FCAT, i.e Standardized Testing

[Paulie]

To Paulie, I would love to see performance-based pay for educators.

Fuckin-A.

Pretty much any other job is.

Well, any other NON-government job.

How would you like to measure teacher performance? By measuring student achievement?

If the student goes on to be something successful in life, the teacher gets a bonus

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can see some reasonable objections to tying teacher pay to student performance. This will cause some bad teachers to inflate student performance in their classes, and cause some good teachers to drop in pay because they get assigned worse students.

We do need some sort of merit pay system for teachers though, even if I don't have a clear idea on how to implement it.

I agree in principle but merit-based pay requires 1) a widely agreed-upon definition of what a teacher is supposed to be doing and 2) a way to effectively evaluate it. This kind of thing is very easy if we make education very centralized and very mechanized (though that kind of structure itself has some built-in philosophical assumptions about the purposes of education) but obviously making education into a single checklist that a teacher moves down in order to get a bonus payment has its drawbacks.

This is probably a question for a different thread but what is a teacher supposed to be producing? Before you can think about rewarding them for doing it well you've got to have a pretty comprehensive answer to that question.

There is where you go wrong, the problem with instituting merit based pay is that we are going toward a centralized system. If we put education back in the control of local groups it would be a lot easier to define goals for those teachers that matter to the community where they work. Centralized education does not allow local districts to adapt to community needs. The idea that everyone in the US should go to college is ridiculous because not every job requires education or specialized training to perform. Nor is taking a "menial" job an indication of a lack of intelligence or ability to get a college degree.

 

[Jon]

I can see some reasonable objections to tying teacher pay to student performance. This will cause some bad teachers to inflate student performance in their classes, and cause some good teachers to drop in pay because they get assigned worse students.

We do need some sort of merit pay system for teachers though, even if I don't have a clear idea on how to implement it.

I agree in principle but merit-based pay requires 1) a widely agreed-upon definition of what a teacher is supposed to be doing and 2) a way to effectively evaluate it. This kind of thing is very easy if we make education very centralized and very mechanized (though that kind of structure itself has some built-in philosophical assumptions about the purposes of education) but obviously making education into a single checklist that a teacher moves down in order to get a bonus payment has its drawbacks.

This is probably a question for a different thread but what is a teacher supposed to be producing? Before you can think about rewarding them for doing it well you've got to have a pretty comprehensive answer to that question.

There is where you go wrong, the problem with instituting merit based pay is that we are going toward a centralized system. If we put education back in the control of local groups it would be a lot easier to define goals for those teachers that matter to the community where they work. Centralized education does not allow local districts to adapt to community needs. The idea that everyone in the US should go to college is ridiculous because not every job requires education or specialized training to perform. Nor is taking a "menial" job an indication of a lack of intelligence or ability to get a college degree.

You are right, not everyone should go to college. But all K12 schools should prepare students for college. If a person decides not to go to college, so be it. But the rest of the students in that person's class shouldn't suffer a lack of education because of it.

 

[Annie]

I've mixed feelings about standardized tests, especially regarding NCLB which is really where the 'teaching to tests' intensified.

With that said, I'm compelled to add something. I may have missed the age or grade of the child, but it does matter. No child should be measured by one set of tests, as has been repeatedly emphasized on this thread. On the other hand, if the child is young-say 1st, 2nd, 3rd grade, this could be the early warning that is needed. While the focus has been on the discrepancies between his earned grades and the standardized scores, assuming the child was feeling ok those days, it may not be the teacher that is inflating grades or be 'the greatest', it may well be that the child's family provides a 'rich environment' for academics.

The parents or older siblings or grandparents read to him, a lot. They use cognitive questioning regarding everyday experiences that encourage both inferences and higher order thinking. They've exposed him to activities that provide knowledge beyond his age, while encouraging good social skills such as empathy and kindness, i.e., sports and social activities, museums, nature walks, in healthy environment. All of these provide the behaviors likely to lead to good grades in school, especially in early primary grades, but not so easily able to mask possible problems on standardized tests, which are objective and not able to 'read' the subtleties of personality.

It looks like the results are low in reading and since there are no science or social studies results, it's difficult to say if the test may be at fault. To a degree that is what leads me to think the child may be in early grades.

An enriched environment can mask learning disabilities, though it is also the best means of providing the coping skills if there are problems being addressed. In any given 2nd grade class there will be very high scores, and very low scores, with most fitting in the middle. The warnings to teachers/parents are when the scores are 'way off' from performance or expectations for both the student and the school district. (The schools have those expectations on their results, most of the time the parents do not, at least not clearly stated. If the test lists percentile he falls in nationally, by state, by district, and by school you can get a better feel on how he did.)

In upper primary and secondary grades; reading, science, and social studies scores should be clustered. The latter two subjects are dependent on the first. If math is a strength or the child favors a subject more than the other, there might be a few points difference, but they should still be in the same ballpark.

Again, one test is only one test. If the same were to occur next year, I'd consider outside testing through the district or better yet, university medical center. If there are any minor problems masked, addressing them at 7 or 8 through a good remedial program can basically make them disappear. On the other hand, if there really are issues, no amount of enrichment will mask them by 4th or 5th grade.

The older the child is, the more resistant they are to help; they don't want to be different, they already feel shakey about school, they don't want to risk trying and failing.

 

[geauxtohell]

Here, in FL, it's called the FCATs.
All students must take it in order to move on to the next grade.

I'm starting this thread because my 3 youngest grandkids just got their test results.
My grandson got a 4 in Writing, a 3 in Math, and a 2 in Reading on this standardized test.
All through the school year he had nothing but B's ans S's in Reading (every other subject, too, for that matter).
But, because he got a 2 on this one test, he is passed "with intensive remediation".

So, because of the results of ONE Test, he has to take remedial classes next year??
Like I said, he had all B's all school year long.


Okay, I've ranted.

Can someone give me the plus-side to these ridiculous tests?

Welcome to "No Child Left Behind". Standardized tests have their place, but IMO they are for after High School.

For example, it makes sense that students take the ACT or SAT so they can be compared nationally for college admission. I just took a board exam that is a national exam. It makes sense that all medical students would have to meet a national standard of proficiency.

However, it's a farce for children. Sadly, many teachers now just "teach the exam".

 

[geauxtohell]

Fuckin-A.

Pretty much any other job is.

Well, any other NON-government job.

How would you like to measure teacher performance? By measuring student achievement?

That's tough, particularly considering the theme of this thread seems to be that the best way to accurately measure student achievement isn't necessarily obvious.

I created my own Catch-22, didn't I?!

Yes. You are simultaneously arguing for and against no child left behind.

I don't mind standardized tests to see where a child is at. I have a problem with tying promotion and teacher performance to it.

 

[Annie]

Here, in FL, it's called the FCATs.
All students must take it in order to move on to the next grade.

I'm starting this thread because my 3 youngest grandkids just got their test results.
My grandson got a 4 in Writing, a 3 in Math, and a 2 in Reading on this standardized test.
All through the school year he had nothing but B's ans S's in Reading (every other subject, too, for that matter).
But, because he got a 2 on this one test, he is passed "with intensive remediation".

So, because of the results of ONE Test, he has to take remedial classes next year??
Like I said, he had all B's all school year long.


Okay, I've ranted.

Can someone give me the plus-side to these ridiculous tests?

Welcome to "No Child Left Behind". Standardized tests have their place, but IMO they are for after High School.

For example, it makes sense that students take the ACT or SAT so they can be compared nationally for college admission. I just took a board exam that is a national exam. It makes sense that all medical students would have to meet a national standard of proficiency.

However, it's a farce for children. Sadly, many teachers now just "teach the exam".

'Teaching to the tests' began with SAT and ACT. NCLB brought a new market products to the schools, which places unfair standards on the schools.

Iowa Basics were given yearly in my schools, back in the 60's, long before NCLB. They were used to sell property values.

One year of testing is just that, no more, no less. Two years of similar results give more validity, three even more. At most the early ones are indicative, with consistency there is reliability in results. Waiting for overwhelming proof of a problem however, brings more issues to the table in addressing a problem that really exists.

As a teacher I'd never let standardized scores effect my perceptions of a student or class. I don't look at the previous results for at least 8 weeks and even then only if there seems to be a child struggling or performing way above the average. Then again, I teach subject area and not young children. What is sad is when I've a child that I know is bright, but causing problems in class. Too often I find low reading scores, along with documentation from 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades advising parents to seek testing. By middle school the child is acting out and for most it's nearly impossible to get the child to cooperate with testing, much less remediation.

 

[editec]

Here, in FL, it's called the FCATs.
All students must take it in order to move on to the next grade.

I'm starting this thread because my 3 youngest grandkids just got their test results.
My grandson got a 4 in Writing, a 3 in Math, and a 2 in Reading on this standardized test.
All through the school year he had nothing but B's ans S's in Reading (every other subject, too, for that matter).
But, because he got a 2 on this one test, he is passed "with intensive remediation".

So, because of the results of ONE Test, he has to take remedial classes next year??
Like I said, he had all B's all school year long.


Okay, I've ranted.

Can someone give me the plus-side to these ridiculous tests?

They prove the fact that teachers are scared to flunks kids because, despite the delusion that they all cannot be fired because they have tenure, they really have no job security, actually.


Yeah, I am drop dead serious about that.

Flunk the wrong kid, one with a parent with even a little political suck with a school board, and you can find your contract won't be signed next year.

Happened to me twice early in my teaching career, and I am a truly astounding history teacher, folks.

So what that sort of thing does is create a CHILLING EFFECT with other teachers.

They see that the best way to keep their jobs is to INFLATE kids' grades so that kind of thing does not happen to THEM.

 

[geauxtohell]

'Teaching to the tests' began with SAT and ACT. NCLB brought a new market products to the schools, which places unfair standards on the schools.

Perhaps, but the SAT and ACT have no bearing on evaluation of High School Performance by the state or high school and are not required to be taken by high school students. Furthermore, a students scores (I am fairly certain) on college admission's exams are not available to the school. If a high school wants to run a prep program to help kids do well on the exams and get more scholarship money, I think they are serving their kids well. That doesn't mean they are changing the curriculum for the exams. I certainly don't remember anyone "teaching" to the ACT or SAT when I was a student. Instead, I remember taking upper level classes to prepare myself for the exam.

Iowa Basics were given yearly in my schools, back in the 60's, long before NCLB. They were used to sell property values.

But not to assess teacher competency or evaluate whether a student can pass a grade.

One year of testing is just that, no more, no less. Two years of similar results give more validity, three even more. At most the early ones are indicative, with consistency there is reliability in results. Waiting for overwhelming proof of a problem however, brings more issues to the table in addressing a problem that really exists.

I don't mind using them as a diagnostic to try and address problem areas. That's how the standardized tests were when I was in elementary school. I have a problem with using them to evaluate teacher competency or if a student is able to move on.

As a teacher I'd never let standardized scores effect my perceptions of a student or class. I don't look at the previous results for at least 8 weeks and even then only if there seems to be a child struggling or performing way above the average. Then again, I teach subject area and not young children. What is sad is when I've a child that I know is bright, but causing problems in class. Too often I find low reading scores, along with documentation from 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades advising parents to seek testing. By middle school the child is acting out and for most it's nearly impossible to get the child to cooperate with testing, much less remediation.

That seems to be more of a behavioral issue and not an education one.

 

[Annie]

'Teaching to the tests' began with SAT and ACT. NCLB brought a new market products to the schools, which places unfair standards on the schools.

Perhaps, but the SAT and ACT have no bearing on evaluation of High School Performance by the state or high school and are not required to be taken by high school students. Furthermore, a students scores (I am fairly certain) on college admission's exams are not available to the school. If a high school wants to run a prep program to help kids do well on the exams and get more scholarship money, I think they are serving their kids well. That doesn't mean they are changing the curriculum for the exams. I certainly don't remember anyone "teaching" to the ACT or SAT when I was a student. Instead, I remember taking upper level classes to prepare myself for the exam.

PSAT in grade 9, ACT or SAT grade 11 are mandatory now for most high schools, as are state version of standardized tests. All results are sent to the high school, the student chooses which colleges will get copies. The high schools do use standardized tests from grammar school regarding recommended placement in classes. Most schools require parents/student to sign acknowledgment of waiver if they choose a different track in subject than recommended.

Iowa Basics were given yearly in my schools, back in the 60's, long before NCLB. They were used to sell property values.

But not to assess teacher competency or evaluate whether a student can pass a grade. [/quote] They aren't used for either today. They are used en masse to rate schools. They are used as an evaluative tool. Perhaps you are unaware that parents can and mostly do override recommendations of retention? Only by appealing to courts can schools force placements, something I'm unaware of being carried out.

One year of testing is just that, no more, no less. Two years of similar results give more validity, three even more. At most the early ones are indicative, with consistency there is reliability in results. Waiting for overwhelming proof of a problem however, brings more issues to the table in addressing a problem that really exists.

I don't mind using them as a diagnostic to try and address problem areas. That's how the standardized tests were when I was in elementary school. I have a problem with using them to evaluate teacher competency or if a student is able to move on.

As a teacher I'd never let standardized scores effect my perceptions of a student or class. I don't look at the previous results for at least 8 weeks and even then only if there seems to be a child struggling or performing way above the average. Then again, I teach subject area and not young children. What is sad is when I've a child that I know is bright, but causing problems in class. Too often I find low reading scores, along with documentation from 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades advising parents to seek testing. By middle school the child is acting out and for most it's nearly impossible to get the child to cooperate with testing, much less remediation.

That seems to be more of a behavioral issue and not an education one.

It seems that school wasn't an issue for you. However for those that enter school eager to succeed, do what is expected, have teachers think they are great kids and students, then begin to fail it's not always so pleasant. The brighter the child, the more problems hidden learning issues tend to effect behavior.

Funny thing, I'm sounding like I'm defending the testing when in fact I believe there is too much emphasis on it, by both schools and parents. Truly the value I see in them is for those whose test scores and earned grades are not in sync and even with that said, for the most part higher test scores and lower earned grades aren't really an issue, unless there are indications of giftedness and/or behavior issues in tandem.

 

[strollingbones]

all this bullmal about the test ...bad test taker etc...no one has pointed out the obvious.....the kid need to be in summer school catching up....he needs a tutor or to attend a specialized class...you do not want the kid placed in the 'slow' class...labeling begins early and often

 

[geauxtohell]

PSAT in grade 9, ACT or SAT grade 11 are mandatory now for most high schools, as are state version of standardized tests. All results are sent to the high school, the student chooses which colleges will get copies. The high schools do use standardized tests from grammar school regarding recommended placement in classes. Most schools require parents/student to sign acknowledgment of waiver if they choose a different track in subject than recommended.

That's drastically different than when I was in High School in '97. Or perhaps the policies in your area are different than in mine. I know a large percentage of my class did not take the ACT/SAT.

They aren't used for either today. They are used en masse to rate schools. They are used as an evaluative tool. Perhaps you are unaware that parents can and mostly do override recommendations of retention? Only by appealing to courts can schools force placements, something I'm unaware of being carried out.

So there are at least recommendations against promotion as a result of these tests? Like I said, I think that's silly. They should be used as a diagnostic to try and get the kid the additional assistance they need and not to evaluate school performance or comment on whether a child is fit for promotion.

The biggest problem is that teachers are teaching to the "test". When I was taking my basic medical science classes the mantra was "we aren't going to teach the board exam". Then, when it comes time to take boards, medical students are on their own to study, re-learn or learn the material. So it takes both work by instructors in didactic lecture and the student in their individual time to do well on the exam. I suspect that type of motivation (to study for the exam on their own) is missing from most elementary and high school students.

It seems that school wasn't an issue for you. However for those that enter school eager to succeed, do what is expected, have teachers think they are great kids and students, then begin to fail it's not always so pleasant. The brighter the child, the more problems hidden learning issues tend to effect behavior.

School was a tremendous problem for me up until about the fifth grade. I am damned glad I never had to deal with standardized tests that would have told me I was sub par which would reinforced a notion that I wasn't smart. Instead, I had wonderful teachers who worked with me and took extra time to teach me the material. I wonder if the "brighter students" who have trouble on a goofy standardized test start to demonstrate bad behavior because they are frustrated and discouraged. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Funny thing, I'm sounding like I'm defending the testing when in fact I believe there is too much emphasis on it, by both schools and parents. Truly the value I see in them is for those whose test scores and earned grades are not in sync and even with that said, for the most part higher test scores and lower earned grades aren't really an issue, unless there are indications of giftedness and/or behavior issues in tandem.

I basically agree with that. I think we could greatly increase student performance if the federal government started matching state teacher's salaries and incorporated a real career path for teachers (that included retirement) so that teachers were being adequately compensated and the field would be viewed by college graduates as a highly desirable option to spend 20 years of their lives in.

 

[Annie]

all this bullmal about the test ...bad test taker etc...no one has pointed out the obvious.....the kid need to be in summer school catching up....he needs a tutor or to attend a specialized class...you do not want the kid placed in the 'slow' class...labeling begins early and often

Personally, I think the idea of 4 day, year round school would be a good thing for kids. The longer weekend could be used for projects and more intensive homework. The 5th day could be used by schools/districts for in-services/institutes. 4 days also would allow for transportation savings. Longer class periods provide more time for practice in the classroom and more time for one on one time by teachers. Kids forgetting what happened before break would be minimized or eliminated.

The non-grades many lower primary students receive is confusing to parents, one may easily argue by design. "M" means 'meets expectations.' So your 1st grader entered reading at a 2nd grade level. By end of October is continuing to gain skills. Is that an "M" or an "E"? Are they meeting or exceeding? What about your child that enters without knowing the sounds that each letter makes? By the end of October they've mastered all of them and have begun reading basal readers. "M" or "E" or "NI"? 'Needs improvement, since the rest of the class is reading the 5th primer already?' Or "E" because your child's gain is way beyond the expectations? Which child or adult doesn't 'need improvement?'

Parents and teachers both understand A's, B's, C's, D's, and F's. We know for the most part that the grades are based on comparisons within our class, if put on bell-shaped curve. Of course parents need conferences if the child is receiving D's and/or F's. They need to know which skills are missing.

Standardized tests normally show that most students fall in the middle, big surprise there. Truth of the matter is that teachers need to teach lessons aligned with the state standards, most do so, naturally. I take my lesson plans, plug in the standards covered. In most weeks all are hit multiple times in my subject area. I'm not 'teaching to the test,' I'm teaching what I'm supposed to in a variety of ways for my students.

After all the posts I've written before, I would like to emphasize that one result of standardized tests doesn't warrant panic of giftedness or some huge problem. Middle range scores do not mean that your child isn't capable of AP or higher level tracking. Indeed, yearly middle range scores for a student excelling may well just be indicative of good parenting and teaching and self-discipline. Work ethic is probably the best indicator of academic success in general.

 

[Jon]

Furthermore, a students scores (I am fairly certain) on college admission's exams are not available to the school.

My school attached our SAT/ACT scores to our transcripts. I remember it vividly, because I argued with someone at my college admissions that I shouldn't have to have the ACT send my score to them again when it was attached to my transcript. It was a futile effort, but it was worth a shot.

Standardized tests may not seem fair to a lot of people, but assuming they all use some sort of psychometric grading system, they really are accurate. The goal is not to see what a student can answer correctly on an exam. These things are weighted, questions that a large majority of students miss are usually thrown out, harder questions are weighted more than others, etc. Wait until they get to college and decide to take the GMAT or GRE. Each time you get a question correct, you get a harder question the next time. This allows the test to gauge your level of understanding extremely accurately.

I'll say this: when I was in early grade school (3rd grade, maybe earlier), the standardized testing that we took were early indicators of who were the top students in my class, and who were the bottom students. If your grandson is not scoring well on these exams, it may actually be an indicator. The school wants to place him in a remedial class to make sure he is up to par with the rest of his classmates. If he is, it will show in the remedial class very early, and he may be allowed to leave the class. If he is not, then the remedial class may help him get there. Worst case scenario: he wastes a year in a remedial class. Best case scenario: they detected a problem early and will correct it so that he can move forward in his education uninhibited by a previously undetected problem.

 

[editec]

Assuming that the standardized tests are well designed, they are a good measure of student's learning.

Grades are, I think, much part more of a statement of whether or not the student is a GOOD SOLDIER than a good scholar.

Complaint students tend to achieve better grades.

Then something like the SAT comes along and blows many of these good soldiers completely out of the water.

Happens every year in every HS in America, folks.

Some of those Honor Roll students get amazingly low scores, while some of those marginal students get top scores.

Don't tell me its all about being test wise, either.

Those tests are good indicators about what the kid knows, and retained.

Their grades are good indicators about how compliant the kid is when working with the teachers.

Sad, but true.

It's HARD to be objective when dealing with good soldiers. You tend to give them a break.

And it even more difficult to objectively grade a kid who has been busting your balls all semester, too. They tend to never get a break.

Then the SATs come along and show we teachers just how subjective we've been ALL along.

So I'm, ALL for objective testing, but I am not for teaching to tests, which is what I THINK is probably happening, right now.

 

[Annie]

PSAT in grade 9, ACT or SAT grade 11 are mandatory now for most high schools, as are state version of standardized tests. All results are sent to the high school, the student chooses which colleges will get copies. The high schools do use standardized tests from grammar school regarding recommended placement in classes. Most schools require parents/student to sign acknowledgment of waiver if they choose a different track in subject than recommended.

That's drastically different than when I was in High School in '97. Or perhaps the policies in your area are different than in mine. I know a large percentage of my class did not take the ACT/SAT.

All of my education has been in IL, yet from what I've heard and read regarding other states, pretty standard handling.

They aren't used for either today. They are used en masse to rate schools. They are used as an evaluative tool. Perhaps you are unaware that parents can and mostly do override recommendations of retention? Only by appealing to courts can schools force placements, something I'm unaware of being carried out.

So there are at least recommendations against promotion as a result of these tests? Like I said, I think that's silly. They should be used as a diagnostic to try and get the kid the additional assistance they need and not to evaluate school performance or comment on whether a child is fit for promotion.

The biggest problem is that teachers are teaching to the "test". When I was taking my basic medical science classes the mantra was "we aren't going to teach the board exam". Then, when it comes time to take boards, medical students are on their own to study, re-learn or learn the material. So it takes both work by instructors in didactic lecture and the student in their individual time to do well on the exam. I suspect that type of motivation (to study for the exam on their own) is missing from most elementary and high school students.

Test scores are not used alone for either promotion or placement recommendations, never have been. It's when there are concerns about classroom performance, (in relation to peers, not necessarily individual performance gains), coupled with problem test scores that recommendations might be made. This reinforces the dilemma of 'non-graded' classroom in lower elementary. Let me give you just a few of the problems that might effect a child or 2 in a 1st grade classroom of say 28:

Enriched environment only child begins year reading at 3rd grade level, already knows how to count to 100 or more. Can do simple addition without carrying. Can subtract without borrowing. Knows all their shapes and colors. Is a pleasant child that doesn't bully or show off in class. Students and teacher like him/her. This appears to be a very bright, possibly gifted child. Standardized test scores indicate reading, writing, and math in lower average or below average.

Another child comes from family of 5, both parents work, dad has 2nd and sometimes 3rd job and kids were taken care of by older family member during the day. Lots of playing with neighbor kids and siblings. TV on days with bad weather. Set schedule and secure family.No preschool. Learned alphabet and number recognition in kindergarten. Knows most of the consonant sounds. Knows their colors. Pleasant kid, no bullying and very good at athletics. Sometimes wants to be center of attention. Standardized test scores are in the 92% on average.

Most kids fall between these types of backgrounds for test scores. All come from different families, some chaotic. Teachers for the most part, especially in early years don't have much of an idea of home lives of their students. Yet it's the most influential factor in both behavior with peers and academics, especially in the earliest years regarding performance. Standardized tests may well indicate potential problems or abilities unseen in the classroom.

That first child may have processing issues that if addressed early become non-issues within a few months. On the other hand, if not addressed, they will manifest themselves by 4th grade. The 2nd child may be reading at 4th grade level entering 2nd grade and still need more attention than normal because of his homelife. The test scores may help put that 2nd child in enrichment classes or even a gifted program, providing the attention in a good way.

For the most part, the deviance between performance and test results are not dramatic. The most drama is from parents that believe their child will be identified as a genius, but alas...

It seems that school wasn't an issue for you. However for those that enter school eager to succeed, do what is expected, have teachers think they are great kids and students, then begin to fail it's not always so pleasant. The brighter the child, the more problems hidden learning issues tend to effect behavior.

School was a tremendous problem for me up until about the fifth grade. I am damned glad I never had to deal with standardized tests that would have told me I was sub par which would reinforced a notion that I wasn't smart. Instead, I had wonderful teachers who worked with me and took extra time to teach me the material. I wonder if the "brighter students" who have trouble on a goofy standardized test start to demonstrate bad behavior because they are frustrated and discouraged. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And the problems you encountered in those early years seem to have made a significant impression on you. I've not a clue to what your difficulties were and am very glad that you were given support to overcome them. How much easier it might have been if a problem was identified and addressed in earlier years, so that you could develop other skills and have been able to socialize more?

As at stated, the scores are not used to keep those succeeding in performance back from opportunities based upon that. A low test score for a child in enrichment classes, would not result in removal based upon that test. Nor will an exceptional test result have a non-performing child moved into an enrichment program. However, they may be used along with recommendations based upon classroom observations to change their placement or services provided.

Funny thing, I'm sounding like I'm defending the testing when in fact I believe there is too much emphasis on it, by both schools and parents. Truly the value I see in them is for those whose test scores and earned grades are not in sync and even with that said, for the most part higher test scores and lower earned grades aren't really an issue, unless there are indications of giftedness and/or behavior issues in tandem.

I basically agree with that. I think we could greatly increase student performance if the federal government started matching state teacher's salaries and incorporated a real career path for teachers (that included retirement) so that teachers were being adequately compensated and the field would be viewed by college graduates as a highly desirable option to spend 20 years of their lives in.

In general teachers are adequately compensated with very good retirement benefits. In high schools there are programs to attract those who majored in professional fields to open a second career path in teaching, without having to earn those credentials, rather passing a subject area test.

 

[Annie]

Assuming that the standardized tests are well designed, they are a good measure of student's learning.

Grades are, I think, much part more of a statement of whether or not the student is a GOOD SOLDIER than a good scholar.

Complaint students tend to achieve better grades.

Then something like the SAT comes along and blows many of these good soldiers completely out of the water.

Happens every year in every HS in America, folks.

Some of those Honor Roll students get amazingly low scores, while some of those marginal students get top scores.

Don't tell me its all about being test wise, either.

Those tests are good indicators about what the kid knows, and retained.

Their grades are good indicators about how compliant the kid is when working with the teachers.

Sad, but true.

It's HARD to be objective when dealing with good soldiers. You tend to give them a break.

And it even more difficult to objectively grade a kid who has been busting your balls all semester, too. They tend to never get a break.

Then the SATs come along and show we teachers just how subjective we've been ALL along.

So I'm, ALL for objective testing, but I am not for teaching to tests, which is what I THINK is probably happening, right now.

We are basically in agreement. I worry about those with abilities unidentified because they are bored out of their gourds or come from backgrounds that are non-conducive to classroom recognition. I worry about those who have lower abilities or enriched backgrounds that are pushed by parents, aware or not covering up problems.

For the record, many top tier universities do themselves a disservice relying too heavily on tests, though in recent years the issue has been being addressed.

 

[hortysir]

all this bullmal about the test ...bad test taker etc...no one has pointed out the obvious.....the kid need to be in summer school catching up....he needs a tutor or to attend a specialized class...you do not want the kid placed in the 'slow' class...labeling begins early and often

A lot of good replies by all, even this one.

I just singled this one out, HB, to respond to you 1st.
By the time we got these test results, Friday, school had been out for right at a month, though.
My grandson had been getting ALL Bs, so there wasn't ever any thought given to the possibility of summer school.
You can be sure, though that he and I will be spending quality time together at our local library this summer.


To Annie,
He is the oldest of the three, and he'll be promoted to 5th grade (with remedial reading, of course).
So you were pretty close with your guess on ages.

 

[FLGoldilocks]

I have 2 boys in school. Oldest in 4th grade next month, youngest will be in 1st. My oldest took the FCAT earlier this year for the first time. He passed at above grade level, in both reading and math, which math is always a struggle for him, so I was very happy. I do, however, agree that the test is ridiculous. They put too much weight on it. This one test alone can fail a kid, no matter how much effort they put in all year. To me, that's a recipe for disaster. That's like telling an adult with a job that if they screw up this one task, they don't get paid for all the work they did all week. If you knew that, you probably wouldn't work too hard on anything else, knowing that none of that's going to matter anyway, right? That's what I saw with my son. The teacher drilled it into his head so much that he didn't see the point in doing anything else all year.

The merit based pay for teachers...in a way, it could be good, but I really see it only going badly. First, you get kids that honestly just struggle, be it because they aren't smart/don't study/don't care or because they don't have parents at home that work with them and help them. But with merit based pay, that teacher could get less because of those one or two students that nothing she can do will help them. And then, too, there's the less than honest teachers who will just pass the kid just to get more pay, and that doesn't do anything to help the kid either. The kid just keeps getting passed from year to year so the teacher gets good money, and you end up with an 18 yr old high school graduate who can't add 4 + 4 and come up with 8. Or can't read a book that doesn't have pictures to help them figure out the words.

I think one of the best ways to help kids really learn and excel is for the parents to be involved. My parents always knew what kind of homework I had and if I was doing it. I always knew if I needed help, I could go to them and they would help me work through it and figure it out. I do the same for my boys. I am always nearby while they do homework, and they know they can ask me or their stepdad for help. Heck, right at this moment, their grandparents are close enough they can even get help from them. Too many of their friends, though...Mom and Dad won't help. And it's not can't, it's won't. They come home from work, and instead of helping the kid, they throw a TV dinner in the microwave, and put their feet up while the kid either struggles to complete homework or doesn't even do it.

We have a library card. Our library has online databases that we can access with our card number, and there is a wealth of information and things my kids can learn about in those databases, not to mention the books we can check out. I heavily supplement my kids' education with these databases and books, because I know the education they get is not of high enough quality to suit my tastes. I would homeschool, but I fear that the state would require things of me that I can't do, and that I just don't have the patience to do that. But I make sure that I help with homework and that they get educational information outside of school.

Teachers should be held accountable, and the education system definitely needs to be overhauled. But, at the same time, I think there's a certain amount of responsibility here that needs to be laid at the parents feet. We are our children's first teachers, and if we don't teach them the value of an education, and teach them how to get the most out of whatever education they might receive, then we can't fault the teachers when the children fail.