The "fallacy" of standardized testing [discussion]
 

The Jenna Bush thread introduced a couple interesting discussion points related to the administration's current "No Child Left Behind" actions, and one I find fascinating is the near-universal distrust of standardized testing.


We have had studies that have shown biasing against ethnic minorities by some major tests, the SAT included. AP testing has been decried in certain educational circles for creating an arbitrary 'elite' and ignoring those that need the most help. On and on, we seek out ways to measure our students' success and aptitude, but apparently, as was stated, "standardized tests are worthless."

So what now?




Here are my basic questions:

*Are standardized tests implicitly biased? If so, against whom? Ethnic minorities, or perhaps certain socioeconomic strata, or maybe regionally?

*Is there an element of 'necessary evil' to testing? Is there really any other way to classify 'success' or 'advancement' in students?

*If the first point is true, and the second point is true . . . is there a way to reconcile? Is it feasible to have an 'unbiased' test, or should we give each a different test?

Off the cuff I have geneally found that people that score lower on test find them unfair and those that score higher are ok with it.

I'll think about the rest of your questions.

stardardised tests=mostly bs because there is no one regulating them expect themselvves for the most part. There needs to be ONE sereis of tests, that is what the teachers teach, but it shouldn't be exhausting. There should only be like maybe 20-30 questions per subject/part of test.

Okay, here's the deal about standardized testing and a couple of years ago, Time Magazine quoted me on it. Grade inflation in high schools is rampant, largely because schools are afraid of being sued. We who teach at colleges are not stupid and when we see all these applications on which the kids have a 4.0 but a 700 on the SAT, we pretty much know how and why that happened.

Not to mention, an A in some systems isn't equal to an A in others. An A in the city system in this town is far superior to an A in the county system, which uses dumbed-down books and offers tons of extra credit points for bringing cans in to the can-a-thon. We know a high school teacher who offered 10 points extra on the final to any student who would bring her 3 Hallmark ornaments (she collects them).

Colleges must have some way to hold their applicants to a common standard and until someone comes up with a better way, we must use standardized testing.

I don't think standardized tests are "ethnically biased". How can they be? 1+1 is always going to be 2. In terms of reading/writing skills, I can only think of two reasons why they can even be close to being "ethnically biased:

1. Immigrant and first generation students (especially very young kids) may have weak English skills

2. Exposure. Sometimes, tests use words and ideas that some kids might not be familiar with (e.g. wheat fields. There was a test question given to Grade 3 students in an Ontario-wide test a few years ago where the story they read had something to do with wheatfields (or maybe it was corn). Apparently kids from rural areas up north have never seen one, so they found it difficult to answer the question. Schools up there don't have as many books and equipment as schools in south, and therefore the kids aren't exposed to things like that)

Tests questions shouldn't be written to cater to all groups. Adults, however, should try to expose children to as many topics as possible.

Exactly.

Although in a recent interview with Stephen Hawking, he was asked what his IQ was. He answered that people who brag about their IQs are losers.

It's just more 'feel good' bs.

I really don't know what these kids are going to do when they get into the real world and find that their bosses don't give a shit about them. They expect the work to be done, done right, and on time.

More than likely once that happens they will just complain to some other organization and try to sue their boss/company.

Aha, standardized tests, makes it easy only for the Phsyc. Academians for easy grading.

Doesnt take into consideration of 4 time zones or the distance from Mexico to Canada, the ethnic, and ecomonic areas of true life.:(

They always reminded me of the Florida Punch Ballots only with # ? Pencil!:D

Hell, I dont remember all of the alphabet Tests, only one I took was in 6 th grade and said I had brain of a Freshman in College.

That is scarry now that I thought about it!;)

Standardized tests to get into college are different than standardized tests to determine funding for third graders.

Standardized tests are biased due to exposure to situations. They are also biased against those with learning disabilities, yet, those scores are required to be included with other students in the NCLB act. This means that students who are diagnosed with a perceptual/processing problem (including Downs Syndrome kids) have to be tested. If you have a school that is half special ed and half regular ed, it will always appear as if that school is failing since half of the students are going to fail the test. A co-worker of mine has a Down's Syndrome child who can barely talk, can't recognize letters or numbers, yet is expected to take the MEAP (Michigan Education something or other standardized test) this year (4th grade). Yeah right!

Standardized tests have led to teachers teaching to the test, rather than teaching a curriculum. They cram in the skills that they know are being tested and then cover other things after the tests are done for that year. This is not necessarily an advantage for the student. The intense pressure on schools and teachers to achieve certain levels has led to reported cases of teachers helping kids cheat on these tests, simply to avoid loss of funding for the schools. This does nobody any favors.

Part 3 is the tough question. Offer the tests in other languages, ensuring that cultural bias is not present (such as in math story problems), don't require that they be taken by LD/special ed students, and don't base school funding on it. Offer some real help to those schools that need it, don't cut their funding. How does cutting funding make the students get a better education there? Standardized testing is supposed to be standardized by a randomized sample population, so ensure that it is truly standardized by ensuring that all of the cultures and socioeconomic groups in our country are used to do the standardization. Consider that there are many other factors that determine whether a child will learn to his/her full capacity, like lack of food/heat, lack of a place to live, lack of parental encouragement/involvement, and high stress levels from living in unsafe environments. The schools and teachers can do little about these factors. So, cut the school funding so that they can't even afford paper and pencils for the kids...

Dee

I don't think having tests in other languages will work very well, because very likely the children's reading and writing skills in their parents' language or languages are far worse than in English. I think it's important that parents work with their kids or that kids who have very busy parents have the opportunity to have a mentor help them with their work. If kids read more (even if it's online) and watch television shows that are "useful" (i.e. The Discovery Channel, History, PBS, etc) then they'll pick things up too. There really aren't things that cultures can keep you from picking up if you read enough.

Here is my beef with standardized tests. I suck at them. Exaplian this one to me: according to the Early Warning Tests (for 8th graders in NJ) I belonged in remedial math and in level B English, yet on enterance exams, I placed for Honors/AP English and Math.
Post SATs, I was diagnosed with test anxiety and subsequently for the GREs, I did fine- the first test that I think is comming closer to acurrately rating my level of achivement.

While, I think something is neccessary to be applied to everyone, I really don't know what the answer is.

Have I ever told you that I loved you?

DAMN this was a good post.

This is a good point. My HS had a crazy high grading scale - I don't remember all of the specifics but it was something like this:

98-100 A+
95-97 A
93-94 A-
91-92 B+
88-90 B

etc.

I was shocked when I got to college and 90 was an A- (good for my GPA though :) ) But I was even more surprised to find out that people that attended other public schools in the same state as me had completely different grading scales and standards.

Also, I was always "good" at school, and kept a high GPA in HS and college. My standardized test scores were always a little lower than I would expect based on how I performed in class, but generally above the national average. I'm not against them, but I am in favor of weighing various factors - not just the SAT or just a students GPA, etc.

Isn't the point of a standardized test to see where you are at?

By those that can't take the test, that don't know the knowledge, etc-the test is serving it's purpose. That is what it is there for. To weed out those that don't take the initative to learn, that don't care, or those that can't cut it.

Personally, I think there are entirely too many people in college. It's hurting my ability to learn, b/c the professor is forced to 'slow' down or dumb down the course material for those that can't do it. I go to class and sleep through it, or don't go at all, and still pass with an A, yet there are those that study all the time and go to every class and can't understand it. Sorry, but switct majors or find a trade. College isn't for everyone.

Oh dear!

AGDee, your post was wonderful....

Also, on some exams, the "cut-off" scores are more fluid. So in the end, a "passing" score does not tell very much no matter your opinion of the exam!

Test anxiety is a big problem for many people.

Silver

The problem with this is that if the child's English is bad, the parent's is likely to be bad too. How is the parent supposed to help. The kid is screwed eitehr way.

You'd be right if post-secondary education was actually about education. It''s not. It's a business. They don't care how well you do as long as they get your money.

Which is why that piece of paper at the end of it all isn't even worth the paper it's printed on. Far too many people have one. Or at least in Canada they do. The entire educational system from ECE to post-grad needs to be revamped.

Lady Pi Phi, I'm not sure if you read an article that was in the National Post a few years ago about an elementary school in Markham, Ontario. The school profiled is made up mostly of first generation Canadians and immigrants who speak another language at home. Yet, that school scored above provincial standards in the Grade 3 and Grade 6 tests.

http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/.../nclbworks.htm

But perhaps that is a whole other topic.

Anyway, I've seen some of the work kids do in school and it's a joke. I got to college and I saw a lot of people struggling because they had barely any exposure to high level math and science.

I think France's education system where everyone follows the same curriculum is best. And yes, of course, students in special ed should not have to do it.

-Rudey

I'm sorry, but you're horribly pessimistic about the education system. I mean, some areas need to be revamped but for many people their education is more than a piece of paper, and the distinction of a degree/diploma is definately worth the money, time and effort.

Sorry if it wasn't for you.

No, I did not read that article. I can't explain it either. Perhaps those kids are an exception to the rule. Perhaps that's just a very good school. It would be interesting to see how other schools with a majority of first generation and immigrant kids from other areas measured up.

You're right, it wasn't for me. But maybe that's because I got a B.A and I've worked with so many people who have B.A's that are stuck in crappy dead end jobs and feel the same way about it as I do. I found that community college has helped me a lot more than my B.A has. But maybe if I had majored in business or science I would feel differently.

Well, in terms of high school results, 73% of AY Jackson SS (Grades 10-12...some North York schools are JK-6 for elementary, 7-9 for middle school (called junior high if 7-9) and 10-12 for high school) students speak another language at home. Here are their Grade 10 literacy test results from last school year:


Total % of Toronto students passing both reading and writing: 58%

Total % Ontario: 70%

Total at Jackson (including those who deferred the test/didn't take it): 65%

More results from a few other Toronto schools. All schools listed have more than 50% speaking another language at home:

Jarvis Collegiate is the oldest academic high school in Ontario, founded in 1807. The student body is very diverse and 66% speak another language at home. The results for 2003-04 aren't available online, but here are the results for 2002-03:

Total % of Toronto students passing: 56%

Total % in Ontario: 67%

Total at Jarvis: 67%

Another school that serves the Jarvis area is Central Commerce. The school was originally founded as a business focused high school, but now offers courses in all academic areas. Today, 64% of the students speak another language at home. The results at this school differ greatly from Jarvis

Toronto and Ontario passing rate: Same as above

Central Commerce Total: 23

This is likely because the exam is more "academic" (university prep) centred rather than "applied". Central Commerce has more "applied" students than at Jarvis, which has close to none, if any at all.

Earl Haig SS: This Grade 9-12 school not only has an excellent academic program, but also houses the high school division of the Claude Watson School for the Performing Arts. At Earl Haig, 65% of students speak another language at home. Results from the 2002-2003 literacy tests are as follows:

Toronto and Ontario passing rates see Jarvis

Earl Haig: 78%

Agincourt CI: Grades 9-12

% of students who speak another language at home: 53

Toronto and Ontario passing rates: see Jarvis

Agincourt passing rate: 83%


Georges Vanier SS: Grades 10-12

% of students who speak another language at home: 75

Toronto and Ontario passing rate: See Jarvis

Vanier: only 32%

Toronto District School Board website: www.tdsb.on.ca

My theory is this: Schools called "Collegiate Institutes" are historically more academically focused, with most students intending to enter university. Schools called "secondary schools" are mostly general high schools, and are actually "newer" (I can only think of two high schools in the old city of Toronto that are "secondary schools"...Northern and Rosedale Heights.) Students used to be streamed to different divisions, with collegiates preparing students for university matriculation and other schools for the work force. While non-collegiates are required to offer university prep courses today, collegiates offer few work force prep programs.

That's the problem. So many people have B.A.s that they are becoming worthless. Basically a lot of people go to college, rack up a huge debt, and then get a minimum wage job anyway. If colleges were a lot more difficult to get into it would save those people money, and the people that did earn their degree would have something worth their trouble.

We wouldn't need the standardized tests if more schools were up-to-par. Unfortunately, they're not, and as Rudey said, I've been exposed to a lot of students who quite frankly had minimal education up to college.

For very selfish reasons, with things as they are, I think standardized tests work reasonably well. Not every kid who gets A's in high school is created equal; some kids worked for them, and some kids were handed them.

Are standardized tests the answer? I hope not long term, because there are too many problems.

Either way though, U.S. public schools need some serious changes.

Amen.

I do have a couple of issues with our education system and one of those issues is the standardized test. I understand their purpose and the reason behind them but I don't think they are accurate or advantageous.

Standardized tests are the way in which we compare students to other of a like age and grade. Schools, Administrations, teachers and parents can take this information and ultimate decided funding, effectiveness and ability. Colleges use Standardized tests to test both current knowledge and the potential to obtain new knowledge. For students who are on a college bound track, maybe they are useful but think of all the students that never get schooling past high school, these exams mean nothing.

Standardized tests force teachers to teach to the tests and not to the curriculum and needs of their students. In California this year they are testing the 5th graders on their knowledge of Science. Since the teachers have not been accountable in the past students are lacking basic Science skills and this year teachers are scrambling to teach 5th grade science and more so they don't loose funding. It has also been found that multiple choice tests don't reinforce the concepts being taught but only test if the student can pick an answer out of a bunch. For students that are not continuing on to college, they need a better understanding of the basic skills being taught. Having a student regurgitate their understanding of a concept is one way to ensure understanding of a subject.

Finally, Standardized tests are only effective on those students that excel at multiple-choice tests. Some students can tell you the answer but can’t pick the right one in the teacher’s terms. In these instances the test is only finding out what students are good at tests and not which ones know the knowledge.

I sympathize with the lamentation of people that "don't test well."

But that isn't necessarily the fault of the test itself. The tests are designed to test your knowledge or aptitutde . . . under exam conditions.

Otherwise you would be able to take it home with you.

Its like saying you run well, except when people are watching on Race day. ITs all well and good but a coach looking to win races you to perform at the right time.

I think that children will take out of an education system what they and their parents put into it, just like anything else. To say the problem is our schools is a stretch. Are there some unmotivated, burned out teachers? Sure, but in my experience so far, they are few and far between. Most of them love kids and want to help kids learn and are creative in achieving those goals. A family that holds high value in education will almost always have children who succeed in school. In my Wechsler IQ testing course in grad school, they talked about predictors of IQ. They included: parental education levels, number of books in the environment, how often children were read to and other things like that. Standardized tests are supposed to be standardized against IQ tests so that if you scored in the 99th percentile on the local standardized test, you would also be expected to score in the 99th percentile on the Stanford Binet or Wechsler. They also emphasized that all an IQ predicted was the person's ability to succeed in a formal education setting.

That said, there are kids in the Detroit Public School system (which may qualify as the most screwed up school system in the country these days, having been taken over by the state, a real mess) who excel and make it into some of the magnet schools offered. There are students in some of the worst high schools who still get a good education, because they care about their education and they get support from their parents. It is more difficult for them though.

I had an excellent education in my public school, partly because I was in all AP classes with other students who were highly motivated to do well, and parents who placed high expectations on me without me realizing it. There was never a question of whether I would go to college, it was a question of where I would go! It was just an assumption that I was going. It was the step after highschool. There are people who went to my same school who probably got nothing out of their education. They were in the basic classes, high a lot of the time, skipping classes, etc. I was lucky to grow up in a solid middle/upper middle class area.

Some kids face such obstacles in daily survival that most of us cannot fathom. If the only meal they get is the free school lunch that day, they won't be successful in school. When I worked with 5-12 year old kids in the inner city of Southwest Detroit, some of them told stories of dodging bullets on the way to school. Do you think they were mentally ready to focus on learning? Some of them lived in areas where the police and EMS won't go, because the gangs were setting them up to shoot them with false calls for help. They would shoot EMS who were trying to help a rival gang member who had been shot. They lived in houses that had no windows or heat. They have a whole lot of street smarts that most of us don't need to have, but they suffer educationally. They are simply focused on survival. You can't blame teachers for those kids being unsuccessful.

I can even say that I think my kids are getting a better education than I did. I floated through my first two years of college because my high school courses were much harder than my lower level college courses. But, my kids learn in so many ways. When I went to school, we learned multiplication by rote memory. They teach the kids now why the answer is what it is, they teach them patterns (who knew that the 9's times tables answers added up to 9 or that you could quickly do this trick with your fingers to figure out the 9's answers? They didn't teach us those things!), they teach them in many ways, through songs, not just through flash cards. They learn to read in a different structure and read at their own levels, not at the level that the rest of the class is reading. They do units in social studies or science that they turn into English lessons and math lessons too. I'm certainly impressed with all the different ways each topic is addressed. They really reinforce learning.

My point to a really long post is: The education system isn't that screwed up, our society has some major issues that are being ignored, which show up as symptoms in the education arena.

Dee

I cannot argue against the proposition that we as a nation have some staggering issues which must be addressed and delt with. AGDee's post was a real eye opener and points out the truth of that old saying that it is difficult to remember that your object is to drain the swamp when you are up to your butt in aligators! There are no easy fixes. However, one consideration regarding standardized tests might be to look at how tests are done in England. Over there the school you attend doesn't test you or assign a grade to you. There is a National Curriculum which establishes a syllabus and learning objectives and then tests all students to the same standard. There is effectively no difference between an "A" earned by a kid from Eton and an "A" earned from the so-called worst inner city state school. Same standards across the board. The difference is how well the school prepares you to take the national tests. Since we all know that over here standards can vary widely and an "A" from XYX High might only equate to a "D" at ABC High we might want to take a hard look at the way the Brits do it. In the time I spent over there I got the definite impression that the average Brit was better and much more broadly educated than the average American, a situation which annoyed the hell out of me. I met people from the so-called Top Schools and people from the very bottom of the heap, and even the ones who were just plane bad students seemed to have been exposed to and to have retained much more than their "Yank" counterparts. I understand that most European countries use a similar system and get demonstrably solid results. Anybody with exposure to the British or European system, please comment on how you saw this approach in practice.

Dekeguy,

I guess the Canadian school systems are somewhere in between a UK/European systems and the American system. Education here is controlled by the provincial government. The government sets out standards that all schools must teach, how many courses students must take to complete their diploma, and whether there are exit exams for graduation (Ontario currently does not have a set of exams one must pass in Grade 12 in order to graduate). We do have a literacy test that Grade 10s must pass (see my earlier post for results of some Toronto area schools). If one doesn't pass it (and many who aren't in the academic stream do not), one can either take it again, or take an equivilancy course. Private high schools must follow the curriculum to be accredited, and are inspected regularly to make sure that things are done properly. Grades are done in percentages, with a pass being 50% and the provincial "standard" of a good mark being 70% (I don't think there are any universities that will take anyone below 70). However, different schools may see 70% differently. A 70% essay at a strongly academic high school (e.g. North Toronto Collegiate Institute or a private university prep school), where (almost) all students pass the literacy test is probably better written than a 70% essay at a school where few students pass.

Do you think there might be some bias when these results are calculated...I know it might sound a little out there, but do you think some of the results could be skewed in favour of some of the Collegiate Institutes?

I know the universities track the highschools and certain grades might be overlooked depending on where you go to highschool.

Now, I'm not saying that these students aren't smart and haven't worked hard and legitimatly know their material. But I'm just wondering. Maybe not so much with the provincial testing, but in other things

Just a though.

I don't think the Grade 10 literacy exam favours certain high schools necessarily, but rather, favours those in the academic stream. Grade 10s write the same exam province-wide, while there are two separate exams for Grade 9 math (one for those taking applied and another for those in the academic stream).

Maybe there should be two different sets of tests?

I've wondered that too, and actually asked why they didn't have two tests. I was told that the government wanted a "standard".

What a BS answer. How can there be a "standard" if students are learning different things? If I'm in the C stream the math will be different if I'm in the U stream (using the new curriculum designations" If there's going to be a standard then all students should have the exact same curriculum...there shouldn't be different streams.

[slight hijack] Taualumna, have you ever considered becoming a teacher? [/slight hijack]

That's exactly what I thought!

Quote:

[slight hijack] Taualumna, have you ever considered becoming a teacher? [/slight hijack]

Thought about it, but I'm not really sure if I want to, seeing what's going on in schools these days.

ETA: I'd love to do behind-the-scenes stuff with school boards or with the government, but most jobs want you to have actual classroom teaching experience.