Standardized Testing

[Arkady]

Let me admit my personal prejudice, up front. I typically score in the 99.9th percentile range or higher on standardized tests, and have benefited greatly from that. So, human nature being what it is, I'm positively predisposed to those tests, just as I'd be negatively predisposed if I tended to do poorly on them. But I'll try to be impartial here.

I used to be a huge proponent of high-stakes standardized testing in schools (an issue on which I tend to differ with fellow liberals). However, I've modified that view in recent years, based on study of Finland. Finland has arguably the finest educational system in the world (as measured, ironically, by standardized tests), and yet doesn't rely on standardized testing to track students, schools, or teachers, nor does it use most of the other trendy educational reforms favored in the US. Finland's success comes from getting top-notch teachers then trusting them to do their jobs. That has forced me to rethink the notion that standardized testing is necessary for organizing and managing a national educational system well.

That said, I haven't been won over to the view that standardized testing is necessarily bad, either. Although Finland famously does without such tests, several other top-performing national systems rely very heavily on such tests -- especially Asian nations, but even our neighbor to the north. Within the US, as well, some of the top-performing states (like Massachusetts) make major use of standardized testing for tracking progress and screening graduations.

I suppose I still come down a bit more in favor of those tests than against them. The big criticism is that teachers will "teach to the test," but that seems like a net positive to me. People have to teach to something, and I'd rather have them teach to a test devised by a panel of many of the finest educators in the nation than to teach to the whims of whoever happens to be standing in front of the class. I had several great teachers who, I'm sure, would have been even better without any policy handcuffs set by government, but I've also had many, many lousy teachers, who I think would have been even lousier if they weren't working within a decent structure. Also, I strongly favor the Common Core (or at least the concept of having a common core -- I don't know the details of this particular one). It makes sense to coordinate curricula nationally, so that colleges and employers have a good basic idea of what graduates have been taught, regardless of where they come from, and so students who move from place to place don't wind up with some material covered redundantly and other material missed entirely.

Having said that, I'd favor standardized testing only starting in junior high. The idea of having kindergarteners filling in bubble tests strikes me as absurd:

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/19/child_abuse_parents_fighting_to_take_back_schools/

So, what do people here think about common core and about standardized testing?

 

[PhilFish]

If our schools were to adopt the Finnish model (of which I would be a strong advocate), I would have no qualm moving aware from standardized tests.

As it stands, the tests are a means to an end... identifying and obtaining advanced instruction where warranted. (at least, in this instance, my means..)

 

[trapdoor]

Like you, I'm good at tests, and I have doubts about the "standardized testing" model for almost anything. I test poorly in math -- which does indeed reflect my bad math abilities -- but it also reflects what I think were bad teaching techniques used to teach me math fundamentals in first and second grade (it was the era of "new math" and the concepts simply never made sense to me).

At the same time, there has to be some sort of standard for what constitutes a properly educated person at the end of K-12 schooling. If there's a means to make that determination without standardized testing, well, I'd like to hear it. I remember a few years back when Florida introduced a standardized state test before graduation and minority students protested saying that its acronym (FCAT) stood for "Forget College After This." That can't be right, either. It's a tough problem.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

Let me admit my personal prejudice, up front. I typically score in the 99.9th percentile range or higher on standardized tests, and have benefited greatly from that. So, human nature being what it is, I'm positively predisposed to those tests, just as I'd be negatively predisposed if I tended to do poorly on them. But I'll try to be impartial here.

I used to be a huge proponent of high-stakes standardized testing in schools (an issue on which I tend to differ with fellow liberals). However, I've modified that view in recent years, based on study of Finland. Finland has arguably the finest educational system in the world (as measured, ironically, by standardized tests), and yet doesn't rely on standardized testing to track students, schools, or teachers, nor does it use most of the other trendy educational reforms favored in the US. Finland's success comes from getting top-notch teachers then trusting them to do their jobs. That has forced me to rethink the notion that standardized testing is necessary for organizing and managing a national educational system well.

That said, I haven't been won over to the view that standardized testing is necessarily bad, either. Although Finland famously does without such tests, several other top-performing national systems rely very heavily on such tests -- especially Asian nations, but even our neighbor to the north. Within the US, as well, some of the top-performing states (like Massachusetts) make major use of standardized testing for tracking progress and screening graduations.

I suppose I still come down a bit more in favor of those tests than against them. The big criticism is that teachers will "teach to the test," but that seems like a net positive to me. People have to teach to something, and I'd rather have them teach to a test devised by a panel of many of the finest educators in the nation than to teach to the whims of whoever happens to be standing in front of the class. I had several great teachers who, I'm sure, would have been even better without any policy handcuffs set by government, but I've also had many, many lousy teachers, who I think would have been even lousier if they weren't working within a decent structure. Also, I strongly favor the Common Core (or at least the concept of having a common core -- I don't know the details of this particular one). It makes sense to coordinate curricula nationally, so that colleges and employers have a good basic idea of what graduates have been taught, regardless of where they come from, and so students who move from place to place don't wind up with some material covered redundantly and other material missed entirely.

Having said that, I'd favor standardized testing only starting in junior high. The idea of having kindergarteners filling in bubble tests strikes me as absurd:

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/19/child_abuse_parents_fighting_to_take_back_schools/

So, what do people here think about common core and about standardized testing?

I agree with you. They have their place in junior high and above. There simply is no reason to test in grammar school.

Spot on.

 

[NightSwimmer]

I have no problems with testing. I do have a problem with the concept of using these test results as an excuse to close public schools whose students perform poorly on the tests. I could see placing these schools on some sort of probation, but some people view programs such as the Bush administration's NCLB as a means to privatize the school system with taxpayer money. There is no evidence to indicate that private alternatives outperform public schools when they serve the same group of students.

 

[CatsEye]

If our schools were to adopt the Finnish model (of which I would be a strong advocate), I would have no qualm moving aware from standardized tests.

As it stands, the tests are a means to an end... identifying and obtaining advanced instruction where warranted. (at least, in this instance, my means..)

Why go to Findland?

Finland and the U.S., the TIMSS and the PIRLS
Grade 4 reading, PIRLS 2011:
United States, white students 575
Finland 568
United States, all students 556

Grade 4 math, TIMSS 2011:
United States, white students 559
Finland 545
United States, all students 541

Grade 8 math, TIMSS 2011:
United States, white students 530
Finland 514
United States, all students 509

2011 TIMSS, Grade 8 math, all students:
Massachusetts 561
Minnesota 545
North Carolina 537
Indiana 522
Colorado 518
Connecticut 518
Finland 514
Florida 513

 

[Arkady]

If our schools were to adopt the Finnish model (of which I would be a strong advocate), I would have no qualm moving aware from standardized tests.

As it stands, the tests are a means to an end... identifying and obtaining advanced instruction where warranted. (at least, in this instance, my means..)

The problem with the Finnish system is that it relies so heavily on teaching being an extremely attractive line of work for elite professionals, which isn't the case in the US, and would be hard to replicate. We could, in theory, do it if we threw enough money at teachers -- make teaching as lucrative, for the top 20% of teachers, as law, banking, medicine, etc., are for top-level professionals in those fields, and you'd have unbelievable candidates fighting hard for every teaching spot, and you'd have no problem hanging on to the best teachers. But I can't see us throwing that much money at the issue. Without it, you need to attract teachers with intangible benefits like social prestige and quality of life, which have largely vanished for the profession, and I don't know how you bring that about. Without that, I think you're stuck using standardized testing to try to get the best out of a second-tier pool of teachers (and to identify and reward those among them who go above and beyond).

 

[Arkady]

Like you, I'm good at tests, and I have doubts about the "standardized testing" model for almost anything. I test poorly in math -- which does indeed reflect my bad math abilities -- but it also reflects what I think were bad teaching techniques used to teach me math fundamentals in first and second grade (it was the era of "new math" and the concepts simply never made sense to me).

At the same time, there has to be some sort of standard for what constitutes a properly educated person at the end of K-12 schooling. If there's a means to make that determination without standardized testing, well, I'd like to hear it. I remember a few years back when Florida introduced a standardized state test before graduation and minority students protested saying that its acronym (FCAT) stood for "Forget College After This." That can't be right, either. It's a tough problem.

Very tough. Yet I still like the idea of high-stakes testing for graduation. Otherwise, a diploma doesn't mean crap. A college or employer should be able to look at a passing score on a graduation test and have confidence that it assures basic proficiency at all expected areas of fundamental education. Right now, we don't have that. And I think the reaction against those tests is often a matter of wanting to hide the reality from ourselves. If minorities aren't getting a decent basic education in high school, better to know that so we can focus on fixing it, rather than deceiving ourselves with a lot of substantively meaningless diplomas.

 

[PhilFish]

The problem with the Finnish system is that it relies so heavily on teaching being an extremely attractive line of work for elite professionals, which isn't the case in the US, and would be hard to replicate. We could, in theory, do it if we threw enough money at teachers -- make teaching as lucrative, for the top 20% of teachers, as law, banking, medicine, etc., are for top-level professionals in those fields, and you'd have unbelievable candidates fighting hard for every teaching spot, and you'd have no problem hanging on to the best teachers. But I can't see us throwing that much money at the issue. Without it, you need to attract teachers with intangible benefits like social prestige and quality of life, which have largely vanished for the profession, and I don't know how you bring that about. Without that, I think you're stuck using standardized testing to try to get the best out of a second-tier pool of teachers (and to identify and reward those among them who go above and beyond).

does that presume that first tier teachers are just sitting it out? I would imagine theyre in the mix, if undercompensated.

 

[Arkady]

Like you, I'm good at tests, and I have doubts about the "standardized testing" model for almost anything. I test poorly in math -- which does indeed reflect my bad math abilities -- but it also reflects what I think were bad teaching techniques used to teach me math fundamentals in first and second grade (it was the era of "new math" and the concepts simply never made sense to me).

At the same time, there has to be some sort of standard for what constitutes a properly educated person at the end of K-12 schooling. If there's a means to make that determination without standardized testing, well, I'd like to hear it. I remember a few years back when Florida introduced a standardized state test before graduation and minority students protested saying that its acronym (FCAT) stood for "Forget College After This." That can't be right, either. It's a tough problem.

On a complete side note, I'm frustrated with my math skills. Everything I learned up through about junior year of high school has stuck pretty well. I can still do very basic Calculus, along with Algebra, Geometry, Trig, and Arithmetic. But nearly everything I learned after that is gone. I look at most advanced math equations now and I can't even remember what the symbols mean. I'm not sure why that is. I remember most of what I learned in my other classes in college and law school, but math is just evaporating from my brain. The only other subject that has been vanishing that way, for me, is German. And I can't explain it with the idea that it's leaving because I don't use it, because I don't use lots of crap I learned in college, yet still remember it just fine. I could sit down and write you 10 decent pages on Carolingian Art, off the top of my head, even though it's been 20 years since I studied it. But ask me to do integration by parts, and my mind's a blank, even though I could do that crap in my sleep 20 years ago. I guess my brain just isn't that naturally wired for it.

 

[Arkady]

I have no problems with testing. I do have a problem with the concept of using these test results as an excuse to close public schools whose students perform poorly on the tests. I could see placing these schools on some sort of probation, but some people view programs such as the Bush administration's NCLB as a means to privatize the school system with taxpayer money. There is no evidence to indicate that private alternatives outperform public schools when they serve the same group of students.

Agreed. It would make more sense to use the tests as ways to figure out where to throw more money. And if there were reasons to suspect the school was being poorly administered (e.g., significantly underperforming demographically/economically similar schools), use it to change out the management, but not to close the school and privatize.

 

[trapdoor]

Very tough. Yet I still like the idea of high-stakes testing for graduation. Otherwise, a diploma doesn't mean crap. A college or employer should be able to look at a passing score on a graduation test and have confidence that it assures basic proficiency at all expected areas of fundamental education. Right now, we don't have that. And I think the reaction against those tests is often a matter of wanting to hide the reality from ourselves. If minorities aren't getting a decent basic education in high school, better to know that so we can focus on fixing it, rather than deceiving ourselves with a lot of substantively meaningless diplomas.

I meet people every day who I think are half-educated, at best. Their cultural knowledge is merely based on TV/movies/popular music. They have almost no knowledge of art, literature or politics, and seem poorly trained when it comes to basic reasoning (if this occurs, then that must follow -- the simplest things). And these are all people with some college or college degrees. I don't think we can survive as a nation if we have an entire nation of people who don't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and who don't realize the Articles of Confederation even existed (and had nothing to do with the Civil War).

 

[Arkady]

Why go to Findland?

Finland and the U.S., the TIMSS and the PIRLS
Grade 4 reading, PIRLS 2011:
United States, white students 575
Finland 568
United States, all students 556

Grade 4 math, TIMSS 2011:
United States, white students 559
Finland 545
United States, all students 541

Grade 8 math, TIMSS 2011:
United States, white students 530
Finland 514
United States, all students 509

2011 TIMSS, Grade 8 math, all students:
Massachusetts 561
Minnesota 545
North Carolina 537
Indiana 522
Colorado 518
Connecticut 518
Finland 514
Florida 513

Any comparison of just white students in the US versus all of Finland is going to be misleading, in that it effectively allows the US disproportionately to ignore the performance of its economic underclass, while not allowing Finland to do the same.

Anyway, I have a theory that race is part of the reason our underclass underperforms so badly compared to many other countries. In the US, the political and economic elite tends to look very different, in an obvious and superficial way, from the lower class, and that makes it easier, psychologically, for the elite to write off those who are struggling. In a place like Finland (or, to a lesser extent, Massachusetts), when there is a group of people struggling for socio-economic reasons, there's a greater natural sympathy for them among the political and economic elite, since the underclass looks like their own family members. Thus, there's more focus on fixing the problems, whereas in a place with a racially differentiated underclass, the elite is more likely to just blame the victims and allow the problems to fester indefinitely.

 

[trapdoor]

On a complete side note, I'm frustrated with my math skills. Everything I learned up through about junior year of high school has stuck pretty well. I can still do very basic Calculus, along with Algebra, Geometry, Trig, and Arithmetic. But nearly everything I learned after that is gone. I look at most advanced math equations now and I can't even remember what the symbols mean. I'm not sure why that is. I remember most of what I learned in my other classes in college and law school, but math is just evaporating from my brain. The only other subject that has been vanishing that way, for me, is German. And I can't explain it with the idea that it's leaving because I don't use it, because I don't use lots of crap I learned in college, yet still remember it just fine. I could sit down and write you 10 decent pages on Carolingian Art, off the top of my head, even though it's been 20 years since I studied it. But ask me to do integration by parts, and my mind's a blank, even though I could do that crap in my sleep 20 years ago. I guess my brain just isn't that naturally wired for it.

I wish I had your math skills. I'd never have made it through calc, although today I understand some calc concepts from my own independent study. I know enough about spherical trig to navigate an airplane, but my real navigation is done via dead reckoning most of the time (very casual flying -- I'm not trying to hit Howland Island).

My foreign language was Spanish and I can still read it fairly well, although I struggle with vocabulary when I try to speak it (and native speakers from American countries all speak too fast for me to follow them). I can read a little French (from the latin/Spanish/Italian etc.), and have some basic "soldiers" German (mostly how to order beer).

But I could probably still reproduce some A+ papers I did on medieval history and the macroeconomics of France in the Middle Ages.

 

[Arkady]

does that presume that first tier teachers are just sitting it out? I would imagine theyre in the mix, if undercompensated.

There's a high rate of attrition among teachers, and I suspect many are those who could be first-tier teachers, but realize that the same amount of work will win them vastly more income and prestige in other fields. I also think that a lot of people who would make first-tier teachers never go into the field in the first place, because they're scared off by the low pay and the disrespect teachers get these days.

 

[trapdoor]

Any comparison of just white students in the US versus all of Finland is going to be misleading, in that it effectively allows the US disproportionately to ignore the performance of its economic underclass, while not allowing Finland to do the same.

Anyway, I have a theory that race is part of the reason our underclass underperforms so badly compared to many other countries. In the US, the political and economic elite tends to look very different, in an obvious and superficial way, from the lower class, and that makes it easier, psychologically, for the elite to write off those who are struggling. In a place like Finland (or, to a lesser extent, Massachusetts), when there is a group of people struggling for socio-economic reasons, there's a greater natural sympathy for them among the political and economic elite, since the underclass looks like their own family members. Thus, there's more focus on fixing the problems, whereas in a place with a racially differentiated underclass, the elite is more likely to just blame the victims and allow the problems to fester indefinitely.

I'm not certain I buy that. My family wasn't rich, and there certainly weren't any government programs for the children of truckdrivers in the 60s and 70s when I was a child. From the standpoint of being ignored by anyone upper class, we were as ignored as anyone else.

 

[Arkady]

I meet people every day who I think are half-educated, at best. Their cultural knowledge is merely based on TV/movies/popular music. They have almost no knowledge of art, literature or politics, and seem poorly trained when it comes to basic reasoning (if this occurs, then that must follow -- the simplest things). And these are all people with some college or college degrees. I don't think we can survive as a nation if we have an entire nation of people who don't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and who don't realize the Articles of Confederation even existed (and had nothing to do with the Civil War).

Yeah-- I just saw something that said only 20% of Americans could name the three branches of government, and that some absurdly low percentage couldn't name even one freedom protected by the First Amendment. That's grade-school material! Comically, quite a few thought the first amendment dealt with guaranteeing the right to own a pet (around 1/5).

Anyway, here's a great book I'd recommend to just about anyone:

http://www.amazon.com/An-Incomplete-Education-Revised-Edition/dp/0345391373

I first read it in high school, but there's a new edition, now. It's written in a light, sometimes jokey manner, but is designed to fill in the gaps on all the stuff you were supposed to learn but didn't, on pretty much any academic topic.... theory of relativity, transcendentalism, the operas of Mozart, famous sociological concepts, and so on.

 

[Alinvegas]

The problem with the Finnish system is that it relies so heavily on teaching being an extremely attractive line of work for elite professionals, which isn't the case in the US, and would be hard to replicate. We could, in theory, do it if we threw enough money at teachers -- make teaching as lucrative, for the top 20% of teachers, as law, banking, medicine, etc., are for top-level professionals in those fields, and you'd have unbelievable candidates fighting hard for every teaching spot, and you'd have no problem hanging on to the best teachers. But I can't see us throwing that much money at the issue. Without it, you need to attract teachers with intangible benefits like social prestige and quality of life, which have largely vanished for the profession, and I don't know how you bring that about. Without that, I think you're stuck using standardized testing to try to get the best out of a second-tier pool of teachers (and to identify and reward those among them who go above and beyond).

That would be like taking a football team that hasn't had a winning record in 10 years and giving them all a raise and expecting them to perform

 

[Arkady]

I wish I had your math skills. I'd never have made it through calc, although today I understand some calc concepts from my own independent study. I know enough about spherical trig to navigate an airplane, but my real navigation is done via dead reckoning most of the time (very casual flying -- I'm not trying to hit Howland Island).

My foreign language was Spanish and I can still read it fairly well, although I struggle with vocabulary when I try to speak it (and native speakers from American countries all speak too fast for me to follow them). I can read a little French (from the latin/Spanish/Italian etc.), and have some basic "soldiers" German (mostly how to order beer).

But I could probably still reproduce some A+ papers I did on medieval history and the macroeconomics of France in the Middle Ages.

Languages are the toughest to hold onto. It's possible even to effectively lose one's first language, if you don't use it at all for long enough. I was never fluent in German, but I used to be able to take university-level classes in a German university, right alongside native speakers, without too much trouble. These days, I can read fairly easy novels, but that's where my skills cap out. I can mostly follow German language TV and films without subtitles, but I miss a lot, and unfamiliar vocabulary derails me for minutes at a time. When it comes to speaking, I sound like a brain-damaged second-grader, and my writing is little better.

 

[Arkady]

I'm not certain I buy that. My family wasn't rich, and there certainly weren't any government programs for the children of truckdrivers in the 60s and 70s when I was a child. From the standpoint of being ignored by anyone upper class, we were as ignored as anyone else.

I guess. But I think it's harder to dismiss the basic humanity of the underclass when they're of the same race. It's more a matter of neglect than outright animosity.