Have we talked about Standardized School Tests?

[Rhea]

With all the talk of "opting out" and eliminating them completely, what are your thoughts pro or con?

 

[J842P]

I think that some form of standardized testing could work, but many current incarnations don't seem to work very well. Sometimes, it's just absurd. I went to a very test-heavy school system. Of course, it was high-income so not a lot of people failed and it wasn't a particular source of anxiety for me. However, looking back, it was absurd to give us tests in 1st and 2nd grade.

 

[skepticalbip]

I kinda like the idea of standardized tests. It is the only way I know of to be able to compare the education students are getting in different schools. Without them a student could have learned diddly-squat but is a straight A student in one school because the tests only covered basics while in another school that tested for deeper understanding they would have been lucky to pass. The problem is with the bureaucratic school systems that rate teachers and administrations on the grades that students get. This rating system creates a situation where teachers are forced to teach to the test and having students practice taking tests rather than focusing on having the students really understand the material.

 

[Elixir]

This rating system creates a situation where teachers are forced to teach to the test and having students practice taking tests rather than focusing on having the students really understand the material. .

^^ That. In spades. It goes beyond students not really understanding the material upon which they test well, "teaching to the test" totally devalues the development of the ability to learn, period. IMHO it is far more important to teach critical thinking, how to approach problems etc., than it is to teach how to solve a particular problem or set of problems.

 

[Achwienichtig]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6lyURyVz7k[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Playball40]

I kinda like the idea of standardized tests. It is the only way I know of to be able to compare the education students are getting in different schools. Without them a student could have learned diddly-squat but is a straight A student in one school because the tests only covered basics while in another school that tested for deeper understanding they would have been lucky to pass. The problem is with the bureaucratic school systems that rate teachers and administrations on the grades that students get. This rating system creates a situation where teachers are forced to teach to the test and having students practice taking tests rather than focusing on having the students really understand the material.

This exactly. I have no issue with simple benchmark testing (limited number) but can not and should not be 'tied' to teacher pay, school funding etc.

 

[Rhea]

This rating system creates a situation where teachers are forced to teach to the test and having students practice taking tests rather than focusing on having the students really understand the material. .

^^ That. In spades. It goes beyond students not really understanding the material upon which they test well, "teaching to the test" totally devalues the development of the ability to learn, period. IMHO it is far more important to teach critical thinking, how to approach problems etc., than it is to teach how to solve a particular problem or set of problems.

I agree - so how to we discover whether schools are delivering this - so that states can't leave certain underfunded schools to fail in this?

 

[RavenSky]

I kinda like the idea of standardized tests. It is the only way I know of to be able to compare the education students are getting in different schools. Without them a student could have learned diddly-squat but is a straight A student in one school because the tests only covered basics while in another school that tested for deeper understanding they would have been lucky to pass. The problem is with the bureaucratic school systems that rate teachers and administrations on the grades that students get. This rating system creates a situation where teachers are forced to teach to the test and having students practice taking tests rather than focusing on having the students really understand the material.

^^^ this exactly

 

[RavenSky]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6lyURyVz7k[/YOUTUBE]

Very very very good examination of this issue

 

[ronburgundy]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6lyURyVz7k[/YOUTUBE]

Very very very good examination of this issue

As usual, hilarious and mostly valid points by John Oliver. The one major weak point I saw was the segment on the test scorers complaining that they were told that their distribution of scores should match those observed in the large national samples. If each scorer is being given a relatively random sample of tests (and they should be), then the distribution of scores they give should roughly match that of then national sample. Odds are that if it doesn't, then the scorer is using subjective scoring criteria that don't match what is typical.

Also, it should be noted the the countries that the US does poorly against, make use of high-stakes standardized testing. Some of the top countries Finland and Germany use them to track students into academic oriented or trade oriented high schools and post-secondary. Only 40% of Finnish students go to "college" as we know it in the US. Most go directly into a trade or into professional training institutions, based largely upon standardized tests.
This is likely critical to their ability to provide, "free college" without it being a massive waste of resources on students unprepared for or not serious about a college education, as it exists in the US.

One thing is for sure, kids are getting way too many such tests too often in the US.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Part of the reasoning about Core Curriculum was to make sure all school systems ratings were meaningful, so that in some places students might be given As and Bs but were really not doing well, in another school system they would be earning Cs and Ds. That makes sense to me. We had a scandal here in Texas a few years ago when certain schools that were supposed to have earned "exemplary ratings" turned out to really be substandard. But of course the problems is "teaching to the test" which usually is a failure.

Years ago, my brother worked for a while with HISD school district. There was an experimental program to teach math not by drilling etc, but teaching children to reason about math, critical thinking skills rather than rote memorization. It was a success, math scores rose. And astonishling, students applied what they had learned so their English scores also rose.
And then, and then (You are going to love this), somebody forgot to renew the grants to continue this successful program and it went away.

From tales my brother has told me from his days at HISD, then the US's biggest public school district, I have little faith in the good will and intelligence of much of the US educational system. The guy who instituted all of this at HISD went on to become G.W. Bush's secretary of education.

The test mania that became defacto policy nation wide with No Child Left Behind doesn't work well. We need tests, but they have to be used in a manner that they don't crowd out real education.
HISD went with teaching to the test which became No Child Left Behind.

 

[gmbteach]

I kinda like the idea of standardized tests. It is the only way I know of to be able to compare the education students are getting in different schools. Without them a student could have learned diddly-squat but is a straight A student in one school because the tests only covered basics while in another school that tested for deeper understanding they would have been lucky to pass. The problem is with the bureaucratic school systems that rate teachers and administrations on the grades that students get. This rating system creates a situation where teachers are forced to teach to the test and having students practice taking tests rather than focusing on having the students really understand the material.

So, does a standardised test work in these two schools:

Both schools are in the same state.
Both schools have a similar proportion of female/male students.
Both schools are of a similar size.
Both schools are given the same curriculum to teach.

School A: 370 students. Each year level has a couple of classes so moderation is possible. The school has a large 'English as an Additional Language) (EAL) population and had a teacher assigned to that purpose full time to assist them. The languages are diverse as students come from a number of African countries, as well as Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, Syria etc. This school has a number of Lower Socio-Economic/Refugee students, as well as students from affluent backgrounds. Most classes have 25 - 27 students in them. Teacher aide support at this school means that each teacher gets about 3 hours of TA support a week for individual or small group work.

School B: 370 students. The school has a large EAL proportion, though most of the students speak the same 'other' language. This is understood and catered for within the school. This school has lower class numbers - with most averaging 18 - 2 students. This school has provided each class with a full time teacher aide, from within the community. Nearly 100% of the students are from a lower socio-economic background, and generally don't have all they need - so the school provides.

Which would you expect to do better and why? Would a standardised test work on assessing these two schools?

- - - Updated - - -

This rating system creates a situation where teachers are forced to teach to the test and having students practice taking tests rather than focusing on having the students really understand the material. .

^^ That. In spades. It goes beyond students not really understanding the material upon which they test well, "teaching to the test" totally devalues the development of the ability to learn, period. IMHO it is far more important to teach critical thinking, how to approach problems etc., than it is to teach how to solve a particular problem or set of problems.

^^^ yep!

 

[skepticalbip]

So, does a standardised test work in these two schools:

Both schools are in the same state.
Both schools have a similar proportion of female/male students.
Both schools are of a similar size.
Both schools are given the same curriculum to teach.

School A: 370 students. Each year level has a couple of classes so moderation is possible. The school has a large 'English as an Additional Language) (EAL) population and had a teacher assigned to that purpose full time to assist them. The languages are diverse as students come from a number of African countries, as well as Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, Syria etc. This school has a number of Lower Socio-Economic/Refugee students, as well as students from affluent backgrounds. Most classes have 25 - 27 students in them. Teacher aide support at this school means that each teacher gets about 3 hours of TA support a week for individual or small group work.

School B: 370 students. The school has a large EAL proportion, though most of the students speak the same 'other' language. This is understood and catered for within the school. This school has lower class numbers - with most averaging 18 - 2 students. This school has provided each class with a full time teacher aide, from within the community. Nearly 100% of the students are from a lower socio-economic background, and generally don't have all they need - so the school provides.

Which would you expect to do better and why? Would a standardised test work on assessing these two schools?

Your questions seem to assume that the standardized tests would test for much more and tell us much more than I would assume they are for. I would see them as valuable only to see how much of the material was well understood in the various schools. If one school has more difficulty teaching the material than another school because of language problems, social problems, etc. then the test results would indicate that the students on one school had a better grasp the material than the other but not why. This difference should simply alert the administration that they do have a problem that they need to address, even if they already know about the problem. But it would give the administration information about how far behind the national norm the students are.

 

[gmbteach]

So, does a standardised test work in these two schools:

Both schools are in the same state.
Both schools have a similar proportion of female/male students.
Both schools are of a similar size.
Both schools are given the same curriculum to teach.

School A: 370 students. Each year level has a couple of classes so moderation is possible. The school has a large 'English as an Additional Language) (EAL) population and had a teacher assigned to that purpose full time to assist them. The languages are diverse as students come from a number of African countries, as well as Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, Syria etc. This school has a number of Lower Socio-Economic/Refugee students, as well as students from affluent backgrounds. Most classes have 25 - 27 students in them. Teacher aide support at this school means that each teacher gets about 3 hours of TA support a week for individual or small group work.

School B: 370 students. The school has a large EAL proportion, though most of the students speak the same 'other' language. This is understood and catered for within the school. This school has lower class numbers - with most averaging 18 - 2 students. This school has provided each class with a full time teacher aide, from within the community. Nearly 100% of the students are from a lower socio-economic background, and generally don't have all they need - so the school provides.

Which would you expect to do better and why? Would a standardised test work on assessing these two schools?

Your questions seem to assume that the standardized tests would test for much more and tell us much more than I would assume they are for. I would see them as valuable only to see how much of the material was well understood in the various schools. If one school has more difficulty teaching the material than another school because of language problems, social problems, etc. then the test results would indicate that the students on one school had a better grasp the material than the other but not why. This difference should simply alert the administration that they do have a problem that they need to address, even if they already know about the problem. But it would give the administration information about how far behind the national norm the students are.

So why do standardised testing then? What can it tell us? If they identify that a school has a problem, are they willing to use it to find out what the problem is? Or are they just going to condemn the school? Does it take into account absenteeism? Economics of the area? Backgrounds of the students?

Nope. It may alert the administration of a problem, but it is generally more of a condemnation of the school and it's staff, more than anything else.

 

[skepticalbip]

Your questions seem to assume that the standardized tests would test for much more and tell us much more than I would assume they are for. I would see them as valuable only to see how much of the material was well understood in the various schools. If one school has more difficulty teaching the material than another school because of language problems, social problems, etc. then the test results would indicate that the students on one school had a better grasp the material than the other but not why. This difference should simply alert the administration that they do have a problem that they need to address, even if they already know about the problem. But it would give the administration information about how far behind the national norm the students are.

So why do standardised testing then? What can it tell us? If they identify that a school has a problem, are they willing to use it to find out what the problem is? Or are they just going to condemn the school? Does it take into account absenteeism? Economics of the area? Backgrounds of the students?

Nope. It may alert the administration of a problem, but it is generally more of a condemnation of the school and it's staff, more than anything else.

We are apparently still thinking that there are different purposes for standardized testing. I don't see that any testing could tell us what you seem to think it should.

As I see it, what standardized testing is useful for is to inform the school administrations how well their methods are at accomplishing the task of educating students compared to the national norm. They supply a bench mark to compare the school against. If the school is shown to be below the bench mark then it would alert the administration and if the school is shown to be above the bench mark then it would inform the administration that their methods are working well. Without some bench mark, there is no way the administration would have any idea whether or not their methods are working, whether they are effective, or whether there is a concern they need to address.

 

[gmbteach]

So why do standardised testing then? What can it tell us? If they identify that a school has a problem, are they willing to use it to find out what the problem is? Or are they just going to condemn the school? Does it take into account absenteeism? Economics of the area? Backgrounds of the students?

Nope. It may alert the administration of a problem, but it is generally more of a condemnation of the school and it's staff, more than anything else.

We are apparently still thinking that there are different purposes for standardized testing. I don't see that any testing could tell us what you seem to think it should.

As I see it, what standardized testing is useful for is to inform the school administrations how well their methods are at accomplishing the task of educating students compared to the national norm. They supply a bench mark to compare the school against. If the school is shown to be below the bench mark then it would alert the administration and if the school is shown to be above the bench mark then it would inform the administration that their methods are working well. Without some bench mark, there is no way the administration would have any idea whether or not their methods are working, whether they are effective, or whether there is a concern they need to address.

IMO, Criterion based assessment would do a better job of giving people an idea of what people can and can't do. Standardised testing tells you what a child can do, under pressure, at that particular point in time, which isn't a good indication.

 

[Rhea]

We just got a letter home from school that says this. I agree with using testing this way.

Dear Parents,
I wanted to remind you that we will be administering ERB tests on Monday through Thursday of next week. These tests are the only standardized tests we administer, and we chose them as they provide us with norm-referenced data that enables us to consider our grade-level and school-level scores against our peer independent schools. While we do not publish individual scores or use them as an assessment for course content, group and individual scores are used in specific ways. Primarily, we use group scores as program diagnostics to measure our effectiveness at teaching skills and concepts. We use individual student scores to help us identify and support individual student's learning needs. We also send individual student scores to high schools and select summer and extra-curricular programs which require them as part of their application processes. It is therefore important that students try to do their best work.

In order to ensure that we get the most accurate data, and that the students get an authentic experience taking the type of standardized test they will see on their journey through high school to college, it would be helpful if you could support your children in the following ways:

1. Reinforce that these are important tests. Students need to take these seriously without being overly stressed.
2. Make sure that your child eats a healthy breakfast before getting to school.
3. Make sure that your child arrives at school early enough to get him/herself organized and mentally ready to begin the test. Testing will start promptly at 8:00 each morning. Students should be in their seats by 7:55.
4. Make sure that your child goes to bed in time to get a good nights sleep. Students do not need to study for these tests, but they should be well rested when they take them.
5. Provide a healthy, non-messy, snack that your child can eat during the break between testing.

 

[gmbteach]

Standardised testing in that form can be used to guide the curriculum. But I still think they are a snapshot.

What happens if the child blitz's the year level assessment? Do you they do the next year up and level them that way?

 

[Philos]

Folks,

Here in the UK, this testing regime has become obsessive and burdensome. As a teacher myself (although mostly in post school and adult education) I was often picking up the pieces after young people had failed in the system and been turned off education.

So, we sent our daughter to a Steiner school, in which testing like this was entirely absent. The education was holistic and student led, a method often mocked by the establishment. What happened? Coming to GCSE exam time (15yrs old) she transferred to a regular state school, passed all the exams easily, then A levels, then degree and is now at the top of her profession at 35yrs old.

My fear had been that the regular test mill of state schools would knock the interest and creativity out of her early on, as I had seen this happen so very often with others. Conservative private schools can be just as bad, although in a different way.

A lot of interested parents have moved to 'home schooling' their children for similar reasons, but I feel that this leaves out the school experience for the child and has other negatives. Whilst Steiner education may not work for everyone, we have found it excellent for our daughter and for the many life long friends she made through Steiner.

So, I guess my 2p is that 'standardised testing' is not a necessary condition of quality and successful education.

Alex.

 

[Rhea]

Standardised testing in that form can be used to guide the curriculum. But I still think they are a snapshot.

What happens if the child blitz's the year level assessment? Do you they do the next year up and level them that way?

No, the school curriculum is very wide. So they'd be either given fewer concepts and taught more repetitively, or given more concepts and more deeply, but still in the same classes. The school uses a basically "branching off" kind of curriculum. The better you do the more branches you are allowed to explore. My kids call them, "side quests."