Still Hating America.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) I think problems with the test need to be improved upon, but because there are problems doesn't mean they should be thrown out. Although I don't think that is what you are arguing here, it is what the CTA does all the time. The exams are not perfect, so they should not be used anymore. It is like with the theory of evolution, the creationists point to a problem in it and conclude the whole theory must be bunk and not taught.

I didn't say no testing, and I certainly didn't say that the tests should be thrown out. I said this is why I have a problem with the current model of testing.

2) These issues point out while annual testing is so important. If you don't do annual tests you don't know which teacher is responsible for what. If they have the same math teacher for the entire year you know who is responsible, but only if you have annual tests.

I understand that. I also understand that there is a cumulative effect and that teachers are going to end up with kids who don't have a basic grasp of the previous fundamentals. There may not be a single person responsible for a kid's being behind in math or reading. It may be a slew of people, including previous teachers, a change in the way kids are evaluated (look at the second article that I sent you, where they say that they can't compare to previous reading scores because the evaluation criteria changed), parental involvment, and yes, the teacher who has that kid this year.

3) To make an incentive for the students, passing is necessary for them to continue to the next grade. That way the student has a strong incentive to do well. You can also tie the test to their grade. And as far as them just doing enough to pass the exam, if during the exam they are unsure as what is necessary to pass, they will err on the side of doing the best they can instead of risking failure (that is if they are truly looking our for their interest)

Did you ever work hard on standardize tests aside from making sure you brought a number two pencil to school with you when you were in elementary school? I sure as hell didn't. (I also scored in the 99th percentile on most of those tests and considered them a joke. I presume the same for most other people on this board. My school gave the Stanford Achievement Tests.) But I worked my ass off on the SATs and the APs. The former to get in college, the latter because it was tied to my grade. My parents were also much, much more interested in my performance on the latter exams than the ones that were meaningless except for evaluating the school. They were also much more interested in how I did on my spelling test that week than they were in how I did on the standardized test.

4) As far as the Geometry and Algebra issue these exams are there to insure that people are getting a basic education. Once they hit the Algebra/Geometry level, the exams uselessness has really come to an end. The problem is that a large swath of students are graduating that can't do basic math or do basic English. That is what the exams are for. To find out how and where students are moving through the system and not getting a basic education. In order to fix this problem, you need to see exactly where the failure is occurring and why. Tests help you determine that.

Yes, but evaluating the student and evaluating the teacher are two different things. Using a tool to evaluate the student is perfectly fine and acceptable, but it may not be the best tool (as demonstrated with the Algebra/Geometry issue) for evaluating the particular teacher who has the student at that point in time. Again, I'm not at all saying that testing needs to be done away with, but we need to be clear on who we are testing. The student or the teacher?

5) As for grading the teachers, that is why cross comparisons are so important. You don't just look at the overall score; you look at how much the student has improved from the previous year's exam. And since you are testing basic math and English this is not hard to do. In addition, you can cross reference student’s performance from one class to another class, so if this year’s exam is harder than last years, it will be reflected in all the classes taking the exams. Again you are not testing teachers against some random criteria; you are testing them against each other. If you look at how much students improved from one year to the next, taking the same exams, and compare students in similar type of classes, then it will be clear which teachers are good at their job and which teachers are not.

Without these exams, I don't see how you can determine where the system is exactly failing; where it is allowing students to move through grades without learning anything. Before you can fix the system, you have to know where the problems are, and without annual standardized exams, I don't know how you do that. Do you?

Again, I have a difficulty with the above given the conclusions drawn in the second article I posted. Kids grades seem to be doing fine grade wise, but they're not doing well on these exams. I would want to know a little more about what the reasons are behind that before I start throwing the kids back a year or firing teachers. Are they really not learning or are they not performing well on these exams?

And again, I'm not saying do not test. I am saying that incentives need to be aligned so KIDS find these tests to be as important as everyone else in the equation.