The "fallacy" of standardized testing [discussion]

[KSig RC]

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?

[James]

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.

[Optimist Prime]

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.

[carnation]

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.

[Taualumna]

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.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by James
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.

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.

[Coramoor]

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.

[Tom Earp]

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!

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!

[AGDee]

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

[Taualumna]

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.

[DolphinChicaDDD]

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.

[Senusret I]

Originally posted by AGDee
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

Have I ever told you that I loved you?

DAMN this was a good post.

[SilverTurtle]

Originally posted by carnation


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..

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.

[Coramoor]

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.

[AOIIsilver]

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).

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