Standardized Testing

The whole teaching to the test idea is a controversy in itself... but is it the test to blame or the teacher or something else? Notable supporters of this idea like Deborah Meier, Gretchen Hoff, Theodore Sizer, and Jonathon Kozol say it restrains intellectual freedom by teachers restricting curriculum, but does it really? I'd say it's a false dichotomy. I mean, a child needs to know the fundamentals before moving on to something more complicated. The results tell us what we need to hear.

The idea is to use the numbers to help reform what needs to be reformed... so comparing district to district, state to state, race to race, etc. Trends are seen with numbers, and come on, what'll the fate of the nation be like when students leave high school barely knowing how to read up to par, etc?

You say younger grades, eh? Well, for some populations, early testing shows very crucial results. There's definitely a dire racial gap in achievement, and it exists even when the child first steps into school--esp the case with black students. With these numbers they try to figure out what might be the reason why. (home culture, deep historical inferiority complexes, the fact that those under black single-female headed households & low birth weights have shown to score lower, generally... )

 

Oh and as for doing well on standardized tests...I don't know about the others, but might I say I'm South-Asian American... and generally the culture pushes nothing less than academic excellence (as test scores/AP enrollment /common experience shows) which is a friggin lot of pressure.

I always get compared to the other high-achiever South Asians of the community, and it's like family shame for the kid who scores low. The cousin who scored a 1590 on the old SAT... the cousin who got into Harvard, the boy who got a 790 on his bio SAT, the sisters who went to Cornell, the valedictorian, blah blah blah.

It was kind of expected, and of course even through all the stress, good scores are incredibly beneficial. I am in NY state as well, btw. Regents exams, Iowas, all the jazz.. been there done that.

 

I'm slightly confused about what your point is - maybe the teachers are to blame, and/or other factors that cannot really be addressed in the classroom - in which case, you are not taking issue with the validity of the tests themselves (which is the title of this thread.) Are you establishing here that the standardized tests do accurately measure a student's mastery over the necessary fundamentals?
Then are you asking about the issue of standardized tests themselves, or are you past that and already assuming that they are valid? The focus of this thread is now blurry lol

this... again, i dont know where you're going. Im simply saying that its interesting that almost every poster here said that they did very well on the SATs, because a random sample of the population would not show such a high percentage of high scorers

 

this thread is about k-12, I haven't gotten around to the SAT's yet, and the school I want to go to doesn't require them, a good score makes up for some of the academic sins I'vve made, but I'd rather get into good study habits and fix me than go the round about way again, and just quit when it gets too hard.

 

this is definitely NOT a random sampling of the population.

you go over to the marijuana lounge, go over to womens issues

and you come back here

and you tell me this is a random sampling (a good couple of days reading the politics forum might give you a hoot too)

 

no, not completely random in the sense that its a given that everyone here is literate. and if they are posting about standardized tests, they must have been subject to them. But I wouldnt automatically assume that everyone posting here is academically gifted, so yes I was surprised.

 

First part... I'm literally thinking out loud (sorry... I've really read into this all in the past few months)There is no focus of the thread, and I guess what I'm saying is, the teaching to the test idea doesn't really capture what's going on. The testing is meant to assure adequate preparedness, but the teaching to the test issue may be more relevant to teachers and their own efficacy rather than a fault of the testing itself.

I'm not sure if I am for or against standardized testing. Then again, I don't think it's necessary to take sides, rather, just recognize education is important and find ways to improve.

Second part... okay, I was just telling where I came from. Just let me rant, okay!

 

at least you apologize when you do it. what class are you researching this for?

 

i don't have a problem with standardized testing for the most part. i'm sure it could be done better, but really, there's bigger problems with schools than that.

personally, i really liked them, because once people started to see my scores on them they stopped accusing me of studying for normal classroom tests.

they didn't. i aced the ACT instead.

the people who did well are probably more likely to say how they did...





while we're kind of on the subject, everyone who "studies" for the ACT or SAT is defeating the entire purpose of the test, and annoying me in the process.

 

i did apologize. sheesh, you want me to get down on my knees and beg for forgiveness?

i researched (past tense) for critical research on education and citizenship. i'm done with it now, but still interested in the topic.

 

The SAT doesn't even stand for anything anymore... and studying (i'd say practicing in this case) doesn't defeat the purpose...because the test is supposed to give a feel for how the student will do in college. In college, you have to study for exams. What good is a student who has the capability but doesn't apply it?

 

yeah true

re-read what i said biatch!! but if you wanna do all that, you can.

 

NEVAR! I don't bow down for anyone. I'm so awesome that I'm physically incapable to ever do so.

 

umm, no...


oh, and a student who applies oneself is preferable, but you can't really measure that unless everyone "practices" those tests. otherwise, they may have been well prepared, or they may have just been good at standardized tests.

 

I'm generalizing by bringing to light the other side to the story. And studying doesn't have to mean sitting there hitting the books til the eyes bleed.

Evidently, there's no perfect system to measure ability. No way to filter out all bias/racism, personality flaws in the test taker, testing ability vs innate capacity, whatever you might accuse it of. But, it's a useful tool, nevertheless. Coupled with the right other factors, it can be better.

 

like this? :banghead:

because i do that...

 

that's another way to kill brain cells, murderer.

 

i like to think they've lived a full life.

 

murderers often try to convince themselves otherwise. delusional pussi3s.

 

curbing overpopulation?

i don't want to be a pussi3.