#School testing may do more harm than good, study suggests
Related Topics
The Big Weasel z...@finestplanet.com
More Schools Rely on Tests, but Study Raises Doubts By GREG WINTER For full story, go to http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/28/education/28EXAM.html Rigorous testing that decides whether students graduate, teachers win bonuses and schools are shuttered, an approach already in place in more than half the nation, does little to improve achievement and may actually worsen academic performance and dropout rates, according to the largest study ever on the issue.
With calls for accountability in public education mounting, such make-or-break exams have become cornerstones in at least 28 states in the drive to improve public schools. The idea is that by tying test scores to great consequences, the learning process will be taken that much more seriously and tangible progress will be all the more likely.
The approach is also central to some of President Bush's sweeping education overhaul, lending even greater momentum to the movement known as "high stakes" testing.
But the study, performed by researchers at Arizona State University and financed by teachers' unions that have expressed skepticism about such tests, found that while students show consistent improvement on these state exams, the opposite is typically true of their performance on other, independent measures of academic achievement.
For example, after adopting such exams, twice as many states slipped against the national average on the SAT and the ACT as gained on it.
The same held true for elementary-school math scores on the National ***essment of Educational Progress, an exam overseen by the United States Department of Education.
Trends on Advanced Placement tests were also worse than the national average in 57 percent of those states, while movement in elementary-school reading scores was evenly split ??” better than the national average in half the states, worse in the other half. The only category in which most of the states gained ground was middle-school math, with 63 percent of them bettering the national trend.
"Teachers are focusing so intently on the high-stakes tests that they are neglecting other things that are ultimately more important," said Audrey Amrein, the study's lead author, who says she supported high-stakes tests before conducting her research. "In theory, high-stakes tests should work, because they advance the notions of high standards and accountability. But students are being trained so narrowly because of it, they are having a hard time branching out and understanding general problem-solving." The study was commissioned by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, a Midwestern group of six state affiliates of the National Education ***ociation, which has opposed using any one test to determine when students graduate, schools get more money and teachers are replaced. The research is sure to be a subject of fierce debate among educators, and its methodology has already drawn some criticism, though an independent panel of researchers at other universities has concluded that the findings are valid.
Perhaps most controversial, the study found that once states tie standardized tests to graduation, fewer students tend to get diplomas.
After adopting such mandatory exit exams, twice as many states had a graduation rate that fell faster than the national average as those with a rate that fell slower. Not surprisingly, then, dropout rates worsened in 62 percent of the states, relative to the national average, while enrollment of young people in programs offering equivalency diplomas climbed.
The reason for this is not solely that struggling students grow frustrated and ultimately quit, the study concluded. In an echo of the findings of other researchers, the authors ***erted that administrators, held responsible for raising tests scores at a school or in an entire district, occasionally pressure failing students to drop out.
In lawsuits, educators have testified that students were held back rather than promoted to a grade in which high-stakes tests were administered, and that others were expelled en m***e shortly before testing days. But neither those witnesses nor this study has been able to quantify that circumstance nationally, or prove that it has substantially influenced dropout rates.
****************** Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
For the finest in leftist/liberal commentary, visit http://www.zeppcommentaries.com
"Yossarian" some...@microsoft.com
Brought to you by foundation and corporate money. Some it comes from the Rockeller endowments, some of it from the Carnegie funds. The rest is probably inspired by eugenic societies. It's all about cultivating an elite, and leaving the rest behind. There was even an article in the "Economist" a while back about "overeducation" and whether high school is overkill.
Yossarian
Alan Lichtenstein alichtenst...@erols.com
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you need to understand something about educational history to properly evaluate what's going on. Educational theory and practice have been dominated for a number of years( 40+ ) by a growing movement loosely characterized as the "Self-Esteem" movement.
This movement holds that the social and emotional development of a child is the paramount goal of education, and, once those needs are addressed, the achievement will follow accordingly. this has led to, among other things, social promotion.
The current movement, which places student achievement as the paramount goal of education, uses testing as its means to ***ess that achievement. Unsaid, but what follows logically, is that students who do not meet the standards set for achievement at particular stages do not advance until they have. Leaving back a child because the child has not achieved in a satisfactory manner, is not the same as the intent of the recent ESSEA( No child Left Behind ) Act. That Act DOES NOT MEAN that a child who fails to achieve and is "left back" is not covered.
Rather, that act seeks to establish the criteria by which all children will have the means to achieve PROVIDED THEY USE THEM, and therefore it is government's responsibility to provide the means so that a child will not be left behind by no fault of their own.
Proponents of Self-Esteem, fight this testing, because it reduces their influence( and similarly, their grant money ). The study showing no correllation with drop-out rates and high stakes testing is just another nail in the coffin of the self-esteem movement.
For detailed review of these philosophies, see: Left Back-A century of Failed Educational Reforms, by noted educational historian Diane Ravitch and The Feel-Good Curriculum: The Dumbing Down of America's Kids In The Name of Self-Esteem, by Prof. Maureen Stout, UCal Northridge.
Alan
"Brooks Gregory" homeatl...@theheartoftexas.net
By Jove, I believe you've been there, seen that. We have allowed our kids to become the guinea pigs for a bunch of sociology experiments.
--
--
Freelancers are a group of dreamers, punctuated with an occasional flock of wishful thinkers.
Brooks Gregory www.campaignline.com
Alan Lichtenstein alichtenst...@erols.com
Not really. We've allowed ourselves to be persuaded by a bunch of individuals that their underlying philosophy is actually better. We all want the best for our kids, and Ravitch's book supports that theme.
However, Ravitch also documents that when the panaceas of the past failed to live up to their expectations, they were either revised of discarded. Alan
The Big Weasel z...@finestplanet.com
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 11:06:24 -0500, Alan Lichtenstein Sounds like all you know about education is what Pat Robertson told you.
For one thing, teachers try to encourage kids to learn. No kid can learn if he or she doesn't have any faith in his or her own self. A teacher's ability to address that is limited, obviously, but the right wing, which for some reason has a searing hatred of the notion that kids should be encouraged, try to disparage it as "self esteem teaching". Why DO you guys all hate the kids so much, anyway?
Similarly, social promotion is largely a right wing myth. Kids are held back a year if they can't perform. They do eventually get "promoted" simply because it's a really, really bad idea for all concerned to have a 14 year old "Lenny" in your fifth-grade cl***.
Only a fool thinks humiliating kids is the way to get them to learn.
The testing is largely useless, and impedes achievement. The kids end up being taught how to take the tests, a skill of no particular use outside of school, and anything else that is taught suffers. The heartless right thinks that any kid can get an "A" in algebra if he only tries hard enough. I would love to see the elected officials who push for these tests have to take them themselves. Will they quit and have someone else fill their posts if they don't meet the state norm?
Do you think it's right to subject kids to something a right wing politician is too cowardly to do himself?
****************** Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
For the finest in leftist/liberal commentary, visit http://www.zeppcommentaries.com
Bill Bonde sstd...@backpacker.com
It doesn't take a look at the conservative Economist to find that take: http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/SO93/marshall.html So do read the above and then note that we've still had to IMPORT workers in tech fields. This means that we have plenty of college degrees out there but not in anything useful in the workplace. A liberal education is exactly useless in most jobs, at least according to the above cite.
Bill Bonde sstd...@backpacker.com
I don't see how telling kids no matter what answer they come up with, it's OK as long as they feel good about it is caring about kids.
Maybe Lenny should get in a special program before he strangles Betty Fields.
Yet that seems to be the way a lot of kids remember a lot of teachers.
Why can't they be taught to take the SAT tests? If the test questions are unknown, sort of like on Jeopardy, yet from a wide range of fields, not like Jeopardy, then the teachers have to teach everything. How can they teach to the test? (I posted the Zogby quiz given in the 1950s to high schools and now to college seniors and supposedly the hardest question for many of the students (now) was the last one, a multiple choice question asking which of the mentioned states border Canada. It seems obvious to me that if given five states and a last option of all of them, all you have to prove is whether two of the given states are correct to choose the all of them option. Yet this confused a lot of college seniors.) Take the Zogby test, Zepp. I dare you.
What evidence do you have that politicians are too afraid to take these tests? Quayle took the Potatoe Spelling Test.
"Yossarian" some...@microsoft.com
Who is funding these "reforms" through grants? Who is funding the research?
Don't tell me it is all government funding. Whatever the government funds is motivated by powerful, wealthy people. You can tell me all you want about liberals and Democrats, but even the most hated liberal magazines by right wingers get funded through CIA, foundation, and establishment sources. The reason the USA does not have a strong socialist party is because the left is domesticated through charitable, and government sources. Even the evangelical movement on the right is funded through the charities of the wealthy. Also look at the media concentration as it involves booksellers to the public schools. As for self-esteem education, it seems to follow cultivating consensus, and conformity as well as behaviorial norms. I ask you, do you want your intellect to follow a norm? Why all this need for character education? Have you looked at the educational reforms follwed in the Weimar Republic? They look very similar. As for this high stakes testing, it seems more like a right upper cut that followed the left punch of this other educational "reform". It seems that first you soften them up, and then you mow them down with this testing jazz.
by noted educational historian Diane Ravitch
The Big Weasel z...@finestplanet.com
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 09:36:14 -0800, Bill Bonde When has anyone ever said that? You don't ridicule a kid for a wrong answer, but you do encourage him to find the correct answer--when there IS a "correct answer". See? Even you can figure out the obvious. Unintelligent kids aren't particularly dangerous, of course, but they have needs that have to be addressed, and simply cycling them through the same shit, year after year, isn't going to help them.
The same kids who hate school, hate learning, hate knowledge, and grow up to be right wingers.
****************** Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
For the finest in leftist/liberal commentary, visit http://www.zeppcommentaries.com
Bill Bonde sstd...@backpacker.com
It's the Liberal Way.
Even me? It is Liberals like you who insist on putting Lenny into general cl***es.
It is the Conservatives who love learning. The kook Liberals are the ignorant morons.
--
You see, it's turned out very well.
Let's travel together, you and I.
You cast bells, I'll paint icons.
We'll go to the Trinity Monastery together.
What a feast day for the people.
You've brought them such joy and you're crying.
-+"Andrei Rublev", Andrei Tarkovsky
"Yossarian" some...@microsoft.com
There are plenty of Americans skilled in technology to fill those jobs. The problem is that American employers do not want pay for the American standard of living, so they import workers from Asia and other parts of the world to lower their costs.
This means that we have plenty of college A liberal education will make a person ready to question, argue, and hypothesize about the world. Employers want workers who will take orders. As for employers not needing high school graduates who can speak foreign languages, calculate in higher mathematics, and conduct chemistry experiments, how would that be germaine to making a Whopper without onions?
Then again do we want a population that has only been educated up to the 8th grade? As for Mother Jones they live on a lot of foundation money. They are a "liberal" magazine, but they will not stray too far from the plantation.
Our economic system is evolving to the point where we can get most of our unskilled labor here in the states, where English skills are really needed, and to import expensive specialty labor from other countries. If we really wanted to develope homegrown talent we would close down immediately the H1-B program, and hire all those middle aged computer scientists and programmers without jobs.
As an interesting aside, would a middle level manager or business owner want a secretary with better diction and grammar than himself. I have come across a trend at a private college where an incompetent adminstrator will hire ***istants and subordinates dumber than he is. Problem is that the benchmark is set so low. This college is about to go bankrupt.
Yossarian
Bill Bonde sstd...@backpacker.com
That's nonsense. They are paying very good money to those imported workers.
Right, so, like I said, it is counterproductive to getting a job.
I don't know. I think it would not be relevant. But maybe we should have the burger flipper check for E. Coli before begining the frying process.
Or would that only be at Jack in the Box?
Isn't that what a secretary is for? To make the boss look good even if he is illiterate?
That'll do it.
--
You see, it's turned out very well.
Let's travel together, you and I.
You cast bells, I'll paint icons.
We'll go to the Trinity Monestary together.
What a feast day for the people.
You've brought them such joy and you're crying.
-+"Andrei Rublev", Andrei Tarkovsky
"Bud Keith" budk...@attbi.com.
It seened that there was a dialog going until you reverted to your usuall self i.e. making and ashole out of yourself in your fruiutless attempts to prove yourself better then others.
are only right answers,math for one 2+2= 4 there id no other answer.
It also seems that you have noit had to much contact lately with kids from the inner city who have not made it in the democraticly controled inner city schools.Most are ill equiped to do much of anything beside manual labor.
The entire school system as we know it today is a failure,perhaps its time for a new view. But that would require liberals like you to admit you are wrong and we certainly would not want to injure your self esteem by doing that.
Alan Lichtenstein alichtenst...@erols.com
( previous post snipped-follow thread ) For one thing, my frame of reference is 36 years as an educator in public education, with the last 15 being served as an ***istant principal. In addition, my frame of reference also comes from a graduate degree in educational supervision and administration, plus membership in three professional educational organizations, and reading the research which has come out on the topic, both from those organizations, books( two of which I cited for your review which I doubt you have ever read ), and peer review journals in education over the last 36 years. Furthermore, my frame of reference also includes additional personal experience as astaff member at several institutions where teacher training is given.
Now, genius, what's YOUR frame of reference, and don't you now look like the fool?
You see, like the reactionary right, which generalizes and categorizes people, usually incorrectly, and fallaciously, YOU have done the same thing. So don't generalize; you never know what's at the other end of the stick.
Nobody hates the kids and nobody says that teachers shouldn't encourage them. But if you bothered to READ the post before you knoceked it, you would have clearly seen that I ***erted that the difference was in philosophies of education.
Wrong. Social promotion is a well known fact which is stated in many articles in peer review journals of education. Most large school districts and any number of smaller ones have policies which do not allow for children to be left back except under very narrow conditions.
And even then, not more than once. And furthermore, until the recent national Standards movement, most school districts had NO, repeat, NO objective criteria for student achievement until the high school level for promotion.
And you can verify that by checking the policies at ANY school district in ANY state you wish, or even with the NEA or AFT websites.
Kids are Not in general, and then frequently if the non-performance continues, they may not be held back again. Most school districts have age appropriate grade enrollment policies that guarantees promotion regardless of achievement.
They do eventually get The likelihood that 14-year old Lenny will be in any teacher's fifth grade cl*** is highly unlikely. Lenny would either get the message that he has to get off his butt and do a little studying or drop out long before he reaches his 14th birthday.
Nobody is that stupid to not see that the kids are advancing and he's not.
Incorrect again. Testing has one objective and only one: To ***ess student achievement according to a well-defined standard. Testing cannot impede achievement. The major player who determines the extent of achievement is the student. Period. And for the record, that's why the voucher scheme is a farce.
The kids end Test measure the curriculum as established by the Constitutionally enabling body which derrives its authority from The State. Therefore if you feel the curriculum is useless, then go tell your state agency.
Obviously that agency does not.
***uming the kid has a satisfactory teacher and that the kid is taught the appropriate curriculum according to the established level of difficulty, sure he can. Unless he's genetically below average.
I would love to see the elected officials Most have already and have done quite well.
Will they quit That's why we have elections. Have you forgotten that little thing.
There you go again, making generalizing characterizations which serve no purpose but to inflame. We could just as easily substitute left-wing or liberal for what you have posted above, and we have the same statement which is just as stupid.
If you can't speak to the substance, then don't say anything at all.
Leave the characterizations out. For all they do is point out your lack of knowledge base to discuss this issue.
Is that how you want to be preceived?
I note you make no reference to the works cited. Are they part of Pat Robertson's educational platform?
Alan
Alan Lichtenstein alichtenst...@erols.com
( previous post snipped-follow thread ) It is noted that you failed to reply to the major thrust of my reply, that the issue was one of a conflict of educational philosophies, choosing to only harp on the issue of funding.
At any rate, there are any number of organizations, both in the public and private sector which issue grants. The majority of educational research is achieved through grants from whatever source. The sarcasm in my remarks is imbedded in an understanding of the funding mechanisms. Grant issuers, both public and private, generally give grants to those applicants who either have a project of interest to the goals of the funding agency, or, in the case of general grants, to a researcher doing reaserch in a topic of general interest, in the field.
If the self-esteem school loses its influence as a major educational philosophy, the availablity of funding dollars will similarly dry up, with all that entails for researchers holding that view. And as far as I'm concerned, the social and political conditions in the Weinmar Republic are in no way to be taken as an example of the social, economic and political conditions in the US. Ravitch's book, which deals ONLY with American education is far more instructive, asit pertains only to our frame of reference. As far as self-esteem is concerned, it has wreaked more damage than any preceived social good. Test scores have fallen precipitously; American children are significantly out-performed by their foreign contemporaries( as indicated TIMMS, a standard test ), and the number of technical graduates from American Universities has declined severely.
So, yes, the data does indeed indicate that when following this philosophy our instructional system has suffered.
Alan
"Scott Erb" scott...@worldnet.att.net
Actually, just about everyone in education is convinced that standarized tests, especially done often, are a hindrance to education as they create a tendency to teach to the test, and take time and money from other programs.
Politicians who support tests just want to LOOK like they're "doing something" about education. It's smoke and mirrors.
Bill Bonde sstd...@backpacker.com
Of course without the tests, there is no teacher accountability. Since most kids aren't learning anything as it is, having them at least learn what is on the test doesn't seem like a loss.
"Scott Erb" scott...@worldnet.att.net
Oh, there's accountability, teachers are watched and evaluated constantly.
Some tests are probably good, but lately there is a tendancy to overdo it.
"Yossarian" some...@microsoft.com
Grants are given to push research with a certain agenda. It is not just blind funding. The charitable trusts want to reshape society into the mold of their overseers. The major trusts have the lion's share of influence.
Pew, Rockefeller, Coors, Carnegie, Ford, and Du Pont have most of the action. You mentioned the goals of the grant organization as directing where the money goes. Sure every organization has a vague boiler plate vision, but the devil is in the details.
Then when one trend has lost its influence then it's time to implement the next stage of the grand plan.
What makes you so sure of that? During the 20's there was a large increase in technical education at the high school level. The gymnasiums taught liberal arts in the instruction of Greek and Latin, and the great books.
These schools showed stagnant growth. There was a story about a chauffer's son who was taunted and ridiculed by the gymnasium profs at every possible turn. The other members of the gymnasium came fromt he upper cl***es. The young man eventually dropped out. During that time it was popular to teach patriotism, character virtues, and respect for authority to all the school youth. Character education became a priority at that time(shades of William Bennett.).
Ravitch's book, which At the same time the quality of our food and water has been in a tailspin.
Don't tell me a diet of sodas, donuts, and french fries is not going to affect cognition. Just look at often children are targeted for junk food. A diet in sugar and starches will dumb down a population very quickly.
As for technical graduates, it does not take a genius to realize how ill used these scientists and programmers are after some trend in technology or the economy has played out. Big business cannot wait to fire a bunch of poor old farts for the next batch of green graduates.
The best way to destroy a system is to throw a wrench into the cogs also known as reform, and then later throw some other reform at it that is more procrustean than the first. Look at how the British health system is being reformed to death. First there are some restructurings, procedural changes, and funding changes. Then there is the outcry the system does not work. Then there are calls to close the whole system down.
Yossarian
"Yossarian" some...@microsoft.com
Check out http://www.nomoreh1b.com Just read the literature from the industry magazines. I know for a fact that HP is going to move half its back office operations to India.
Yes, but most people want a career that can pay for car payments and a decently spacious apartment. The idea of a good education was to be able to work at high skilled, high paying jobs. Remember how the pushers of NAFTA said that the Mexicans would get the low skilled work, but the USA would have an increase in high skilled jobs. By your way of thinking we would have a population of helots, who could do no better than become restaurant managers. There would be no upward mobility. So then the idea of our elites is to denigrate higher education, so that no one from the wrong cl*** would have high expectations in life.
Are you willing to pay to have your cook do bacterial ***ays on your food?
Would you care to pay an extra two dollars/hour if he could discriminate between botulin and salmonella. Would you care if he could tell you that the word botulin is derived from Latin for sausage? Probably not. But it is a terrible waste of mind, and talents. And it would make the cook very angry to serve a hamburger to a Jaguar driving customer, who knew less than he did about such things. But it seems to be a habit of the wealthy to flaunt their lack of knowledge of foreign places, and cultures they have visited at great expense before impoverished graduate ***istants.
Then again fairness is one of those vices conservatives rail against.
Yossarian
Alan Lichtenstein alichtenst...@erols.com
Actually, you ought not to make generalizations either. It is NOT true that just about everyone in education is convinced that standardized testing is a hinereance to education. A review of the literature reveals that the tendency is just about split evenly, with perhaps aslight edge going to those who advocate no testing. But, if you bother to look at the stance of those institutions that offer teacher education programs, you will see that the faculty lines up nearly 100% behind the no testing view. But on further examination( reviewing publications of faculty members ), one sees that they are nearly 100% behind the self-esteem movement.
And why would self-esteem advocates be against testing? The answer is obvious. If one buys into their misguided philosophy, then clearly if self-esteem does lead to greater student achievement, then if you test, ought not the results show that? Unfortunately, the results of standardized examinations show the opposite, hence, the advocates of self-esteem lobby against testing. Without testing, then the students learn only because of a very subjective evaluation. IOW, they learn because we said they have learned, so then self-esteem is a big success.
FYI, New York state has been testing its high school students for nearly 80 years, using standardized, content specific statewide examinations in each curriculum area. P***ing these examinations is required for high school graduation. And there have been no ill effects. Except if you consider that the kids have learned something which they have demonstrated to be an ill effect.
Colleges don't.
Alan
Alan Lichtenstein alichtenst...@erols.com
Tests measure only student achievement, not teacher effectiveness. A teacher could be the world's best, but if the kid has not the attention to task, and puts in effort for his part of the process, then he won't achieve.
You can't measure the effectiveness of party A by measureing the actions of Party B, and especially if Party B has freedom of action. It's a logical fallacy.
Alan
Alan Lichtenstein alichtenst...@erols.com
( previous post snipped-follow thread ) I thought I said that.
And that would be the scaapping of self-esteem as a major influence in educational pplicy.
I indicated why above. Even sociologists will tell you that it may be useful to compare societies for different mores in accomplishing the same goals, but it is dangerous to hold up one as a standard for another. This is what you attempt to do. Hold up the Weimar Republic when discoursing about Germany; use America when discussing about American culture and society.
During the 20's there was a large increase So? What's your point? American education underwent its evolution for very different reasons. Ravitch documents them in her book. Read it.
Cognition is affected by the genes one has gotton from his parents.
If you're asking does perhaps diet and culture shape those cognitive abilities, then the answer is yes, but only within limited degrees within the limits of the Bell Curve( see: The Bell Curve by Hernstein and Murray ).
Just look at often children are targeted for junk food. A And of course you have evidence that isolates this variable and demonstrates that this is the cause?
I doubt it, for none exists which have isolated this variable.
Big business can't wait to fire the old farts because they make too much money. They can hire two( make that three ) green Pakistanis( American colleges don't produce the number of technical graduates we need ) for the price of one 50 year old.
There, you have a point. Ravitch did not add a sub-title to her book( A century of failed educational reforms ) for nothing. But at least, we do throw them out when they obviously fail. Self-esteem is a panacea whose time has p***ed. Alan
"Scott Erb" scott...@worldnet.att.net
Pretty hard to analyze things without making generalizations!
First, we may be talking about different things here, making the disagreement moot. By standardized testing I'm reading standardized across schools and school districts in a politically motivated bureaucratic tool.
If you mean standardized tests in the cl***room used by teachers to evaluate student progress, with teachers able to develop the tests themselves and use them as they see best, then I have no disagreement with tests. Students should take math tests at the end of a unit, or a map test after studying Africa, etc. I'm specifically talking about the bureaucratic hell of nation wide standardized testing of schools.
So, with that in mind, I'll put out (again talking not about in cl*** testing for course evaluation, but standardized across school outside individual cl*** testing) I said "especially when done often," above. Some standardized testing is fine and useful. The reaction I'm talking about --
in discussions with people in the field, and some experts on education -- is to the sudden politically inspired increase in testing. Often this is done without funding, creating yet another unfunded mandate for states and school districts already in distress.
You shouldn't generalize ;-) What the *hell* is the "self esteem movement?" Of course it is important children develop good self-esteem. It is the most important factor in determining success in life. If you are confident, self-***ure, and self-aware, you will do better than those who aren't. That's not even controversial.
First, self-esteem is not built by giving a false sense of confidence, that only creates a spiral that ultimately destroys self-esteem. So it is illogical to suggest that people concerned about self-esteem simply want children to avoid tests. Second, the arguments against standardized testing (again, remembering what kind of standardized testing I'm talking about here) are specific, and relate to how it thwarts the educational environment, teacher freedom, and encourages a 'teaching to the test' approach that diminishes the chance to develop critical thinking skills and a broader knowledge range. Again, I am not arguing against in cl*** testing over subject matter just covered in order to allow teacher evaluation.
Only if one buys your warped, misguided, twisted argument. Self-esteem is extremely important for all, psychological flaws that lead to destructive and anti-social behavior can often by traced to low self-esteem (scholars like Barber and Etheredge even trace foreign policy fiascos to such personality flaws). But self-esteem can't be had on the cheap, false self-esteem based on a false sense of accomplishment is a time bomb waiting to go off once someone leaves a protected environment. Schools SHOULD foster true self-esteem, but if they fostered false self-esteem then it would be counter productive. From what I've seen, this is something educators understand very well.
Again, what the *hell* is the "self esteem lobby"? The argument for or against too much standardized testing should be judged on its merit, not by creating some kind of amorphous "self-esteem" lobby you want to simply attack, distracting the argument away from testing. Your position is not logical, and does not at all relate to the question of whether or not standardized testing is beneficial. I would say some standardized testing (as has been done for decades) is helplful. And again, as an in cl*** evaluation tool it is fine. But Washington's attempt to simply get even yearly tests and use that as a basis for funding and the like is a bureaucratic solution to a problem that requires creative flexibility.
That would be incompetent teaching, and I *know* from my experience with teachers and seeing teacher education that teachers are not so incompetent.
Colleges test all the time, but since the cirriculum is diverse a final standardized test would be impossible. MA and PH.D. programs have batteries of final "comprehensive" or "preliminery" exams in the subject matter studied before being awarded advanced degrees. But I'd be willing to say that there is merit to basic graduating exams like the one you describe. I don't necessarily think it accomplishes a lot, but if it is one time, at the end of the high school experience, it's certainly better than the yearly kinds of tests politicians are trying to promote -- something which again seems to be an attempt to gain political points by looking like they're doing something, when they really aren't. How about this: let states and school districts determine the policy on this, and keep Washington out --- especially if they're not going to contribute significant funds.
| To Top |