But that's not my point. I don't believe for a second that a standardized test is the end all and be all of education goals. That's stupid. What tests do, in my opinion, is delineate differences in geography and demography. Yes, a teacher can tell who's doing well, but if "doing well" in that environment is worse than "doing poorly" in another, something needs to be done.
Which is why, I'm assuming, Demosthenes said she's against "high-stakes testing" but not standardized testing as a whole. Besides, it's not exactly a secret which communities and regions lag behind others. Creating a test to determine that is akin to creating a test to determine if water is wet, Ric Romero.
OK, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Busy week. Hmm, I'm not even sure we're on the same page here. I'm fine with individual states having performance standards, but you pretty much indict all standardized tests with this statement: "I had an interesting experience today which confirmed my suspicion that standardized tests are a pretty dodgy measure of student achievement..." I just thought (and still think) that was a curious statement. That's because in the two tests and measurements classes I've taken--admittedly focusing on psychometrics--standardized tests are generally evaluated in the context of their ability to measure acquisition of knowledge, reading comprehension, analytical skills, etc. and not as measures of "student achievement." Maybe it's just a semantic argument. Anyway, as far as the local standards, site-based standards, classroom-based evaluation, etc., that's all well and good, but I still think that standardized tests can help provide a common metric with which to assess knowledge and skill acquisition. As far as the "high-stakes testing" goes, I don't think anyone is arguing for a system like Japan's. I'm certainly not.
By "student achievement" I meant knowledge and skill aquisition. Sorry if it was un-precise. I appreciate the value of having, as you put it, a common metric with which to assess the students knowledge and skills. My concern with the test I graded was that it inaccurately portrayed the students' knowledge and skills. And I know from experience that this test was not unusual in that regard. My problem, I should clarify, is not with standardized tests as a means of assessment. It's with using such tests to determine school funding, school status and students' promotional status, among other things. Even if the tests were aligned to the standards (which they're not) and aligned to the curriculum (which they're not) and perfectly accurate (obviously not), I would have a problem with the way tests are used. The fact that the particular test I graded was, IMO, bullshite, only contributes to my overall frustration with NYS's high stakes testing policies.
I beg to differ. The state and the city have articulated very clear achievement standards for every grade level. Teachers in NYC are required, in fact, to post those standards on their walls. Every lesson plan must also be aligned to a specific standard. There is no relativity there. Whether the classroom is in the Bronx or Westchester or Utica, the teacher knows what "doing well" means. Most teachers can differentiate between doing comparatively well for a particular environment or population, and doing well in relation to the standards.
So are you more concerned with the rigid and misappropriate stanards as it concerns differing demographics? [ex: Urban vs. Rural] Or the quality of the testing process in general? I think we need standardized tests for one good reason and that is we cannot be sure of the equitable value of each teacher or educational institution. I'm no expert but it seems like poor standards and negligence led to many high schools in urban areas falling well behind from the 50's to 80's. I really think these tests are more determined [hopefully not consciously] to root out inadequacies in staff and faculty at academic institutions rather than really help the children. The one thing that always bothers me and to some degree is that tests like these normally are culturally biased. Especially with what seems like a growing segment of the population using less refined and more colloquial speech. I don't see how they are meeting the needs of the children. As far as early "placement tests" I think the heavy emphasis on learned skills [math, language] is a bad approach. Any child with moderate intelligence combined with hard work [or the right enviroment] can easily surpass a potentially gifted child without access to the appropriate schooling [or envirmonent]. I'm a huge liberal in that I'm a fan of tests that can promote critical thinking without Math and English [up to a certain age (12 maybe)]. You can always teach subject matter, but not the intrinsic abilities required to be an accelerated learner. To me the earlier you can pinpoint these potentially gifted students and challenge them the better. Anyway, I'm tired and going to go way off base. So I'll wrap it up in saying that even with the best of standards and measurements it would still be difficult to properly segment and teach large groups of students based on "intelligence" with great results. You're always going to alienate someone and deny them their own right to a proper education. Public education is a tough system and in reality isn't very old and refined in itself.
I'm not completely sure what you're asking. I believe that having a rigid standard is fine. Standards should not change depending upon demographic. For example, if students must be able to add three-digit numbers by the end of third grade, or multiply fractions by the end of fifth grade, then demographics don't matter. All students should be able to perform those tasks. My concern in this thread is indeed with the testing process in general. As I said, in my experience these tests are poor measures of student knowledge and skills. The tests change from year to year depending on what concept of instruction or assessment is currently in vogue. They're poorly aligned to the standards. And you're right; they are culturally biased. Now, none of that would matter so terribly much if everything didn't revolve around the tests. Unfortunately, in the educational climate of New York City (and State), everything does revolve around the tests. You're right in that we do need some across-the-board way to assess the effectiveness of teachers and schools. Tests are one measure, among many, that can be used. HOWEVER, it is what we do with the information from those tests that makes all the difference. A principal can look at test information in considering what curriculum to use and how to develop and use her staff more effectively. A superintendent can use test information to pinpoint particular schools which have strengths or deficits. From there, she can investigate the cause(s) of any problems. This is not how standardized testing is being used, in my experience. I think tracking or homogenous ability groupings are another subject - although, I suppose, related, since standardized testing is often used to determine placement.
You need tests to tell you which schools are failing to bring kids up to the standards? Really? Spend five minutes is a failing school and you'll know it's failing.
Don't give them any ideas. We'll have five minute inspections deciding the futures of our students and the salaries of our teachers. I'm curious though... what can you see in five minutes that will tip off that you're in a failing school?
I think a standardized test is easier. Your issue, I think, is tying it to school funding, not the tests themselves.
My problem is with both. And also the various ways that testing shapes educational policy, including using tests to determine students' promotional status, as a prerequisite for high school graduation, to assess the performance of teachers and administrators, to place schools on (or remove them from) the SURR list, etc.
Here is 'zona, the problem I have with the standardized tests is that there is very little accountability for ELL or Special Ed students. Additionally, it is manditory for the school to have 98% of their students in school taking the test on the day of the test. If there are 97.9% of the students, the school will be labeled as failing. Additionally, from NCLB, every district MUST increase by 10% every year. That means that eventually, every school will become a failing school. Personally, I am against the high stakes of standardized testing. Another point that I think Des was making is that we teachers know how the students are doing, and we have structured out assessments into our classroom. Per Gardner, it may be necessary to adjust these assessments for any or all students in a particular class. Then along comes a standardized test and is not designed to our assessments, and our students can become confused. I don't know about else where, but here in 'zona, theoretically, a student can pass all the AP classes with a 5, never once drop below an "A" since kindergarden, but not take or fail the state tests and technically not be allowed to graduate. But I'm ranting as well...
In five minutes? That's almost as bad as trying to test what they're supposed to know in English in 45. BTW... went through the ACT again on Wednesday... Made me wonder... Even if I did think that it was a good measure of skill... who was the schmuck who said that the test of knowledge had to be done really quickly? 45 minutes for 75 questions is ridiculous (English). That's one of the biggest problems my school has... the kids just don't have enough time to do their best. They worry so much about finishing. Why can't they actually given them time to read the passages and internalize them instead of having to learn tricks to speed up? Frankly, I don't think reading slowly is a serious problem that needs to be overcome. Add 30 minutes to each test on the ACT... I bet you'll see schools like mine closing the gap.
I gave the ACT yesterday too. In Colorado, all 11th graders take the ACT, and it is paid for by the state. All the students at my school are ELLs, and almost all of the juniors are eligible for the extended-time accommodation. However, if they take that accommodation to maximize their chance of doing well on the test, they're invalidating their own scores. So the kiddos who are thinking of going to college all had to take the test in standard time, thus minimizing their chances of doing well. *sigh*
Uh, for the record, I'm not actually advocating assessing school nor student performance through a five-minute visit. That method of supervision has been as detrimental to schools as standardized testing.