Changing Standardized Testing

[psikeyhackr]

Has anyone ever created a table of what concepts children should understand by what age?

I find this video shocking:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0wk4qG2mIg]Harvard Graduates Explain Seasons - YouTube[/ame]

What does that say about their lack of curiosity about how reality really works?

What is so important about English Literature? Is school really about cultural indoctrination? The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about any culture.

psik

 

[Unkotare]

What is so important about English Literature?

Well, now we know that the educational system failed you.

 

[jwoodie]

What is so important about English Literature?

Well, now we know that the educational system failed you.

Your comments are not as clever as you seem to think.

 

[Unkotare]

What is so important about English Literature?

Well, now we know that the educational system failed you.

Your comments are not as clever as you seem to think.

Thanks for the feedback. It will be given all the consideration it is due.

 

[Unkotare]

Upset that your little three-step plan wasn't as brilliant as you'd hoped?

 

[mollybear]

If a student seeks out extra help in preparing for a test - that makes the test illegitimate? What the hell kind of sense is that?

So, if a student of somewhat less than average intelligence has trouble with a RosieMediocrity Test and seeks the help of a tutor (maybe even one paid for with tax dollars - the kind Rosie would 'approve' of) that means even the RosieMediocrity Test is illegitimate? How far down do these turtles go?

Not all students have the resources to hire a tutor, and it's unlikely that tax dollars would be used to for this purpose, especially considering how strained education budgets are already.

I don't think even adjusting standards is going to be the perfect solution. Either you'll adjust them so that more students do well and are not penalized for socioeconomic circumstances, or you'll make them so that American students will come closer to measuring up internationally. Both can't happen at the same time.

Maybe the problem is the institution of standardized testing itself. Look at Finland, who does incredibly well on international educational rankings. They use little to no standardized testing like is seen in America, but their teachers are valued more and are given more freedom to adapt to the student they're teaching.

Could the United States change its system to be more like the Finnish model?

 

[gallantwarrior]

If a student seeks out extra help in preparing for a test - that makes the test illegitimate? What the hell kind of sense is that?

So, if a student of somewhat less than average intelligence has trouble with a RosieMediocrity Test and seeks the help of a tutor (maybe even one paid for with tax dollars - the kind Rosie would 'approve' of) that means even the RosieMediocrity Test is illegitimate? How far down do these turtles go?

Not all students have the resources to hire a tutor, and it's unlikely that tax dollars would be used to for this purpose, especially considering how strained education budgets are already.

I don't think even adjusting standards is going to be the perfect solution. Either you'll adjust them so that more students do well and are not penalized for socioeconomic circumstances, or you'll make them so that American students will come closer to measuring up internationally. Both can't happen at the same time.

Maybe the problem is the institution of standardized testing itself. Look at Finland, who does incredibly well on international educational rankings. They use little to no standardized testing like is seen in America, but their teachers are valued more and are given more freedom to adapt to the student they're teaching.

Could the United States change its system to be more like the Finnish model?

Our educational system used to value you teachers more, too. A talented teacher often played a pivotal role in their students' success. Our country has fallen into a "one-sized fits all" trap that just does not work. I think providing school vouchers and allowing parents and students to choose a school that better fits them is a great step to changing the lock-step, cookie-cutter "education" we provide our children.

 

[squeeze berry]

If a student seeks out extra help in preparing for a test - that makes the test illegitimate? What the hell kind of sense is that?

So, if a student of somewhat less than average intelligence has trouble with a RosieMediocrity Test and seeks the help of a tutor (maybe even one paid for with tax dollars - the kind Rosie would 'approve' of) that means even the RosieMediocrity Test is illegitimate? How far down do these turtles go?

Not all students have the resources to hire a tutor, and it's unlikely that tax dollars would be used to for this purpose, especially considering how strained education budgets are already.

I don't think even adjusting standards is going to be the perfect solution. Either you'll adjust them so that more students do well and are not penalized for socioeconomic circumstances, or you'll make them so that American students will come closer to measuring up internationally. Both can't happen at the same time.

Maybe the problem is the institution of standardized testing itself. Look at Finland, who does incredibly well on international educational rankings. They use little to no standardized testing like is seen in America, but their teachers are valued more and are given more freedom to adapt to the student they're teaching.

Could the United States change its system to be more like the Finnish model?

probably not

Finland is more homogenous and does not have the demographic issues the US has. Also, they are smaller and can be more focused.

Teaching to the test is not as bad as some make it out to be. The tests are comprehensive and the teachers do not know what the test questions will be only what areas each standard will address.


the problem we have is that once the end of year tests are done in the 2nd week of May, what do you do for the next month?

I would prefer a modified German model with about 3/4 to 1/2 of the students going into vocational school and about 1/4 on a university track.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If a student seeks out extra help in preparing for a test - that makes the test illegitimate? What the hell kind of sense is that?

So, if a student of somewhat less than average intelligence has trouble with a RosieMediocrity Test and seeks the help of a tutor (maybe even one paid for with tax dollars - the kind Rosie would 'approve' of) that means even the RosieMediocrity Test is illegitimate? How far down do these turtles go?

Not all students have the resources to hire a tutor, and it's unlikely that tax dollars would be used to for this purpose, especially considering how strained education budgets are already.

I don't think even adjusting standards is going to be the perfect solution. Either you'll adjust them so that more students do well and are not penalized for socioeconomic circumstances, or you'll make them so that American students will come closer to measuring up internationally. Both can't happen at the same time.

Maybe the problem is the institution of standardized testing itself. Look at Finland, who does incredibly well on international educational rankings. They use little to no standardized testing like is seen in America, but their teachers are valued more and are given more freedom to adapt to the student they're teaching.

Could the United States change its system to be more like the Finnish model?

probably not

Finland is more homogenous and does not have the demographic issues the US has. Also, they are smaller and can be more focused.

Teaching to the test is not as bad as some make it out to be. The tests are comprehensive and the teachers do not know what the test questions will be only what areas each standard will address.


the problem we have is that once the end of year tests are done in the 2nd week of May, what do you do for the next month?

I would prefer a modified German model with about 3/4 to 1/2 of the students going into vocational school and about 1/4 on a university track.

I have long been a proponent for the German model. This drive to make every child into an academic is abusive of many children, IMO. Not everyone is cut out for the university and most all trades work well on the German model.

 

[mollybear]

Not all students have the resources to hire a tutor, and it's unlikely that tax dollars would be used to for this purpose, especially considering how strained education budgets are already.

I don't think even adjusting standards is going to be the perfect solution. Either you'll adjust them so that more students do well and are not penalized for socioeconomic circumstances, or you'll make them so that American students will come closer to measuring up internationally. Both can't happen at the same time.

Maybe the problem is the institution of standardized testing itself. Look at Finland, who does incredibly well on international educational rankings. They use little to no standardized testing like is seen in America, but their teachers are valued more and are given more freedom to adapt to the student they're teaching.

Could the United States change its system to be more like the Finnish model?

probably not

Finland is more homogenous and does not have the demographic issues the US has. Also, they are smaller and can be more focused.

Teaching to the test is not as bad as some make it out to be. The tests are comprehensive and the teachers do not know what the test questions will be only what areas each standard will address.


the problem we have is that once the end of year tests are done in the 2nd week of May, what do you do for the next month?

I would prefer a modified German model with about 3/4 to 1/2 of the students going into vocational school and about 1/4 on a university track.

I have long been a proponent for the German model. This drive to make every child into an academic is abusive of many children, IMO. Not everyone is cut out for the university and most all trades work well on the German model.

Could you elaborate on the German model? I'm not really familiar with it. How do they decide which students get placed onto which tracks?

 

[gallantwarrior]

At about the age of 14, students (and their parents) decide whether the child will enter into vocational training, an apprenticeship, or continue academic studies. If a vocational program is chosen, the child will do classroom and hands on training in his chosen trade. After completion of the apprenticeship, the student takes his journeyman's test and enters the workforce as a trained, qualified professional tradesman. That's it in a nutshell.

 

[mollybear]

At about the age of 14, students (and their parents) decide whether the child will enter into vocational training, an apprenticeship, or continue academic studies. If a vocational program is chosen, the child will do classroom and hands on training in his chosen trade. After completion of the apprenticeship, the student takes his journeyman's test and enters the workforce as a trained, qualified professional tradesman. That's it in a nutshell.

That's definitely an interesting idea. I know my high school had a program to send students to a nearby vocational school for training as an option for kids who weren't college-bound, but I don't think that's the norm and I think it would take almost a cultural shift for that to become an accepted model nationwide. I think that system has its benefits in being adaptable to individual students' needs, which is something that standardized testing doesn't really allow at all.

However, allowing students to stream into a vocation doesn't help US education rankings or school performance rankings. With the consequences of high-stakes testing, no resources are going to be funneled into experimenting with something like this that has no way to increase test scores.

The other issue is that you risk making huge life-changing decisions before the student is necessarily ready to make those. I think a system like that needs to be flexible and allow for students to switch from track to track if their needs are not being met where they are.

 

[Unkotare]

Not all students have the resources to hire a tutor, and it's unlikely that tax dollars would be used to for this purpose, especially considering how strained education budgets are already.

Public schools all across the country have free after school, and sometimes in school, programs to provide extra help to students who need it and seek it out. Many teachers donate their own time to stay late and tutor students for free. Many schools have programs where high-achieving kids, like those in the National Honor Society, tutor their fellow students who need extra help. At the end of the day, wealthier kids will always have options that others don't, just like in the rest of life. Changing a test won't change that.

 

[Unkotare]

Maybe the problem is the institution of standardized testing itself. Look at Finland, who does incredibly well on international educational rankings. They use little to no standardized testing like is seen in America, but their teachers are valued more and are given more freedom to adapt to the student they're teaching.

Could the United States change its system to be more like the Finnish model?

Consult your map. We are not Finland.



You might as well ask if we could become more like South Korea, with much more emphasis on a few very high stakes tests.

 

[gallantwarrior]

At about the age of 14, students (and their parents) decide whether the child will enter into vocational training, an apprenticeship, or continue academic studies. If a vocational program is chosen, the child will do classroom and hands on training in his chosen trade. After completion of the apprenticeship, the student takes his journeyman's test and enters the workforce as a trained, qualified professional tradesman. That's it in a nutshell.

That's definitely an interesting idea. I know my high school had a program to send students to a nearby vocational school for training as an option for kids who weren't college-bound, but I don't think that's the norm and I think it would take almost a cultural shift for that to become an accepted model nationwide. I think that system has its benefits in being adaptable to individual students' needs, which is something that standardized testing doesn't really allow at all.

However, allowing students to stream into a vocation doesn't help US education rankings or school performance rankings. With the consequences of high-stakes testing, no resources are going to be funneled into experimenting with something like this that has no way to increase test scores.

The other issue is that you risk making huge life-changing decisions before the student is necessarily ready to make those. I think a system like that needs to be flexible and allow for students to switch from track to track if their needs are not being met where they are.

I was under the impression that you did not approve of the standardized tests. A program like the one described is much better for addressing individual needs than pressing all and sundry to perform to the same arbitrary standards. It would also more precisely address many of the cultural issues cited as problematic with standardized tests.
I think it would be far better to have young people make a decision about their direction in life than what we do now. They just drift in and out of experiments and many never realize their personal potential. Nothing stops them from making other choices later.
The unfortunate truth is, not everyone is born to become a nuclear physicist, or a doctor, or a chef, baker, auto mechanic, or plumber. There are plenty of jobs that really don't fit the university degree model well at all. I teach mechanics. I will vouch that many of my students do much better working with tools than they do gleaning information out of books. We are NOT created equal, despite what some might wish us to believe.

 

[squeeze berry]

At about the age of 14, students (and their parents) decide whether the child will enter into vocational training, an apprenticeship, or continue academic studies. If a vocational program is chosen, the child will do classroom and hands on training in his chosen trade. After completion of the apprenticeship, the student takes his journeyman's test and enters the workforce as a trained, qualified professional tradesman. That's it in a nutshell.

That's definitely an interesting idea. I know my high school had a program to send students to a nearby vocational school for training as an option for kids who weren't college-bound, but I don't think that's the norm and I think it would take almost a cultural shift for that to become an accepted model nationwide. I think that system has its benefits in being adaptable to individual students' needs, which is something that standardized testing doesn't really allow at all.

However, allowing students to stream into a vocation doesn't help US education rankings [/B]or school performance rankings. With the consequences of high-stakes testing, no resources are going to be funneled into experimenting with something like this that has no way to increase test scores.

The other issue is that you risk making huge life-changing decisions before the student is necessarily ready to make those. I think a system like that needs to be flexible and allow for students to switch from track to track if their needs are not being met where they are.

bolded

this is why US rankings are lower. they test the university bound and not the vocational track, whereas we test everyone including most of those with IEPs

 

[DGS49]

The German system is quite Darwinian, and students often lose any chance of a university education quite early in the process. There is no room for a "late bloomer" (as I was).

The American system places too much emphasis on a "college education," and makes students feel like losers if they have no interest or talent in that area. Also, the colleges went on a feeding frenzy during the Baby Boom, and watered down their curricula to find a place and a major for everyone who had the money or was willing to borrow enough to get in, regardless of whether they were "college material" or not. We are paying the price for this insanity now.

Our public school system has been destroyed by teacher unionism that follows the labor union paradigm - not promoting professionalism and benefitting most of all the WORST TEACHERS in the bargaining unit.

The complaints of having to "teach to the test" are merely a smokescreen for teachers who regularly fail to impart significant subject material learning to their students, and don't want to be held accountable for the atrocious lack of results. Which is not to say that they are entirely at fault, in a culture which devalues real education in favor of empty egoism and hedonism at every turn. Thus, for example, American public school students have the highest self esteem in the world and the least reason to feel it.

Let the teachers' unions write the bloody tests if they don't think they measure meaningful learning! But there is no other way to determine whether you are accomplishing the desired goals, is there?

Professionals. Right.

 

[psikeyhackr]

What is so important about English Literature?

Well, now we know that the educational system failed you.

Failed to brainwash me into being stupid?

The nation that put men on the Moon can't solve a grade school Newtonian Physics problem about skyscrapers.

psik

 

[Crackerjaxon]

If exposure to reading, writing and mathematics does not happen for years in a school. something is seriously wrong.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

We need to stream our best students into vocational training, too. The stupid, stupid bias against doing anything pratical for a living has to stop.