I took TAAS when I was in school in Texas and I'm quite sure that TAKS is functionally pretty much the same with a different name. Standardized testing has been around for a long time and as i have said repeatedly there is nothing wrong with it. The purpose of TAAS was to determine if you had mastered basic skills and at my high school anyway, you couldn't graduate without passing the version they gave you in 10th grade.

I can understand your frustration with NCLB but by attacking the standardized tests your efforts are misplaced. The standardized test is not the problem and by your own admission TAAS was there before NCLB (and served the exact same purpose). If you want to try and change something then go after NCLB, going after TAKS is a battle that if won will result in an empty victory.

Without some sort of standard that applies to everyone then a degree or certification becomes rather worthless. In this case that would mean that saying you graduated from high school would be worthless, because there is no way of knowing whether that has meaning or not. Standards give these pieces of paper that meaning.

For once... mark it on your calender CJ, I partially agree!.

The parents are also a HUGE part of the problem, as is social pressure, etc. I don't necessarily believe that funding is cut at inner city schools in most states. I know that here in TX and in Louisiana, funding is pre-set. It has nothing to do with TAKS tests or any other testing for that matter. It revolves around attendance and pre-set tax dollars allocated per student.

So let's discuss what we can change. As tax payers, we cannot change the attitude of parents or of communities. We can think outside of the box and incent teachers based upon performance. We all can think of teachers/professors that seemed to get through to us, regardless of age.

That being said, if a 3rd grade teacher's class had low test scores in 2nd grade, incent her on improving the scoring. If he/she knows that the extra effort will be beneficial to him/her, why would they not want to go the extra mile??? I think all of the posts referencing pay can be changed significantly if we give the teachers and tax payers alike reason to act differently.

We mention programs, entitlements, etc that our tax dollars go to. In the end, it all falls on the shoulders of what the children learn in the classroom. I know some children have obstacles that teachers have to hurdle, as do certain communities/demographics, etc. That being said... why more of the same? It apparently isn't changing a gosh darn thing...

I am going to protest both, not because standardized tests don't have a purpose, but because of the manner that they are presented and used in. If the tests cost less to administer, served a better purpose and had a near fool proof, un-biased grading method then, and only then, would I agree with them. TAAS to TAKS transition, even if it is just the name that was changed, costs alot of money. Anyway you look at it the cons outway the pros. NCLB and the current standardized tests need to get the boot until there are better methods.

I do indeed think standardized testing is an important factor in the life our of Middle school and High School students. Without them there is no way to assess the academic achievement of each state or country. We need these tests to measure the capacity or funding of each state. Now granted, each state has a pre-determined budget but I know in my state, we got some outrageous amount of extra cash because we did fairly well and they wanted to the same next year. Not only do these tests give a way to measure the education of the student but they also provide students with the ability to make it into a better college. So much of college is based on scores of these tests and it is only fair for them to do so because your G.P.A. reflects only what one teacher teaches you, standardized tests account for things you should know, may know, and need to know.
I do agree that these tests should be the most important factor in getting into a college. The state decides what a pupil should know, a teacher is only responsible for teaching, and in any manner they choose, we need to keep and protect standardized testing. Standardized tests let a look into a persons intellectual capacity, which is why they should be counted so importantly and measured more heavily.

Unless someone is the product of a one-room high school, this statement is totally false. If a student takes six subjects per semester for four years, this is a grand total of 48 courses. The student’s G.P.A. is a composite of how many teachers evaluated a student—not the product of what one teacher taught. Even if the same teacher instructs the same student in different subjects, the grades can be different.

Yes, that is true, but there are other ways this could be done. The tests are just excuses to find out how much we have learned, when a simple look at the grades is good enough. Well... not all the time. I'm a freshman in a high school in Texas and I'm failing everything, but if I take the test, I would pass with flying colors. The test doesn't test ability, it doesn't test the skills of the student anymore, it only tests whether or not the teacher has had any impact on the student what so ever. Math is no longer a subject to me, it is not a gateway to learning as I once thought it was so long ago. It is just a stereotype and a prediction of the test to come.

I am a student in an ohio high school and one of the first, along with who knows how many sophomores, who officially is taking the OGT's (Ohio Graduation Test). The OGT's are a reformed standardized test, and, in my opinion, the only problem with these standardized tests is that there is only two aspects: 1. Pass/Fail- if you pass the test, you graduate from high school. 2. telling colleges who's "better" than who- if you get a good grade, you are more likely to be accepted. The aspects that are missing from these tests are the ones that help the student, mainly, telling not only what area of the test the students excelled in, but offering a list of different ccareerpaths that match the excelled areas. And then, to take that one step further, showing the student a list of colleges that would help the student most to following those ccareerpaths. if more money is being spent on the tests, then why not spend some of that money on helping the student succeed in life?

So my view is not against the test itself, but, in the student's perspective, what little the test does FOR the student, besides telling them which colleges they can and cannot be aacceptedin, and if they pass high school.

First off let me start by saying hello to everyone because I am a new member to the site. I have read most of the arguments about standardized testing, and I have yet to read one that says anything about the actual test or anyone who has actually taken the test. I have taken the test before, and if any of you have seen it's contents you would agree that it is close to an I.Q. test. These arguments remind me of constant battles I have had with my mother about education, who has failed to realize that the things that we are being taught today differ greatly to the way things were taught back in her day. I agree that there should be standardized testing, but to a certain extent. This test isn't going to make a difference in the percentages of student who stay in school. In fact a lot more students will probably drop out because of it. My question really lies with the state, how concerned are they with the children who stay in school? I also agree that there could also be other things done, besides testing like keeping records of each student and such, and if there is going to be standardized testing, it shouldn't be so impossible to take. Some students pass, but an even greater number of students fail and majority of them happen to be minority students. I think there should be something done to the test, but the whole idea of standardized testing in general doesn't have to be eliminated.

Do you know why tests are administered? They are used to determine behavioral patterns. The same is true of any test. If the FDA wants to determine the effects of a particular drug, they must run it through a battery of tests. The same is true of students. What the tests show is the effectiveness of the teaching. Similarly, FDA tests show the affectiveness of drugs.

If you can't understand this, then perhaps it would help if I were to offer a similar situation as an example. Let's say that you want to learn what percent of a bunch of dogs have learned to salivate at the ringing of a bell. Well, you ring the bell and then note how many dogs start to salivate.

Does this test mean anything concerning the dogs themselves? No! They're just dogs! Throw a stick or a ball and yell "fetch" if you like, but that doesn't mean they should forego licking their balls in order to fetch anything simply because they have attended some sort of ball or stick fetching seminar.

The tests test the teacher's affectiveness. Your refusal to take those tests is noted, but since the tests are not designed to test your ability to take a test, then your refusal to take the test means absolutely nothing.

On the other hand, you haven't wasted an hour or so of your time being tested for your teacher's ability to teach.

Keep up the great work, Watson!

As for how much they weigh on college applications, that's up to the individual colleges involved. You are free to complain to the powers-that-be, but I doubt they really care. The test results still test your teacher's affectiveness. Since that affectiveness directly affects your intellect, you might want to reconsider allowing the tests. After all, if you don't have test results to show colleges, you don't have much to show.

Nobody really cares if you are accepted into a college, so do what you want.

Should standardized testing be a requirement for students?

Yes. The teachers need to know how well they are doing as much as they need to know how well the students are doing. Testing serves to find out what is not being taught effectively as well as how well individual students are learning.
If 5 teachers are involved in language arts for 150 students, the testing can show which teachers are most effective, and if there are gaps in the material presented.

Testing is a fact of life, and stress is as well. Your prospective employers have methods of testing as well, so it is probably a good idea to get accustomed to being tested.

If so, should they weigh so much on college applications and grade promotions?

As was said, SAT and ACT are used for college application. Grade promotions should not be done solely on testing, and in most places they are not. My wife teaches at a K-8 school, teaching the 8th graders. Weakness in one part of the curriculum is not cause for failing a student. Failing grades across the board due to laziness is. Some students are slow, and have to work harder to get poor grades, but they rarely get failed is they are making the effort expected of them.

One comment was made concerning letting the students decide their education, or something like that. Perhaps we can put prisoners in charge of prisons as well? Studies on the human brain have shown that the average person does not reach full maturity in thinking skills, emotions, impulse control, etc. until several years after the age of 18. That is why we have adults in charge of our schools.
That being said, I have to also say that one of my wife's biggest gripes about her profession is not so mucn the immaturity of the children, as she expects that, but the immaturity of some of the teachers.

Should standardized testing be a requirement for students?

Well, no. I have spent the last 2 years of psych, social psych and sociology with the corresponding testing that weaves through those fields. My work has paid for those classes, as testing is a major part of my job (testing for competency, culpability, IQ level, education level, chronological level, etc etc)

Standardized testing is inherently flawed, by definition alone- how do you "standardize" 70 million or so kids? Our society is diverse, so 70 million kids are going to have a huge sample that "falls outside the standard".

SATs does not test knowledge, but more of a predicter if the student will be succesful in the college community. We are hammered over this difference over and over again when creating our tests- the more encompassing and "standardized" a test attempts to become, the more likely it is not representive of the population LOL

The biggest 2 problems with American education are

1) the parents- NOT the teachers
2) the emphasis on testing for testing's sake rather than actual knowledge

So I am against standardized testing such as mandated by NCLB- which should be scrapped in it's entirety- it is a completely stupid law.

If so, should they weigh so much on college applications and grade promotions?

Well, here is where I contradict myself LOL- yes, they ARE important for college, but not grade promotions in high school and below.

College proffessors have more leeway to determine knowledge content- they are not straighjacketed by such things as NCLB- so, they can do comprehensive testing, regular quizzes, oral exams etc- whatever they feel comfortable with to allow the student to finish the class and go to the next step. This semester alone I pretty much dealt with all the different types of "testing" to see if I have learned the content of the course.

College applicaton use the SATs and others- but really, the real purpose of the SATs is the predictor of college success. At the three different colleges I have attended in my life, every discipline that deals with the issue of testing agree on one thing- standardized testing are over used in the US and are mostly useless.

Concerning knowledge, once any of us have spent 3 or 4 years in College, we begin to reallize that the knowledge we gained in High School is a small and very bland sample of what there is yet to learn. But we have to start somewhere.
I prefer that we teach the basics first, to make us employable and useful to our employers, then by High School we should be teaching, at least part of the day, the skills we need to seperate fact from fiction, opinion, idealistic wild ideas, advertising hype, propaganda, etc. We are "learning" every day, but much of the "knowledge" we gain varies from biased to completely untrue.
There must be measureable standards, and if there is a better way than testing, I don't know what it is. Wilthout some basic, and realistic, standards, some schools will settle in to the bare minimum.
When our children were young, the local school district implemented Kindergarten, but against their will. The parents wanted it, the superintendent did not.
The result was that 2 of the 3 teachers taught at the absolute minimum standard, while the 3rd had most of her students reading simple books by the end of the year. She use phonics, by the way) Guess who got the heat from the administration? The one who taught, not the 2 who were basically just providing half day baby sitting services.
This time, parental involvement saved the day. The school board had to rescue the teacher from the principal and superintendent. The principal's father and the superintendent were old friends, which is how the principal got hired. He was a poor choice and later events proved that. Those 2 wanted to get rid of the one good teacher, but the parents informed the board members that they preferred the super and principal go.
In this case, testing was not needed. It was obvious that a third of the children were far better taught than the other two thirds.

Uhhh... errr... the tests are standardized. Not the kids. You do understand the difference, right?



But of course.



No. SATs are tests, and tests do not predict. Theories and hypoethsis predict. Not tests.

You are welcome to go to the back of the line because the rest of your "argument" is similarly flawed.

[

So the problems of American education don't lie with the educaters? LOL!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, but your post is filled with so many mistakes in basic logic that there is no point in continuing.

Should standardized testing be a requirement for students?

This should not be the only measure of a student's learning. Testing is an exercise in finding out how well students can cram for a test and dump the answers out within an environment of the test. If there was a market out there for test-takers, then I suppose this exercise has some value. I suppose the students would make good cramers/dumpers when getting various certifications for various professions.

But then, the pro certs are limited too when figuring out the value of an employee. I think this testing deal points to our still primitive ways of figuring out people. If it can't be measured, it isn't worthwhile.

Right. So talent isn't worthwhile? How do you test for talent, and what exactly is it anyway? What about integrity? Or intuition? These qualities that employers look for are suppose to come out in interviews and during the first few months of work.

I can see some value to testing, but it isn't a very high value.

If so, should they weigh so much on college applications and grade promotions?

The competition for getting into college has become pretty high, especially for the schools that are supposed to be primo for getting that good first job. Well, maybe that's all illusion. Maybe a relatively unknown state college is as good as Harvard, as far as launching a career. I've heard this from actual employers. They are looking for something other than credentials, although some forms of credentials are prereqs.

Grade promotions are illusions to begin with. It's part of the hierarchical thinking process, where true learning is much more organic. I can see where politicians controlling purse strings like the standardized testing model, as folks who naturally think in hierarchies. But this gets frustrating for students who think differently, who don't depend on two-dimensional illusions for understanding reality.

So no, standardized testing should not weigh very much on college admitance or grade level promotion. I see it as rewarding limited thinkers and penalizing complex thinkers.

My sympathies to the students. This is an unfair thing, and all I can give in consolation is that as the students grow into adulthood, one of the basic realities is that we all have to deal with limited thinkers and suck up a lot of their imposed crap. There's nothing new about this, so good luck. Try to take it as true education.

[quote=AuthorMusician,Apr 23 2005, 08:08 PM]
Should standardized testing be a requirement for students?

[QUOTE]This should not be the only measure of a student's learning. Testing is an exercise in finding out how well students can cram for a test and dump the answers out within an environment of the test. If there was a market out there for test-takers, then I suppose this exercise has some value. I suppose the students would make good cramers/dumpers when getting various certifications for various professions.[/QUOTE]

You wish to talk of measuring a students learning, while disparaging the value of tests?

Would you rather we used a yard stick, rather than an SAT? Phrenologically speaking, this might prove of some benefit, but most of us no longer hold with phrenology, so that's out.

So then, how would you measure a students learning without testing what the student has learned?

But then, the pro certs are limited too when figuring out the value of an employee. I think this testing deal points to our still primitive ways of figuring out people. If it can't be measured, it isn't worthwhile.

Right. So talent isn't worthwhile? How do you test for talent, and what exactly is it anyway? What about integrity? Or intuition? These qualities that employers look for are suppose to come out in interviews and during the first few months of work.

[QUOTE]I can see some value to testing, but it isn't a very high value.[/QUOTE]

Science doesn't require that anybody value it. It is merely one of a number of branches of philosophy. If you don't want to test or measure, then obviously science isn't something you value.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

[QUOTE]one of the basic realities is that we all have to deal with limited thinkers and suck up a lot of their imposed crap. [/QUOTE]

Not all of us have to suck it up. It is also possible to question their limits, as I have just done.

Yes, absolutely, the problem with US education lies in the lack of responsibility the average American parent takes for thier child's education. You only have to go see another countries educations system that does far more with far less to see what is right in front of your eyes. We want to blame teachers, blame the system, blame the lack of money, blame the tests, but the final blame lies with the parents and no one else. IN America, school isn't for education- it is a publicly funded babysitting program.

The educators are the whipping boy of the right- but, as usual, simply scapegoats because then the very same poeple would have to look to thier own behavior.

As a new parent, this became so glaringly obvious at a school board meeting to debate a "controversial" book being studied in a seniors literature honor program. It had graphic depictions of prostitution, the occult and violence, and was in line with what the writer was trying to communicate about life in central america. I am not well versed enough in literature to pretend to remember the name of the book or the author, but I know it was considered a pretty hard hitting if adult themed good book.

In the middle of one of the local fundamentalist diatribe againts teachers, unions, and the education system- I had to ask the question "You have alot to say about this book, what were the five books before this one that the child had to read? What was the name of his last teacher? How many periods a day does he attend, and in what order?"- the parent couldn't even respond, didn't remember one- until something controversial came up under his nose, he had no idea what this child's education was about.

American's ignore thier childrens education as long as there is no "controversy" for them to deal with.

The only poeple we have to blame for our childrens lack of education in American society is American parents, and thier general feel of entitlement to a paid babysitter by the goverment.

You also bring up science like standardized testing is an exact science- something like testing a compound for the number of moles per gram in a substance- when it is not. The test writers bring in thier own bias and political viewpoints that may or may not have anything to do with what the child needs to learn, or has even been taught.

To rely on standardized testing as anything more than a benchmark, to tie it to funding or to actual performance is fundamentally flawed from the get-go.

Ojavi,



I think you're confusing the idea of testing in an academic environment with measuring in the scientific environment. For example, measuring the mass of an object is not an academic test.

Measuring education can be done in other ways than academic testing. For example, a student can research and write a paper, a theme, a thesis, or even an entire book on a subject. The research could involve the discovery of knowledge through interviews, surveys, background readings, or any of the ways that knowledge is currently discovered and has been in the past. This type of learning could even involve the synthesis of new knowlege, or at least a new way of looking at old knowledge.

The proof of the education process is demonstrated by the finished product. This is how open schools work, by the way.

Granted, it is hard to poke a grade transcript under a prospective employer's nose. The employer has to do more reading about the former student in the form of a resume that lists accomplishments. Hmmm, sounds just like what employers want: an individual who can think, take responsibility, and show results. Well, unless the employer is an utter fool, and that can happen. Or unless the job requirement is a brainless automaton, and that can happen too. Hidden agendas -- another real world possibility.

The only value I see in testing is to practice rote memorization. This is most often needed while beginning the study of a subject; however, our memories simply do not work all that well with the rote style. We remember things better when we use the information often, and for the information we don't use often, we've invented a few aids:

Reference books
PDAs
Computers
Internet

And we have resources that we didn't need to invent: other people.

One thing we don't ever use in the real world is academic testing, other than to push something into our heads for a short period of time. This is usually required to meet management objectives. Ah well, but the results sure plug into a spread sheet well -- and thus our politicians (civil and private) can point with pride to figures that don't mean a thing, other than students or employees are getting better test scores.

Actually, a student of physics might be asked to measure the mass of an object, but I think I understand what you are trying to say.

The problem is that if the academic community wishes to use the term "testing" as not being part of scientific methodology, then we really are talking different terms.

If I were to take your argument at face value, I would have to assume that the academic community is not interested in measuring academic achievement.



But... Education is never a "finished product". That's what I have always assumed to be the case. Or maybe you are saying that the proof of the education process lies in achieving the various goals of "an education". If so, then those goals are the yard stick by which academic achievement can be measured. A standardized test would merely be the use of a standardized yard stick. I don't see anything wrong with this. It's kinda like arguing in favor of the metric system. A yard might be so many centimeters, but the students aren't required to be at the top of the academic heap. It's just a measurement. If a student lies at the bottom, then it doesn't matter because the measurement is still valid.




I've never understood why some people don't like rote memorization.

Rote memorization is bad because it is completely and utterly useless beyond the bounds of what is being memorized.

Take for example, multiplication tables. No matter how many different numbers one person learned by rote memorization, all I would have to remember is two basic facts, and two processes and I could do more multiplications.

All I'd need is 1 x 1 = 1 0 x anything = 0, and how to multiply... and how to convert numbers to and from binary- but that's why we memorize multiplicaiton up to 10x10.

It is far more useful to understand how things work than to memorize their effects.

I'm not saying that there is some rote memorization necessary, but beyond the minimum, its almost completely worthless.


But as for standradized tests...
Why do we need to spend billions figuring out that our schools suck compared to the rest of the world, especially the ones in poor districts, when that much is intuitively obvious. While I must admit I never outright boycotted the standardized tests here, they weren't of much use in determining actual intelligence or knowledge. I did, however, put down random answers in the last column so I didn't have to do the test, and wrote an essay on why the test was dumb instead of answering the essay question. I still passed with flyign colors, welling not so flying on the writing part, but I passed at least. And if I had failed, I wouldn't really care, because it is irrelevant to any of my actual learning capabilities.

Tests can only test facts unless the person creating the test can formulate some questions to be just out of reach of the person taking it. Standardized tests can't. They can only test memorized facts, not actual grasp of the principles behind those facts, or the capability of a student to do anything useful with those facts.

Math, hard sciences (physics, chemistry) I agree could be tested pretty easily, because there are definite answers, but they'd still only test memorization, not intelligence or grasp of how to use the facts in new ways, which is what is important in beign a mathematician, physicist, or chemist.

Reading, and writing are so totally subjective, that a standardized test is not of too much use at all. Take the poem Jabberwock for instance. Half the words in it aren't even flippin' real, and it is still one of the best works of poetry of all time, in my opinion, and at the very least it is quite popular. I'd wager that I could write a poem or narrative with horrible grammar and atrocious spelling that is nonetheless very worthwhile. Likewise, I could follow all technical formatsperfectly and still write a piece of trash. Whilst it is nice to have a grasp of grammar and spelling, catching that extra 'there' as opposed to 'their' is not going to make a big difference in the effectiveness of a work.

Ojavi,

I've never understood why some people don't like rote memorization.

Ah, different learning styles. I had to learn rote memorization, as this isn't the way my mind works. I'll concede that some people learn better through rote memorization, and this might point to the reason standardized testing means little to nothing when trying to figure out if our schools are accomplishing their missions.

By the way, I have never been asked to do anything but make marks on paper during an academic test. Oh, I take that back -- there was one that asked me to read the entire set of instructions before taking the test, and the first test question had to do with doing a ridiculous thing. The final test instruction was to not do the ridiculous thing, leave the room, and have a very nice day.

Passed!

Standardized testing has to do with doling out money. The results of standardized testing mean nothing to education, everything to finance. I'll ask you this: What employer gives a dang about standardized testing? What consumer gives a hoot what your test score was when deciding to buy car A or SUV B? What world leader sits down with whomever and opens the conversation with, "My school was in the top ten of standardized test results!"

The fundamental thing is that nobody cares but the money distributers to schools, and of course the schools due to survival needs. It's like an employer demanding that I hop on one foot and bark like a dog. I'll do it if it means survival, but that is all it means. I won't do it if I can get another job. In fact, I might laugh in the employer's face and burn that bridge with gusto.

Public schools are in the situation where money has to come from the feds. And there you go, the feds are into standardized testing. Bark hardy, hop like no one is looking.

Or find a different fed government. I'll recommend that course of action.

Standardized Testing:

You guys seem to be knocking the way the tests are designed, and not the standardization of the tests. I'll readily admit that many of the tests I have had to take were poorly designed. That is a problem with tests being poorly designed, and not with the tests themselves.

Would you have problems with a well-designed standardized test that effectively measures academic progress according to national standards?

Rote Memorization:

The complaints seem to be that rote memorization only teaches "what is being memorized". I would disagree slightly and say that rote memorization only teaches what is being taught. Students aren't required to learn what is not being taught. They don't need to discover their desks and hidden talents. Rote memorization works because the goals are very clear-cut, with everybody understanding exactly what is required. This also helps with the designing of tests because teachers can then test what has been taught, and ignore testing for what hasn't been taught.

While the students may only memorize facts using rote memorization methods, I would assume the alternative is hardly considered satisfactory.