Testing - Not Your Enemy

[Unkotare]

The attitude has taken hold among many educators, and the general public, that 'testing' is somehow bad, threatening, unfair, or counterproductive. This certainly need not be the case.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I agree.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It is the test designers not the testing.

 

[DGS49]

Testing is an intrinsic part of education, and I don't think anybody in Academe seriously disputes that.

On the other hand, large scale generic testing which is intended to provide information on which major public policy decisions will be made - that may not be such a great idea.

To the extent that the test covers materials that do not directly line up with the academic curricula (which is always the case), the educators have to make one of two unpleasant choices: Either continue teaching from the proper curriculum and risk your students (and you) being deemed failures due to poor test results, or ignore the relevant curriculum, prepare the students for the test, and not get through the materials you are required to cover.

The ideal situation would be to have NATIONAL curricula, accepted by every state in the Union, and have the tests measure progress in learning the essentials of the national curricula. In that case, the teachers would be able to "teach to the test," and the test results would be relevant for their local purposes (e.g., grading). Such a program would save teachers a lot of work.

But the only way this would be possible is if the major teacher's unions were brought into the process of developing the curricula and the tests - assuming the thousands of state administrators and school board officials could be brought into line.

So we have compounded two impossibilities, rendering an outcome that is, shall we say, unlikely.

I personally used to kick ass on standardized tests, and I still managed to be a mediocre student - no small feat!

 

[Unkotare]

The ideal situation would be to have NATIONAL curricula, accepted by every state in the Union

That would be very, very far from ideal. Central planning is a recipe for cluster fuck.

 

[Anathema]

The ideal situation would be to have NATIONAL curricula, accepted by every state in the Union, and have the tests measure progress in learning the essentials of the national curricula. In that case, the teachers would be able to "teach to the test," and the test results would be relevant for their local purposes (e.g., grading). Such a program would save teachers a lot of work.

No. The ideal situation is to have TOTAL CONTROL and ACCOUNTABILITY at the LOCAL level, rather than the National Level. The US Government has no mandate nor Constitutional Authority to be involved in the education of the US population. Many states may not even have that mandate or authority, depending on the wording of their foundational documents.

Education is a wonderful thing, so long as it is carried out properly. The US System does not do any of that.

 

[initforme]

Testing now has such high stakes associated with it that I believe that all lessons should be linked solely to the test and teachers should be teaching only to the test. Every lesson should be only exactly what kind of questions and what facts to be memorized are on the test. Then hammer away day after day otherwise what is the point of putting so much emphasis on the test? Let teachers know exactly what concepts are on the test and exactly what kind of questions are on the test. Then cover those subjects many times throughout the year. Then have the kids take the test. I would be test scores go up. But if one does not know exactly what is on the test then one cannot prepare properly for it. Also sending info home to parents on exactly what is on the test helps them prepare at home as well. Then offer the test 3 times throughout the year and take the highest score. Now we have a start.

 

[DGS49]

For the purposes of this thread, I believe we have all chosen to ignore the fact that the Federal intrusion into Education is unconstitutional. The battle was honorable, but the war is lost.

But really, does it make any sense at all to have curriculum determined at the local level? School boards are unpaid volunteers, mainly busybodies with delusions of grandeur and nothing productive to do in their personal lives. Many of them run for school board specifically so that they can promote initiatives that will benefit their own kids. THESE are the people you want setting curriculum?

At the very least, curricula should be set at the STATE level, since, regardless of how funding is arranged, it is the STATE that provides public education, not the local school district.

And to reiterate what I said above, if the TEACHERS can be brought into the process of developing the curricula and writing the tests, then large-scale standardized testing can be an enhancement to public education and not a distraction from it.

The major impediment, as I see it, is that if the tests are meaningful and relevant, "minority" students will score abysmally and the political fallout will shortly result in tests that are fuzzy and irrelevant. Again, impossibility layered on impossibility.

 

[Unkotare]

But really, does it make any sense at all to have curriculum determined at the local level?

Yes, really.

 

[Disir]

The attitude has taken hold among many educators, and the general public, that 'testing' is somehow bad, threatening, unfair, or counterproductive. This certainly need not be the case.

No. It's the fact that the kids are doing between 12-24 standardized tests a year-that don't do jack. So, there is nothing left to do but teach to the test. Leaving the kids with no real comprehension and regurgitating facts and forgetting them later.

Depending on the state: The first US history course occurs in 9th grade. The second one occurs in 11th grade and starts with Reconstruction. When the kids enter 11th grade, there is little recalled from the 9th grade. There is a great lesson plan that has the kids recreate the Constitutional Debates. They don't forget it and it helps them move forward with better results. It takes about six weeks. With the influx of the additional standardized testing-there is no time.

The money that could be going to the schools is going to the companies. They don't have to pay taxes.

 

[Unkotare]

The attitude has taken hold among many educators, and the general public, that 'testing' is somehow bad, threatening, unfair, or counterproductive. This certainly need not be the case.

No. It's the fact that the kids are doing between 12-24 standardized tests a year-that don't do jack.

Where exactly are kids taking 12-24 standardized tests per year?

 

[Disir]

How much time do school districts spend on standardized testing? This much.

 

[Disir]

Too, check this out:
How ?field testing? turns kids into guinea pigs ? without parental permission

 

[editec]

The attitude has taken hold among many educators, and the general public, that 'testing' is somehow bad, threatening, unfair, or counterproductive. This certainly need not be the case.

Vague enough for yas?

Couldn't you find a way to make it entirely content free, UnK?

That way we can all agree or not without any of us ever understanding what it is we;re signing onto.

 

[Unkotare]

The attitude has taken hold among many educators, and the general public, that 'testing' is somehow bad, threatening, unfair, or counterproductive. This certainly need not be the case.

Vague enough for yas?

If you're confused, feel free to ask.

 

[initforme]

My granddaughter tests for 3 full days in the fall, 3 full days in the winter, and 3 full days in the spring. Add to that 2 other standardized testing days = 11 days of testing. Any teacher that isn't teaching solely to the test is frankly not doing what those who are sold on testing are clamoring for. And you cannot have it both ways. You want the tests to be high? Then you pass local mandates that force teachers to leave their creativity at the door and teach robotically solely to the test. I put zero stock in testing, ZERO because it assumes all kids learn the same way and at the same rate and are able to reach certain standards at the same time. Not possible. And you cannot possibly argue any other point of view on this.