I am a high school student in Texas and I, along with several other students at my school and another freshman from a different school, have taken a stand and refuse to take the Texas required TAKS( Texas Assesment of Knowledge and Skills) test.

I started this to seek some input from others outside of the state and inside as well. I feel that the state wastes so much time and money on these tests that we are not receiving the fullest education possible. The state spends eighty-six dollars per test for the 11th grade english/ language arts portion of the test. My school has over 800 juniors that take this test. Now take those numbers and figure the cost, then take the number of high schools in the district then the county then the state and it is all for juniors alone. The amount of money used is astronomical. Then we spend about 2 months out of the year prepping for the test which is precious time that could be used to reinforce what we are actually supposed to be learning.

Questions to debate:

Should standardized testing be a requirement for students?

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

Let's answer the second question first:

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

When colleges screen applicants, how are they to judge individuals from various school district and weigh them against one another without a common point of reference?

A common point of reference is not a luxury, but a requirement, which is why every college in the US requires either the SAT or ACT as a part of their college admission process.



Should standardized testing be a requirement for students?

Inside the state, a test like the TAKS test (which I am not familiar with) can be used to measure the performance of various school districts against one another. If the TAKS test is structured so that it parallels the national standardized tests, then it can be a reasonable measure of the college preparedness of the students.

School districts must be able to self-assess and figure out whether or not the education they are providing is helping the kids out. Are the kids that leave that educational system actually being educated?

Without standardized tests, there can be no assurance that the school is keeping up with other schools. Standardized tests give an objective measurement.

So my answer is that yes, standardized tests should be required.

Well, quite frankly I am a resident of Texas and believe in the TAKS testing wholeheartedly. Frankly, if we have no measure of success for students and the effectiveness of teachers/administrators, apathy and complacency will reign indefinitely. I would like a national standardized test.

Quite frankly, if schools were run like businesses, we'd have far better scholastic achievement. If teachers were incented based solely upon performance of their students, more teachers would take the initiative to ensure their student's success.

Your analogy about missing education is quite off the mark. If they are taking the time to reinforce the information on the test, then it most likely is something that you ought to know. From my understanding, the TAKS test is predominantly Math and English, in a similar fashion to the SAT. Sounds like a good start to me...

I'm also a resident of TX, and took those silly tests. I'm a Senior @ TX State San Marcos, going into education, and my mother is a carreer teacher. I've been in it all my life.

Thing is, there are "other" viable assessment tools that research has shown to be more productive than standardised testing. If the same money was funnelled into more useful assessment methods, we could probably see education benifit.

For example, if teachers kept portfolios of student work, and assessors evaluated portfolios on a bi yearly basis, we could see progress or a lack thereof very clearly. It would be meaningful. It would not be harmful. We could assess the work being assigned by the teachers in order to evaluate teacher performance. The rewards would far outweigh the cost (not much). It would be much more economical, and more productive. But...publishing companies couldn't make a fortune on it!

You are wrong about the business analogy. Have you ever taught? Schools have been running like businesses, and it's getting more and moreso. Problem is, human children don't respond to business methodology so well. Quotas and deadlines don't encourage meaningful education.

I don't believe that standardized testing should be mandatory, but if it must be, it should be used for DIAGNOSIS, not high stakes, pass/fail, teacher salary, district funding assessment.

I’m not going to say that we should eliminate all testing, but I think we have over emphasized it. The problem is that with TAKS as well as its predecessor TAAS, we spend more time teaching to the test than we do actually teaching. This means almost everyone, including students, parents, teachers and administrators of all levels are tied in emotional knots for much of the year. Bt the time the test is given, people are so exhausted the remaining couple of months of the year become something of a wash. Then there is the matter of waiting until the results are in.

I personally think learning should be fun. Over emphasis on TAKS robs students of the joy of learning and teaching to the test limits options concerning what to learn.

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

I don’t know how much TAKS is a factor, but college admission is more controlled by tests like SAT and ACT. Again I think there is over emphasis, but these tests are money making machines that won’t end anytime soon.



I personally applaud your standing up to what you consider an injustice. Non-violent passive resistance is something that has come to us through the likes of Socrates, Jesus, Leo Tolstoy, Henry David Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Be advised though, that when someone disobeys a law they consider unfair, they must not only accept whatever punishment the system offers, but should expect it. The “punishment” for not taking the test may well be not graduating, derision, harassment, etc. For your protest to have meaning you must be able and willing to take whatever the system dishes out.

Not true. There can be assurance that schools are keeping up with other schools without "standardized" tests. This is a common misrepresentation of a truth that is not so. I have already cite but one example of a way to give more meaningful assessments a try. I believe that it should be managed by the states. They could do it more effectively, and more cost efficiently by implementing student portfolio compilation in all classes, and comparing samples from across the state. You would see actual teacher assignments and student work.

Standardised tests give a biased measurement. They are notoriously culturally biased to favor white, affluent children. They show no data about teacher performance. You have no idea what the teacher does in class from the results. All you know is how the student performed on that day on that test. Not very meaningful in the broad spectrum that is education. Recent research shows that as much as 80% of future success is related to emotional and social factors, at least according to a handout from my classroom management proffesor. None of those factors can be assessed by standardized testing.




I would add on to the end of BoF's statement that you don't just have to "take it". In order for your non-violent passive resistance (civil disobedience) to make an impact, you must make it public. You must take it to the press. You must take it to the state government. You must make it an issue that everyone is talking about. It may also be necessary to take it to court. If they withhold your graduation, and you believe that you should be able to graduate, you can challenge it to the legal system. You don't have to roll over and play dead.

It won't be much fun, but then...it never is...

[SIZE=7] Antny I agree and disagree with your statement. I agree that schools should standerdized tests but, schools shouldn't add special ed kids test scores to the schools total.(No offence but, special ed kids have to get tested with the same test for that grade and they might struggle with it so the overall test scores would be lowered.) They still should have them and no they are not biased to white children. Because anyone with the intellect to pass the test should pass it, no matter what race or creed they are. The part I agree with is that they should add in student work from regular tests and homework. Also with the "No Child Left Behind act", they are teaching in schools to pass the test, not to achieve in life.

Should standardized testing be a requirement for students?

The short answer is yes. People are evaluated against others via testing in all walks of life. More to the point, adults frequently have to pass a test to verify that they have the minimum grasp of the knowledge in question. The fact is, life is all about tests. Want that license to be an electrical contractor? Take the test. Want to be able to practice law? Take the test. Want to drive a car? Take the test. In a sense, these tests are actually teaching a lesson in themselves. You need to study and learn so you can pass. If you do not pass, you do not graduate. And there are no bell curves, social rather then academic based grading, etc. This is a lesson of life that kids seem to get less and less of. And it is likely one of the most important lessons they can learn. The lesson being that if you do not learn, if you do not apply yourself, and if you do not make the effort address your own shortcomings then you cannot succeed.

People complain that the schools are now "teaching the test". My first problem with this, is that it is not completely accurate. When I was in high school we had basic skills tests from our state. I was one of those kids who struggled in some areas and excelled in others. So, in my advanced classes for English and the like, we did devote some time to the test. The entire DAY before, as in one day. The coverage was limited to test taking skills. How to make sure you do not accidentally get out of alignment on the answer key, avoiding trick questions, etc. In my remedial classes, like Math for example, we spent probably close to a month working on problems, practice testing, reviewing formulas, etc.

These days I have watched two brother-in-laws complete high school and have one sister-in-law still in high school. Best as I can tell, there classes seem to follow the same pattern.

So the "teaching-the-test" concept seem quite overblown to me.

My second problem with "teaching-the-test" is simply, why is this considered a problem? Maybe I am applying too much common sense here, but if we have a test that covers what we want to ensure kids have learned, for the good of themselves as well as out society, and the teachers teach the test, then are they not teaching what we want kids to know?

We have all seen the stories and the law suits. Kids graduating from high school who can't read, can barely complete basic math problems, have no idea what the structure of their government is, etc. Without standardized testing, how do we ensure these kids do not fall through the cracks? These tests seem to be an excellent counter to the idea of "social promotion" that seems so prevalent in schools these days.

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

OK, I was not aware that the basic skills testing was used by colleges. I only know of the SAT and the ACT being used. If you're referring to the SAT and the ACT then ABSOLUTELY they should be used. Colleges have limited class sizes for one thing. If we simply allow a first come first served basis in college then many more kids who can't handle the work will fail, while kids who can do the work were delayed because they could not get a seat in the class. Colleges need to know who have shown they have the ability to understand and use the skills necessary to complete a college education. If you're referring to the basic skills test, then I really do not see why they couldn't be used, but I don't understand why a college would bother when they have the SAT and/or ACT to work with.

Should standardized testing be a requirement for students?

Yes. I think we need standardized testing. It is the only objective means by which to test that students have attained a specific level.

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

I think there should be a mix. Personally, I think more emphasis should be placed on critical thinking and writing. And not just creative writing. Nothing should be based solely on standardized test performance. I teach at a law school and I know, for example, that the LSAT is a very good predictor of student performance in law school. But it is not always on point. I have known a number of students who turned out to be outstanding students and attorneys who were only average in their LSAT scores and vice versa.

I am all for tests. They are the only normative means to measure the performance of whom is being tested. However, I am for tests being used specifically for the problems they are intended to solve and not for anything else.

Test students to evaluate their performance relative to other students and testing expectations. Do not test students to evaluate teacher or school performance. This makes no sense. If you want to evaluate teachers, then test the teachers. If you want to evaluate schools, then test the schools. I just wish there were tests for politicians too.

Keep in mind that testing isn't the panacea. The goal is to instill general knowledge, critical thinking and problem solving skills; the goal is not to teach students how to pass the test. If the test is too onerous and/or too rigid, you will get the latter and not the former.

The things we are taught almost always tie into the test somehow and whenever the test is brought up it is such an emotional drag for everyone. Although my teachers refuse to answer the question straight out they constantly imply just how much these test rob us of our right to enjoy learning as much as possible. Frankly I agree with BoF when he says that teachers are teaching the test and not the subject.

The tests of the students are a test of the teachers and the schools. If the students are doing well on the tests (on average) then the teachers and the schools are doing their job. If the students are do poorly on the tests (on average) then the schools and the teachers are doing poorly.

How else would you evaluate the school's and teacher's performance but by measuring their work product (the students) against the work product of others?

Let's abstract this discussion a bit. Let's say a mechanic (who's a really good mechanic) works on old cars. Let's say we look at the failure rate of cars (e.g. the number of times a car breaks) to be the criteria which we judge the mechanic's capabilities. It turns out this mechanic happens to see alot of cars which break often. Is this a fair test to evaluate the mechanic's capabilities?

I say no. I think a fair test would be to measure the mechanic's skill in an unbiased manner. Using what s/he works on as the basis of this judgement is inherently biased and inherently a fallacious measurement.

Now back to the debate topic.... While it is true that there is a correlation to students' performance to a teacher's capabilities, it is not causal. There are many factors associated with a teacher's abilities; students' testing scores are but a small part. It isn't like The Matrix where a teacher can download learnin' into a student's brain. The student is the one learning and the one "regurgitating" this learning onto a test.

Also, if you're going to choose this arbitrary mechanism of using student performance for evaluating teacher performance, why not consider other arbitrary mechanisms? Why not use teacher performance for evaluating student performance? In other words, why not test teachers to see if students are doing well? Or how about testing administrators to see if teachers are doing well? Indeed, we could test the politicians who make the rules to determine the students' performance. Or even more arbitrarily, we could test students to determine if politicians (who make the rules by which students learn) are fit for office.

Tests evaluate who is being tested and no one else.

OK. Lets try to put this in a real world situation. You run a transmission shop, where you warranty your work. You have 30 mechanics working for you. All of your mechanics, accept for one have a return rate of the transmissions they work on of a average of 10%. Meaning 1 out of 10 repaired transmissions break again and need further work, now lets say that half of those return trips, on average are related to something outside of the mechanics control, like a differnent section of the transmission then what was worked on failed.. The 20th mechanic has 40% of the transmissions they work on return, meaning 4 in 10 transmission repaired transmission they work on fail. And lets further say that this mechanic has about an equal return rate (about 5 or 1 in 20) as the other mechanics of repairs that return with issues outside of the mechanics control. If this is my shop, I'd start paying attention to that mechanic to see if there is a problem in his/her performance that I could help them correct. If I could not correct it, or the mechanic would not work with me to correct it, then I would terminate the mechanic. Would this be wrong?



If 20 schools in your state have students take this test, with an average failure rate of 10%. But one school has a failure rate of 40% would you not think it was time to focus on what is going on at that school? Shouldn't you start to examine what problems the schools share, and the look for the problems that they do not to try to determine how best to fix what is happening in the poorer proforming school? There is the possibility that the problem is related to something outside the school. However, without testing, how would you know a problem existed in the first place?



I have no problem with teacher testing, however the NEA takes issue with it, and thus we do not have it. I have no problem with "testing the adminstration", say by regularly auditing the schools and the school boards.

But the fact remains that kids in many schools are not doing well. And the only way we are going to know how well the kids are really doing is through these tests because grading these days seems to be the real arbitrary mechanism here. When I was in school, if you failed the tests, didn't do the homework, etc you failed the class. If you didn't make that class up in summer school, then you were not advanced to the next grade. These days, the idea of "social promotion" seems be the only criteria we use anymore. I have watched 2 brother-in-laws complete high school and one sister-in-law who is still in high school. None of them ever heard of a kid being left back.

Are there other factors? Sure. Administrations and Teachers fear of lawsuits, which could be addressed the legislation insulating them from all but cases of gross negligence. Lack of parental involvement, etc. However, all of our schools are facing these issues and yet so proform far worse then others. We need to know that so we can focus attention on where the problems are and how we can fix them.

Are there other tests? Sure. How many kids from your school go on to college, trade school, the military, etc. is another good indicator.

What we want to know with these tests, is, are the kids learning what they need to know to have any hope of succeeding in our society. If the answer is no, then we have an obligation to investigate what is going on at the poor performing schools to try to change that. It is not the teachers alone, the admin alone, or whatever. There could be a host of reasons for this problem. But the test tells us what schools we need to examine more closely.




So then are you suggesting that if there are 20 math teachers in you district, and the students in the classes of 19 of them fail the test at a rate of 10%, while the 20th one's students fail at a rate of 40% that we should not start looking into that teachers performance?

You seem to suggest that these tests are the end-all in determining the worth of a teacher or school. I think these tests are a tool to determine where we need to look if we are to solve our education problems. The test is not the sole tool at our disposal. The test, is however the only tool that works to establish a base line to tell us where we need to improve so we can look in those areas and try to find solutions.

Hang on a sec, overlandsailor. You're engaging in something called a hasty generalization. You're also using a "common sense" argument as the justification for a correlation implies causation fallacy.

Unless you can demonstrate (and the burden of proof is on you) that poor testing scores are due mainly to poor teachers or poor schools and not any other factors, then you cannot make your correlation case. I'm sure you can think of other factors: improper testing, poor health, poor parenting, etc. Note that even if you can demonstrate your premise for a specific teacher and/or school, you have the additional burden of proof to demonstrate it for all teachers and/or schools.

This is why I say testing tests those who tested and no one else. If you wish to use the tests of students to indicate something about the teachers, then you must demonstrate how you arrive at your position. "Common sense" arguments are insufficient and in this case misleading.

Even if that were true, although 9 times out of 10 it is not, they are given on one day for a set amount of time with no retakes. What if your sick? You can't very well take the test in bed. These tests are also given just once, I mean everyone has offdays and whats worse even if somthing tragic happened merely hours before the test and you are under extreme duress you are still takeing the test and being judged and rated for it.



I have also discovered that average yearly cost to take the TAKS in Texas is in the billions of dollars. That is YOUR tax money going to this test that not only has a horribly poor evaluation system but also does nothing except waste money and cause high school kids undue stress.

How do you arrive at this statistic? Is this one of those "86.3% of all statistics are made up"?


You're criticizing problems in test giving and not in tests themselves. I agree that testing is not perfect and that there are problems as you've mentioned which ought to be accommodated. However, tests seem to be the best mechanism we have for doing any sort of normative evaluation of students.


Sometimes the expense is justified and sometimes it is not. If TAKS tests of students are being used to evaluate teachers and/or schools, then it definitely isn't justified. However, if they're being used to evaluate students, then I can see how they may be useful. The questions remain: Are they useful enough? Are they redundant? Would money be better spent elsewhere?

The state of Texas does studies where it compares students that pass courses and then whether or not those students can pass a standardized test.

A Study of the Correlation between Course Performance in Algebra I and Algebra I End-of-Course Test Performance

The results:



Kids are passing the course, but failing the test which measures whether or not they know the material. I don't consider algebra a subject that is easily biased against certain racial or economic groups.

These types of test can show discrepancies in the education system, where kids are passed but don't really understand the material. This is valuable. It can help identify where corrective action is needed.

There has to be some feedback into the parent-student-teacher-administrator system. Without some sort of performance measurment, changes cannot be made.

I would suggest that standardized testing provides much of that feedback.

One teacher with students who perform out of the range of expected deviation would warrant investigation. It does not neccessarily imply a causal relationship, however it does imply nonrandom variation.

To measure teacher's performance, factors outside the teacher's control need to be controlled for. I would suggest measuring how much a teacher improves individual students: a small performance gain in a (historically) poor student would be better than no performance gain in a (historically) good student.

I tend to feel that teachers who complain about having to 'teach to the test' aren't capable of teaching the basics.

I don't think any Union has ever backed the performance rating of it's individuals, even when such a performance rating could be done fairly and easily.

Lets look at so of what I said:



This was the general theme of my post. Use testing to Identify problem areas. Then, knowing where there is a problem you can focus attention on that school to try to find the root of the problem. Are there other factors that can lead to poor test scores? Yes. You are looking at testing as if they will be the only tool used to axe teachers and administrators. I am looking at testing as a tool to use to discover which schools are having problems and then focus attention on investigating the possible causes of those problems. One of those possible causes are the teachers, but they are certainly not the only possibility.



You are not reading my position. You are making alot of assumptions rather then simply reading what I said. You say the burden of proof is on me. But you are demanding I prove a position I did not put forward. Poor test scores do NOT tell use that there IS a problem with the teachers. Poor test scores tell us that there COULD BE a problem with the teachers, just as there could be a problem with the Adminstration, the learning environment, the School Board, etc, etc. Poor test scores tell us where to look for a problem, not what the problem is.

However, If you have 4 math teachers in a school, and the students of 3 of those teachers have a failure rate on the math portion of the test of 10% and one has a failure rate of 40% wouldn't you take a look at that teacher? Do these numbers mean that teacher is a bad teacher? Not necessarily. Perhaps, this is the one teacher handling remedial math classes. Perhaps this teacher's class room has poor climate control, or has windows facing a busy area, etc. Again, the test identifies that there is a problem, not necessarily what the problem is, we need to investigate to determine what the issue is.



Common Sense is ALWAYS applicable. Those that choose to unnecessarily complicate issues are major road blocks to finding solutions to those issues IMHO.



Absolutely! and, in this case, they do not automatically incriminate the teachers. Say for example a school or a school board has a policy of "social Promotion" that it ruthlessly enforces. Though I would think a good teacher would fight such a policy and make it public, I can't hold the teachers accountable for it, though I can turn my attention to the responsible administrator(s).


Edited to add:

OK, I can see that the following Might be taken as me suggesting that the teachers are the problem. That was not the intent, but I can marginally see how someone could get this idea, though after reading the whole post it's hard to see how that could happen in context. Anyway, it was not my intent, though I could have crafted this part of the post better.



Edited again:

Ok here's the problem!! It's in my earlier post:



OK, now that definitely sounds like I think testing tells us teachers are the problem. This was a terribly crafted post. The fault is mine. I should have put a little more time into that one. I should have worded it differently to say that how students perform on tests tell us there MIGHT be a problem with teachers and administrators. Instead it reads like I believe that test tell us there IS a problem with teachers and administrators if kids do poorly. That was not my intent. It is the result of trying to write a short post, with limited time.

Should standardized testing be a requirement for students?
I found the most effective measure of skills in the military to be measured abilities to do tasks. Not almost do tasks but to do them to standards. The Army training is set up on a basis of ‘Task, condition and standard”. I think such a method of evaluation could apply to anything being measured.

I find it unwise to measure something different than the end objective regardless of the local requirement it should support the end goal of perfection or support successful attainment of minimal college acceptance standards. If the objective is qualifying for the college SAT then there should be attainable skills from K to 12 to measure success supporting the goal as a basis for advancement.

Not all citizens desire or are capable mentally to aspire to go to college. I don’t think a college SAT is a fair measure of student performance if you plan to and are only qualified to work in a trade or service industry based on student/family objective and attainable grade performance. At some point, perhaps by the tenth grade, students should be placed into different tracks supported by skill proficiency up to date and be evaluated accordingly. Why bore a person with ambition to become an auto mechanic with language or chemistry? He or she just slows down the class preparing for the SAT, which will utilize such skills in a variety of college diversions.

In my opinion each class should support college entrance from K-12th grade with an evaluation of preparedness for each grade advancement. A scale should be standard to say, unless you raise your skills in XY &Z you will be placed in a trade or service track. In other words if you attain a passing D in 5th grade math and Science a warning would be sent to student and parent without improvement to standard B+ the student will not qualify for college track. Once placed in a trade or service track a separate standard should be applied and perhaps at 10th or 11th grade those persons evaluated for a trade or service and be placed in apprentice status a half day of school while learning mandatory education skills during the other half school day.




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

Only if a student has proven unable to attain college entrance prerequisites as stated above to stay in college track.

Poor test scores indicate that the student hasn't learned the required subject. It says nothing apart from that. If you wish it to say something apart from that, then you need to isolate your variables and prove that the proposed causes are in fact the causes. I don't disagree that poor test scores likely indicate there's a problem yet we can't "know" what the problem is based solely on the test scores.


Yes, perhaps it is those things and more. You also need to look at the standard deviation of test scores to see if what you have is in fact a statistical outlier. You need to relate the correlation coefficient of the class performance to other classes in the school and in other schools. It is insufficient to look simply at one class and one set of student performances on tests to derive a statistically accurate model.


I see. So, because I demand evidence for certain assertions that may have complex, non-intuitive causes, I am a "major road block" to solutions? This, I must say, is a new type ad hominem attack for me. I've always thought of myself as very solutions-oriented. But, trying to discover solutions based on invalid intepretations of the data is something I try to avoid.

You do realize you just repeated what I said do you not? Seriously, re-read my last post and quote specifically where I said poor test scores do anything other then identify problem areas? What the problem is cannot be determined without investigating it.





Why? Why is it not enough that the children in one class did worse then children in a similar class? Why is that not enough to cause us to investigate what the cause might be? Why do you seem to think and checking to see if it is a "statistically accurate model" is not part of the investigative process?



Nice. Now I am "attacking" you? Did I name you? Do I have a history of "attacking" anyone on AD ? You stated an opinion, I stated an opposing opinion. If this is an "attack" on you, then every post on AD must be an attack in your eyes. Or is this the classic tactic of vilifying the opposition? I am really at a loss here.

Funny thing is, we are NOT in opposition. If you would simply read what I have written you would see that I do NOT feel that testing does anything more then identify problem areas that need to be investigated. What the actual cause is, can NOT be determined by testing.

How does this differ from your position? What is invalid? 10 kids take a test, any test, and 2 fail. You investigate why they failed, which could be one or more of any mumber of reasons. What is the issue here?

Well, not exactly repeating but yes I am saying something similar to you. The fine yet differentiating point I am making is that test scores indicate that the student hasn't learned the material required to pass the test. The thing to look at is the student as well as the standard deviation of test scores in the class. One might be able to determine something from this or one might not. The second place to look is not the teacher though unless there are other datapoints. Test scores should not be the basis by which we judge whether or not someone is a good teacher -- the teacher could just have many smart students; similarly, they should not be the basis of judging a bad teacher. Same thing for schools; same thing for boards of education.

In other words, by using test scores you will get both false positives and false negatives when applying them to anything other than who is being tested (and even then there may be problems). You must look at other sources of data to determine whether or not you have good teachers, good parents, good administrators, good schools, etc. Testing data is simply a bad mechanism with which to make such judgements. I will grant you that we should use whatever mechanisms we can to ensure that we have a good educational system.


Because the premise for which the test data is being used is invalid, or, more accurately, unproven. Using a measurement of student performance for judging whether or not you MIGHT have bad teacher performance is a type of witch hunt. You need a different mechanism to make this assessment. In other words, do something like test the teachers, that would be a much better standard to judge teachers by.


If it wasn't an ad hominem attack on me personally, then it appeared to be an ad hominem attack on anyone who is perceived to "unnecessarily complicate" issues. If I am in error, then please explain it to me.


It is one thing to look for why kids failed the test. It quite another to go on a witch hunt.

This is where we differ. If some kids do far worse on the same tests as other kids there is a reason. What that reason is, would be the subject of an investigation, what you chose to call it a "witch-hunt".



It was a statement of OPINION. Nothing more. If it makes you feel better to call it an "attack" and then I assume, take on the role of "victim" then have at it. But don't expect me not to find it absurd. However, it was a statement of OPINION that does find fault in how we as a country so frequently over-complicate simple issues. However, if that was an "attack" in your eyes, then do you feel your comments on "common sense" was an "attack" against me? I didn't. as I wrong?

Hmmmmmmmm, Many kids PS 127 did really badly on the test. I wonder why that is? Lets get people together and see if we can figure it out. No wait, that might look like a "Witch-Hunt", someone might be offended, someone might think we are targeting them, the union might turn on us again. Oh well, it's not like all the kids failed the test, let's get lunch.

See, I knew we didn't agree . Any investigation needs to be based on good, statistically relevant data and possibilities. Poor test scores may indicate you have a bad school/teachers or it may not. Good test scores may indicate you have a good school/teachers or it may not. Launching an investigation based solely on this data is a "witch hunt". What you need is other data. You need data which is statistically relevant to that which you're measuring. Unless you can demonstrate a statistically relevant connection between student test scores and, say, teacher capability, then you are engaging in both inductive fallacy and causal fallacy.



I suppose I should have stated: "ad hominem fallacy". I agree that calling it an attack is somewhat inaccurate. What I was reacting to was that you seem to suggest that issues which you deem simple are "over-complicated" by those who wish to "road block". If this wasn't directed at me, then I'm at a loss as to why you stated this opinion. As for the "common sense" thing, I suppose it could be viewed as an attack, however I wasn't suggesting that it was wrong to have "common sense" just that in this case it was misleading. But, if it makes you feel better, I withdraw that statement .


Yes, the kids failed the test. Let's investigate. Let's try to improve those kids test scores. Meanwhile, totally independently of test scores, Mrs. Kerpoppel has had a number of reports made by parents of students in her class. She teaches AP English and all her students score really highly on their standardized tests but it turns out that Mrs. Kerpoppel is a drunk.

We do NOT disagree here. Just because a test score shows that there is a POSSIBLE (if you prefer) problem, does not mean there is one, there is one that can be fixed or that the problem is solely the fault of teachers, or anyone else.

However, to suggest that the tests are meaningless, is the wrong approach IMHO.

We want our kids to leave school with at least a basic understanding of several concepts. We test to ensure they have that understanding. If the test shows they do not we have an obligation to investigate to try to determine the reason.



No, I said that those who choose to over complicate issues are a "road-block". There is no reason to think their intention is anything but honorable.



Sorry, I was not aware that I have to have a reason to state my opinion. However, in this case, that statement was in response to the opinion you choose to state in regards to common sense. I guess, to continue to play this game I should now ask your intention as to why you stated your opinion on the matter. Personally, though I tire of defending myself from baseless charges that I cannot even conceive of the reason on would make them. Of course, what does it matter. It's only my reputation, nothing tangible is lost.



And there we disagree. I find that the more I learn about various issues, the more I find that the simplest solutions are the most likely to succeed and also the first ones discounted. As a result, one of my favorite quotes is:

I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly. -- Michel de Montaigne (1533 - 1592)

Take that as another "attack" if you choose, but that is not the intent.



If the school fails to investigate the reports about this teacher simply because her kids score well on the test then they are both failing the students, and misusing the test. I fail to see how this incompetence has anything to do with the usefulness of the testing.

Why is it, that this test is being treated as an all or nothing issue? Why can it not simply be what it is designed to be, a tool to help better our childrens education?

A few observations:

1. Texas got involved in testing mania in 1984 when then Governor Mark White set up a commission on public education headed by H. Ross Perot. Since then we’ve gone through three generations of criterion reference tests. First we had TEAMS. Sorry but I don’t know what the Acronym stood for. Then came TAAS (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills) and now TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.) So, when Texans talk about "stress" and “teaching to the test” we have a bit more experience than some other parts of the country.

2. Here are a couple of reasons a kid might not do well on a test that I don’t think have been mentioned. Some kids have what is called “test anxiety” and some just don’t do well on tests for whatever reason.

3. Deathalive and his friends are not the only students fed up with testing. This incident happened in a small community named Haltom City which is located on Fort Worth’s Northern border.



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/stat...st/10960662.htm

Link may require registration.

Testing has been a major issue for Texas, as BoF pointed out. Interesting, isn't it, that deathalive the starter of this thread is a high school student in San Antonio TX.

It is not that the tests are necessarily a "bad"thing. They have their purpose. The real issue is that their benifit does not justify their cost. An enormous amount of time and money are put into those tests, and what do we get from them?

The high stakes attached to the tests serve to label the children. The impacts of the tests are enormous on the classroom itself. We learned that the Houston CISD simply "cooked the books" to make itself look good. Rod Paige was the Superintendant for that one. He was rewarded with a Cabinet Position (Secretary of Education) in the Bush Admin.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/06/...ain591676.shtml

The tests, and the high stakes attached don't promote "meaningful education".



They promote people jumping through hoops, and attempting to stuff information into the kids heads by rote. It just doesn't work that way.

Nebraska has a program called School Based Teacher led Assessment Reporting System (STARS) http://www.nde.state.ne.us/stars/ This type of assessment is what I advocate.

For accreditation purposes, they give a norm-referenced test that typically covers 30-40% of the standards. The remaining 60-65% are covered using classroom based assessments developed by teachers. The districts compile assessment portfolios and submit them to a state panel for review. NCLB has been integrated into this system. It looks pretty good to me. Anyone have any experience with it?

Advancing Scientific Research in Education (2004)
Center for Education http://books.nap.edu/books/030909321X/html/2.html#pagetop

.

Currently, the testing practices employed by NCLB aren't backed up by research. All we have is test scores to evaluate, but what's the validity of those scores? They answer some questions about academics, but they leave more questions wanting than they answer. The craze over standardized testing as the "answer" to education's problems is largely unfounded. In large part, the teachers and school administrators with first hand experience are unhappy with it. Many believe that it actually stands in the way.



http://nochildleft.com/2005/jan05gap.html



I highly recommend reading some of the articles at http://nochildleft.com for anyone interested in a perspective from someone who wasn't paid to say it.

Yes, I believe that people should try and get the tax dollar money from the TAKS Tests to go to better causes, like teachers salaries and emproving the schools, but we should think up a game plan and try to figure out an easy and intelligent way to get what we want.

I agree wholeheartedly. These tests serve to put the child takeing them under undue duress until they take it which very well could cause them to develop "test anxiety" and do even poorer on the test. Additionally once the scores come back if you don't make the "academic achievment" level of the test you are labeled as stupid and failures, and if they, like me, choose not to take the test it is percieved either as they just don't want to work or they can't do it. Following these accusations the children are continually harassed or belittled by peers and teachers alike. The fear of this happening causes children to turn their studies away from the whole subject and learn just what will be on the test. These tests serve only to keep the child " in line" until they are out of high school or until they stand up and get it changed.

There is one big problem with this OS - the government doesn't see it the same way you do. The reason these test scores are so important, particularly in Texas (and probably other states too), is because the scores for the school as a whole are tied to things like funding.

I think your position is perfectly reasonable in a logical sense, but in reality I don't think the government really cares. More often than not poor test scores are used to "punish" a district rather than spending the time and resources to investigate and correct the problem. That would of course be the right way to do things, but in the real world that doesn't happen. If it did we might actually be devoting significant resources to under-performing schools but instead, the wealthy schools in the suburbs get all the attention and everyone else fights for scraps.

Should standardized testing be a requirement for students?

I think that it should be a requirement because it is the most effective way we have of determining a student's knowledge and mastery of skills. Clearly there will be people who are poor test takers or their skills can't be properly measured with a test, but I think with standardized tests you are going to be able to rate the vast majority of students effectively.

The area where we likely have problems and need to investigate is the quality of the tests themselves. In theory, standardized testing is the only method of rating students that makes sense and is economical. You have to know if a student has mastered the material and you also have to know where a student stands in relation to their peers for entry into more advanced education programs. In practice, the tests could use some work and they often lead to memorization of facts rather than demonstration of knowledge. This isn't a flaw of the concept of standardized testing but rather in the construction of the tests.

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

Given that entrance into college programs is limited and far more applicants apply than there are positions, standardized testing is really required as a first cut mechanism. If you don't have a certain test score then the college or university really can't afford to spend time looking at you.

Of course once test scores have reduced the applicant pool a little bit the admissions committee has to look at everything else - activies, sports, honors & awards, community service, etc.

So I'd say that standardized tests have the appropriate weight for univeresity admissions.

Standardized testing such as the TAKS in Texas is not the same as SAT or ACT used for college placement. Don't confuse the two. This conversation is about the TAKS type tests, given many times over the students' educational carreer, not the SAT, taken at the end of HS in order to show your stuff to colleges. Very different things. SAT, and ACT aren't mandatory. People with no interest in college don't have to take them. TAKS is mandatory. Standardized tests in relation to grade promotion, is a different subject than college entrance level exams. The question is worded to include both, but I think that the thread starter (a h.s. student) was more focused on the TAKS style tests, not the SAT /ACT style.

I am not confusing the two, if anything the questions for debate are confusing the two things. I grew up in Texas and went to Texas schools. During that time this test was called the TAAS test and I imagine it is very similar if not identical with a new name to the TAKS test.

The only tests I am aware of that are used for college admissions are the SAT and the ACT. So my natural assumption is that the question either pertained to these tests or it was a more generalized question (i.e. should college admissions consider standardized tests at all). If this topic is only about the TAKS test then the second question is completely invalid because the test has no bearing on college admissions.

That being said, my first response to the question still stands. I think that mandatory standardized testing is the only way to rate where students fall in terms of knowledge mastery on a consistent basis. As I said there will be exceptions but the number of students it works for is in the high 90th percentile.

Where I disagree with the TAKS (TAAS) test and others like it is how the results are used. Instead of taking the logical approach (as OverlandSailor lays out) and using the test to focus on schools and districts with problems, schools and districts which have low test scores are penalized. These districts might get funding cut when the reverse should be true, we should focus more attention on these schools to discover and correct the problems.

I completely disagree with individual teacher evaluation of students for the purposes of assessing mastery of knowledge and where they stand against their peers for a few reasons:
1) There are absolutely no standards there and any rating by teachers would be subjective. One teacher might think the student had mastered the skills while another would not. One teacher might really like borderline student X and give them a passing rating, another teacher might not see it that way.

2) It is extremely inefficient to do things this way. Teachers in most schools are already overworked (and underpaid) enough as it stands right now. I guarantee that an approach of individual evaluation of (in some cases) 100's of students a year would send most teachers over the edge.

Should standardized testing be a requirement for students?

The problem isn’t with testing per se, but making it the center of a whole school year. I also agree with CJ that the tests are used more as a punitive measure rather than one that leads to improvement. This is all part of what brought Molly Ivins to the conclusion that Texas is the “national laboratory for bad government.”

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

Tests like TAKS should not be used for college admission. That is why we have SAT and ACT.

The question of grade promotion is more difficult to address. What has long been referred to as “social promotion” pretty much puts us on the horns of a dilemma. A 5th grade student in a classroom where 3rd grade work is being done creates almost an unbearable amount of social stigma. On the other hand a student doing 3rd grade work in a 5th grade classroom creates frustration. Both are a recipe for dropping out. Ironically, both campuses and districts in Texas are rated on dropout rate and attendance as well as performance on criterion reference tests. I see this as misplaced emphasis. Perhaps some of the money being used on testing could be spent more appropriately on remedial work for students not performing up to standards. Such would include after school, Saturday and summer programs and perhaps, in some cases, home tutoring.

Unfortunately, I don't see the unbelievable collection clowns in Austin or Washington having the smarts or creativity to fix things. Why is it that every time I think of current state and national governments I hear Judy Collins singing "Send in the Clowns?"

I don't think the TAKS is any different than the SAT, except for the specifics of how it is used.

The ACT/SAT is used to determine college eligibility as an initial screen. It is used to determine if the student in question has mastered high school level material.

Similarly, the TAKS measures a pupil's mastery of skills on a year-by-year basis. It can be used to ensure, uniformly, if a student starting into grade 5 (as an arbitrary example) has mastered the grade 4 skill set.

The real question would then be, how should we pay teachers?
If we cannot pay them based upon performance, what incentive do they have to perform well?

I believe that in urban and very rural areas that there should be a sliding scale, just as a business would work, where goals are made every year and a snowball approach would begin. We all agree that less-fortunate (i.e. poor) kids have it harder in reference to environmental factors, etc. This would make teachers in poorer schools at a disadvantage. This often times drives teachers to better schools, which creates a negative synergy (to use a business term).

That all being said, if we paid teachers in urban or rural schools a little more, and gave goal-based incentives, don't you think that performance would improve???

I don't necessarily agree with cutting funding to schools whom perform poorly, but we could tie bonuses and peripheral compensation do those who make the mark (of course with a sliding scale).

The sincere advantage to the TAKS test (or the LEAP) testing in Louisiana is that there has to be a benchmark for schools, just as there is in private industry. If we allow school systems to perpetuate the cycle of apathy and complacency, we'll get more of the same.

No! A minimum foundation for teacher salaries is set by the state. Local districts then supplement this foundation. What Fort Worth, for example, pays above state minimum is based on what it has to pay teachers to compete with Dallas, Arlington, Crowley, etc. To use a business lingo, salaries are already set by competition and the free market.

Rural areas are a different matter. To raise salaries in these areas to a competitive level one would almost have to have a uniform state salary with no supplement from locaL sources. Such would kill two Republican sacred cows--local control and free market competition for available teachers.

In general, merit pay schemes have not worked. In Texas we had a four tiered "career ladder" as part of the reforms the Perot Commission suggested in 1984. On level four, one had to pass a test to become a "master teacher." As I remember, the test cost about $200.00 that had to be paid out of the teacher's own pocket. The test was structured in such a way that only about two percent of those taking the test passed. I was on level three and never took the test, mainly because I didn't have $200.00 to spend on taking the instrument. It tuned out to be a wise decision. The state never did implement level four and abolished the career ladder altogether, but through the efforts of our union, those on level three got to keep the $3000.00 stipend provided. It was simply rolled over into our base salary.



You've lost me aevans176. I don't understand what sincerity has to do with any of this.