Standardized Testing

hey, i'm too shy to spell that word correctly... no need to mock me for it *hides in embarassment*

back to the topic, mofo.

 

Too many long, boring posts for me to read. Or care, considering this is aimed at America.

My aunt does this.

Otherwise, my parents want me to succeed for myself, not for others. They don't care what our family says.

I am very lucky. I never really realised that until the past year or so.

 

NCEA in New Zealand is actually a really good system

TEE SUCKS.

 

Hmm..

Here we have SATs at 11 years old, then at 13 years old, then GCSEs 14-16, then A levels after that. They scrapped SATs for 13 years old this year.

 

My apologies,I did not read the whole thread.However the type of standardized tests you're talkin about, are bad.Instead of actually learning a subject my guess is the teacher is more likely to teach the students how to 'take the test'. This does NOT contribute anything to learning etc.In fact it does the OPPOSITE.----These tests also prove little because some people are good test takers and some are not.---When I went to school most of the tests your talking about did not exist,as far as I know.I never took any of those tests.The only one I did take was the SAT and that was in high school.--

 

the system sucks , the testing sucks.. my son age 8 falls in the crack of the testing system.

he is above average intelligence ,but has OCD w Tourettes , Sensory Integration , ADHD, BUT because he is "on target" he gets little to no "special needs " assistance.

the testing system has to be individualized more... but how ?

 

NCEA? tell me more...

uhh, the SAT like the American version? Gifted 11 year olds here take it through this Princeton program, but it's uncommon.

it's okay, thanks for being honest. we did discuss that.

the teach to the test idea assumes the test doesn't accurately capture the subject...which is misleading, because the exams tests what educational professionals (who undergo extensive research and collaboration with all sorts of people involved in education nationwide, including teachers and parents) deem essential for the child to take from the class.

teachers can definitely teach beyond just that, in fact, they should. but if the child doesn't have the basic stuff down, that doesn't ensure a more promising future in the modern world.

I have more issues with the SAT than state assessments, even though I do not think standardized testing is bad at all.

there are definitely gaps in the system. somewhat similar to your example, there are school districts, including the one I went to...who had a sizable disabled student population whose scores were also pooled into the district's scores on the state exams. The district was ranked lower and labeled in need, even though the rest of the students thrived.

Scores are so highly valued in this society and they're incredibly published everywhere. It affects where families move, because it makes sense that parents want their kids to go to a better school.

But that sucks for your son. Expand on that if you wish. You mean for state exams and such he isn't given extra time or assistance? How has that affected his scores?

 

Standardized tests prevent shitty schools from giving easy tests and creating the illusion that the kids are learning something when they aren't.

 

You've lost me.
It's just a usual test.
Our school had a gifted and talented thing but that wasn't done to the SATs. That was if the teachers thought you were gifted/talented in the subject.