
This should be easy for a 12th grader to demonstrate proficiency by passing. There are several opportunities to take the exam and pass. 8th grade math is…I think Algebra I? It’s of course, state by state so I don’t know how other states do it. The grade level tests in CA recently changed so I don’t know the specifics of those either. They used to be called STAR tests, but I think they changed it.
I think that tests are not always a bad thing, just misunderstood.
For example, here in Aus, one state has added an extra year of schooling at the start, to match the other states.
Because their students consistantly scored one year behind, all the way through the final year of high school.
Which is the kind of thing you can see on nation-wide standardized tests.
And you can think anything you want about formal schooling, but I think that’s a convincing argument that formal schooling has an effect not matched by simply leaving the kids in day care.
“plenty of room for educational growth”… WOW. can’t even admit you’re wrong.
Are you living under a rock? You’re discussing a topic and you don’t know the HS tests are set to the 10th grade as the highest level of achievement? Do I have to cite air has oxygen in it?
It’s now common for entry level jobs to include testing on the most basic of skills. The high school diploma is no longer considered a reliable certificate of achievement.
When I was between real jobs I worked at a factory and they gave a basic math test as part of the screening. The HR person seemed surprised that I got every question right. REALLY? It was 3rd grade math. She told me the person ahead of me missed almost every question.
That’s just sad. I don’t have kids and I knew that just from normal awareness of the world around me. It’s not like expecting someone to know the atomic number of aluminum.
Putting aside the larger debate, why is it assumed that passing these tests does not demonstrate proficiency? Why do we assume that they can be gamed in such a way that a student can pass the standardized test, yet still not understand the subject matter?
If that assumption is true, then the test needs redesigned, not just eliminating testing all together.
I’m not sure whether you think you’re making a point here.
The cite that Bone, unlike you, provided is for California. While the thread initially talked about NY tests, I was unaware that you were limiting your discussion to California. The overall discussion has moved on to a discussion of US tests in general. I’ll assume you forgot to clarify, and we can move on.
And your claim is that this is substantively different from 50 years ago or something? What does “no longer” mean?
It’s true, of course, that the modern economy is an information economy and not a manufacturing economy, and that more jobs require expertise granted through schools than was once true. That, however, is not a reflection on the state of education.
Granted - I am from CA so I am most familiar with CA. Just for curiosity, I took a look at some other states. Florida has the FCAT which is also based on the 10th grade level (no difference noted between subjects:
For Texas, they have the STARR exams. I can’t tell what grade level the tests are geared towards, but it looks like a mix of several grades, from 7th to 11th maybe?
For NY, they havethe Regents Exam. It looks like most tests are done at grade 10 or before, with exceptions for Reading, English which are done in 11th grade.
That’s CA, Florida, Texas, and NY. I’m kind of tired so I’m not looking up any more.
It’s not that bad actually. But this assumes equal value between the different vitamins, in that sacrificing one to promote another would have a neutral or detrimental effect. My position is that sacrificing some things like how to write a research paper, or band, or some other item that does not have as much value as the core items that are being tested, is on balance a net positive.