test scores =/= student achievement

[Chibibar]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/04/politics/main5525842.shtml

I have to disagree with Obama here. The way I understand is that Obama believes test score = student achievement?

The problem is that student don't learn anything. Teachers will go back to "teach the test" instead of lesson plans. I think the program "left no student behind" hurt many faculty here. working with many faculty in my job, I hear a lot of gripe on this one.

It is not easy trying to teach a lesson plan in a limited time when you have TACT Test that determine if you pass or fail.

The old school of teaching "Learn and git" (one of my teacher uses that term) doesn't work. Retention is low with that method. Lesson should include participation and understanding not just straight lecture.

 

[Chazwozel]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/04/politics/main5525842.shtml

I have to disagree with Obama here. The way I understand is that Obama believes test score = student achievement?

The problem is that student don't learn anything. Teachers will go back to \"teach the test\" instead of lesson plans. I think the program \"left no student behind\" hurt many faculty here. working with many faculty in my job, I hear a lot of gripe on this one.

It is not easy trying to teach a lesson plan in a limited time when you have TACT Test that determine if you pass or fail.

The old school of teaching \"Learn and git\" (one of my teacher uses that term) doesn't work. Retention is low with that method. Lesson should include participation and understanding not just straight lecture.

The problem teachers and administrations had with 'no child left behind' was that in order to get funded for subsequent years, the standardized test scores had to also increase. While this sucks for a lot of teachers/staff (because of obvious reasons with charter schools), it's the only true method the government has to dish out funds. How else are you going to figure out what school to give money to and promote educational advancement? It did what it was supposed to do, reward those institutions that did improve test scores. The big flaw is that the ones that failed to get funds are still in the slumps. Obama is against lifting the ban because doing so will introduce a mess of subjective measures for measuring school success. The best way still remains to be standardized testing.

Yes, individually one student may or may not be a good test taker, but these tests are averaging all the students in a charter/district for funds. If all your students are failing these tests it indicates a clear problem within that district.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I hate hearing teachers complain about teaching to the test. When a standardized test is put in place to see if your kids have mastery of your subject, you bloody well teach to the test. If not, you are not doing your job. The state decides what should be on the curriculum (through choosing the topics for the test) the teacher needs to follow through.

There needs to be more alignment with the curriculum, testing, teaching all the way through a state's department of education. The first time a student sees a test style, should not be on the test that decides if he is smart enough to be a 5th Grader. Unit/chapter tests should be using the same style of questions ought to be like the ones on the standardized tests.

Academic freedom is a nice luxury, but it leads to kids in different rooms getting vastly different educations.

/rant

 

[Rubicon]

Honestly, the entire American school system needs an overhaul in it's teaching, and I'm American.

Our system is based on information retention. Who can memorize what during X years. I can honestly tell you I remember very little to nothing of my math, chemistry or civics courses from a decade ago in HS, let alone junior high or grade school. Most of that information doesn't get used on a day to day basis for the average person, and even back then you basically memorized information to past tests.

Very little goes into actually, teaching creative thought processes or incouraging creativity.

A great example is the debate system. Back in the day, people would debate a subject, toss back and forth counter arguments, maybe learn something or a see a view point from a different angle. These days, its who can say the most words in the shortest time, it literally has boiled down to who can regurgitate the most information in their time frame at the podium. Sure, they have to counter the other sides point of view, but since they have so much time to prepare in advance, they know the topics, they research every possible reaction to a subject. They literally carry around huge plastic tubs full of print outs and copies of absurd amounts of information, to just read and memorize. And they actually have a name for it, "banking", where you memorize and recall huge amounts of information plus speed reading, instead of coming up with an original idea yourself, or using creativity..

That same philosophy has spread to every day classes basically. You end up with kids who are forced to memorize material for tests/homework/courses but don't have a personality of their own academally. With more school systems cutting creative programs like Art, Music, etc it comes down to just memorization..

 

[Chibibar]

I hate hearing teachers complain about teaching to the test. When a standardized test is put in place to see if your kids have mastery of your subject, you bloody well teach to the test. If not, you are not doing your job. The state decides what should be on the curriculum (through choosing the topics for the test) the teacher needs to follow through.

There needs to be more alignment with the curriculum, testing, teaching all the way through a state's department of education. The first time a student sees a test style, should not be on the test that decides if he is smart enough to be a 5th Grader. Unit/chapter tests should be using the same style of questions ought to be like the ones on the standardized tests.

Academic freedom is a nice luxury, but it leads to kids in different rooms getting vastly different educations.

/rant

The problem is that these test doesn't really "teach" anything toward the student. I remember when I was "studying" for my test. I just remember the answer and method and do them. It is the same with my SAT. I just memorize a bunch of stuff and guess what? I totally forgot nearly 99% of them today (20+ years ago)

 

[North_Ranger]

Buckle up, boys, we're movin' this 'ere thread to Politics!

 

[MindDetective]

Even if you've forgotten material, it is still in there. It should take much less time to relearn it than it took to learn it in the first place. This is a prime demonstration of latent knowledge. Our educational system banks on instilling latent knowledge as an important end.

If you disagree, there is an alternative: A divided system that filters students towards university, technical training, or non-technical vocations. In other countries this division can begin quite early. The benefit is that teachers can target their curricula towards the paht the student is on. The negative is that people may get sorted towards low end careers early on.

I think it is unreasonable to expect the primary and secondary educational systems to prepare students for ANY path and NOT expect a lot of that knowledge to become latent.

 

[Cajungal]

"Teaching to the test" isn't a problem if the modes of assessment are good. But the problem is that people aren't really learning. They're learning these little islands of information without putting any energy into making the connections that actually make a person WITH information in their head intelligent.

I don't know about standardized testing, but I've seen an improvement in testing strategies in some of the schools where I'm working. I can see teachers trying to give students the opportunity to think about what they're learning and not just know it well enough to belch it out. That's something.

 

[fade]

Well. People complain a lot that test scores don't measure achievement. But I get them after they've tested. And I can tell you based on many, many students at several universities now, there actually is a strong correlation between test scores and aptitude. I can say that there have been a good number of exceptions, but overall, the exceptions form a small minority. And even there, the exceptions usually run one way. There are students with high aptitude that test low, but there are almost never students with low aptitude and high scores.

I used to feel that test scores and aptitude were dubiously linked, and I still think that teaching strictly as test preparation is a poor idea, just to clarify.

 

[Rubicon]

Well. People complain a lot that test scores don't measure achievement. But I get them after they've tested. And I can tell you based on many, many students at several universities now, there actually is a strong correlation between test scores and aptitude. I can say that there have been a good number of exceptions, but overall, the exceptions form a small minority. And even there, the exceptions usually run one way. There are students with high aptitude that test low, but there are almost never students with low aptitude and high scores.

I used to feel that test scores and aptitude were dubiously linked, and I still think that teaching strictly as test preparation is a poor idea, just to clarify.

But that does not hold true to everyone.

Myself for example, even if I study my ass off, even on a subject I know well, I'm likely to do average to poor on a test? Why? I'm not a test taker type. I get extremely nervous with tests, cause I know a grade for that test is on the line. Maybe failing that test doesn't fail me out of that course but still, the amount of academic pressure is amazingly high.

AND to prove that theory right, I've often done very well in class assignments, home work, projects, etc but when it came to tests, pop quizes, etc I'd do average or poorly.. I can memorize all the material, recite it all off to you, sit me down in a silent room of people taking a test, and I'm nervous as shit.

Granted, this ain't exactly the same for most people but our current educational system does not give a fair chance to all students. The only reason I did well in college was because I went to a technical school where all my classes were computer-related, and thus I knew a lot of the material extremely well from years of experience and it was mainly hands on work rather than standardized tests.

 

[fade]

Yeah, I know, I accounted for you in what I said. But I do think that people like you are a fairly small slice.

 

[Rubicon]

I agree, there aren't many like us

However, since we are forced at a young young age to attend school, until 16 at least, you'd think they'd HELP you learn and be creative rather than memorization.

The system is ass backwards. You are legally forced to attend school, till 16 or whatnot. But if you graduate highschool, any further education cost comes from your pocket. Sure, there are student loans, grants, scholarships, etc but its the princple of the matter. At 18, whats the best job you can get? Something in retail? You're really going to afford a place to live, food, etc on that? Yet if you want a better job or even a career, you need the college education, which oh look our country does not provide even though for over 12 years we forced you to attend school anyway!

 

[Chibibar]

I guess I should clarify that American testing system sucks (IMO) I believe in Asian style of schooling. You go to school and learn and you take take OUTSIDE of the school system to advance.

I remember my mother told me about this and the government pay for your school if you have the aptitude for it. It is very competitive. So you don't "learn to take the test" at school, you learn how you use your brain at school and test outside of the school system. If you pass, then you are off to the next set of grades etc etc.

Of course there are class room test to see if you are falling behind or can get ahead, but the TACT test in Taiwan would be if you get to attend Jr high, high school or even university (or even which university) I think that system is better that what we have now.

but that is me and because I'm bias toward Asian style.

 

[fade]

Chibibar, based on what I've seen of Japanese and Chinese schools I may disagree with you (can't speak about Taiwan). In both cases, a lot of professors simply stand in front of the class room and read. I've seen this multiple times. What's the point of holding a lecture?

I know this is totally anecdotal, but I had a friend spend a year at a major university in Beijing as a visiting professor, and the reports I got back were not encouraging. He saw people making their careers by copying US and UK articles into Chinese and publishing them. He said the profs were abusive verbally (often to the point of shouting angry insults at the top of their lungs) to the graduate students. I know it's a cultural difference, but one professor was particularly bad. He was constantly drunk, and my friend saw a frustrated grad student finally call him on it. He angrily berated the student. The student's parents sent gifts to this sorry excuse for a prof, and apologized profusely, because the university had no due process. The prof was judge and jury.

I don't mean to call into question all Chinese universities. I know this is one example from one department in one university. We get great students in geophysics from China. But at the same time, the examples I've seen from both China and Japan (the only Asian countries I have any experience with) were not the greatest.

 

[TotalFusionOne]

“Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”

Points if you know who said it. Double points if you can explain why it's relevant.

 

[Cajungal]

John Dewey?

 

[TotalFusionOne]

Correctamundo. Why is it relevant?

 

[@Li3n]

Wouldn't better tests be the easiest solution?! Like one where memorization will only help you get a barely passing grade...

 

[AshburnerX]

Wouldn't better tests be the easiest solution?! Like one where memorization will only help you get a barely passing grade...

But that would make too much god damn sense.

 

[@Li3n]

Wouldn't better tests be the easiest solution?! Like one where memorization will only help you get a barely passing grade...

But that would make too much god damn sense.[/QUOTE]

Oh right, sorry, didn't consider that one, how stupid of me...

 

[ElJuski]

I hate hearing teachers complain about teaching to the test. When a standardized test is put in place to see if your kids have mastery of your subject, you bloody well teach to the test. If not, you are not doing your job. The state decides what should be on the curriculum (through choosing the topics for the test) the teacher needs to follow through.

There needs to be more alignment with the curriculum, testing, teaching all the way through a state's department of education. The first time a student sees a test style, should not be on the test that decides if he is smart enough to be a 5th Grader. Unit/chapter tests should be using the same style of questions ought to be like the ones on the standardized tests.

Academic freedom is a nice luxury, but it leads to kids in different rooms getting vastly different educations.

/rant

Your rant shows a very narrow-mind view of what education SHOULD be, and how education is accessed by various students. Teaching to the test forces teacher's to underdevelop student learning by cramming in tones of rote memorization and skill sets without applying educational experience into the equation. Not to mention that--especially in the language arts field--student's hands on experience with their material, versus simply dolling out globs of information and formal skill sets, helps the student much more in the long run.

There's a big movement with pedagogical instructors these days to teach incoming teachers more philosophically "Progressive" strategies--that is, going beyond the Essentialist formula of cramming certain facts and skill sets down every student's throat--which takes a more Dewey-centered approach by instilling a sense of experience and responsibility into the student. No, the student won't learn exactly the same thing as everyone else, but the core skills will be the same and will be made even more predominant by the student's connection to the skill set, instead of just aiming for a high test score.

Teaching to a test focuses the teacher and the class to build for that moment. If my "job" is to make sure my kids do well on a test, soon I won't have the student's education as my main goal, but rather to make sure that the students know how to beat the test. Rinse and repeat across the nation.

Furthermore, the current system aims to fuck the pooch. Already school funding is inappropriately misaligned, allowing for the rich schools to get richer and the poor schools to stay poor. It's a perpetuating cycle that funding-by-testing only exploits further. Students that don't have the means or desire to learn will not succeed. Teachers only have so much Freedom Writers super teacher capability; and yes, the ideal of being all for the kids can only go so far.

Lastly, cutting off funding from schools usually cuts off the arts, which is a grievous error in the philosophy of the general population. We need art and music for how it foster's students minds and develops cultural literacy. Which, if testing is TRULY trying to give an essential education, they would include.

Anyways. The problem with funding, I believe, is that it needs to be distributed differently than it's current method. Also, the bar set for people to become teachers needs to be raised. I'm proud to be part of the strongest teaching schools in the state, and a nationally accredited teaching school and secondary ed english areas in the nation. Even then I see the failings in where my school is giving teaching access to certain people. If you look small, and expand the picture, that's how you'll solve the problem. Taking a national focus at the educational dynamic and looking smaller won't work. It just screws everyone over a little bit more.

---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

Correctamundo. Why is it relevant?

It's somewhere in my long winded rant.

---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 PM ----------

Or maybe not; I had Dewey in mind but never reflected THAT specific notion. That is indeed what essentialist education does--rather than broadening societal perception and educational implications, it forces a continuance of the status quo.

 

[Cajungal]

It's more convenient to try and get kids to all learn one way than to differentiate instruction and assessment in order to at least try to accommodate everyone.

 

[ElJuski]

And the awesome thing is, multiple intelligences prove that all kids don't learn one way. So, once again, big set up for failure.

I will say THIS though--common assessment can be pretty useful within small cases, like between the department. It's small enough where the group of teachers can monitor student learning and remediate what's necessary almost instantaneously. Plus, one of the only PLUS sides to common assessment, is that students can reach out for broader perspective from their classmates, and teachers can learn a thing or two from each other within the department.

I still wouldn't make it an all-the-time thing, though

 

[TotalFusionOne]

Or maybe not; I had Dewey in mind but never reflected THAT specific notion. That is indeed what essentialist education does--rather than broadening societal perception and educational implications, it forces a continuance of the status quo.

Right.

The public school system was created for one purpose, and one purpose only: Workforce.

 

[AshburnerX]

Or maybe not; I had Dewey in mind but never reflected THAT specific notion. That is indeed what essentialist education does--rather than broadening societal perception and educational implications, it forces a continuance of the status quo.

Right.

The public school system was created for one purpose, and one purpose only: Workforce.

Too bad it's creating a workforce meant for the 19th century, instead of the 21st.

 

[TotalFusionOne]

Too bad it's creating a workforce meant for the 19th century, instead of the 21st.

PRECISELY. This is my point. Hey, here's an idea... Voucher. Programs. Let capitalism decide the best schools.

 

[ElJuski]

The problem with that though is that, on certain levels, people are still getting fucked over. But then again, I don't necessarily have a better idea either. All I know is that the current system is lacking.

 

[AshburnerX]

Too bad it's creating a workforce meant for the 19th century, instead of the 21st.

PRECISELY. This is my point. Hey, here's an idea... Voucher. Programs. Let capitalism decide the best schools.

Transportation tends to be an issue with voucher programs, as well as a whole host of class based issues.

 

[Chibibar]

I agree with your Eljuski. What I see are schools "dividing" up the "alternate learners" and "general learners" so they can boost their test score and thus get funding.

Of course there are other factors that may reduce test scores. I try not to be "stereotypical" but poorer areas student may not do well cause of stress factor and such and thus when the test scores come around, they are poor and thus funding cuts

fade: I see that too in Taiwan, but I figure with the U.S. system combine with Chinese system (not 100% over the other) you can get a good medium. Teachers are consider parents in school in Asian country (Taiwan and Thailand where I went to school) and thus that is why you see/report of you see.

Of course I see many western schools (which I also attend before college) that are just pure lecture too and teachers get no respect at all.

maybe a happy medium somewhere.

 

[Krisken]

Would our focus on individualism and decreased parental involvement have any effect on how our school systems are performing?

 

[ElJuski]

Well, of course they would.

 

[Cajungal]

To an extent, and if it's done properly. There are a lot of teachers I've witnessed who do a lot of differentiation in instruction but make assessment so painfully easy that they don't retain anything, nor do they know how to apply what they've learned.

It's great if students are comfortable and having fun, but some teachers have trouble including actual learning in that. I have an amazing mentor at a school who teaches a 3rd grade class. For social studies, they have these NOISY, chaotic debates that would drive most teachers crazy... but they can remember everything they learn about Louisiana and why it's important.

 

[ElJuski]

Ideally, a good education for a student would involve the teacher and the parent taking an active role in finding out how the student best learns and adapting the environment to make that learning more conducive.

In a classroom of 30, a teacher has only so much time to work individually with students, but that's why I believe in a pragmatic approach to education--give students options within the confines of your classroom, and guide them throughout. Group work is key. Getting to know your students is key. By allowing your students to choose, say, between three different books to read or what topic they want to write on a paper or essay allows the student to make individual, easier connections.

Teaching is reflexive, and learning is geared towards experience. There are certain things which are universal--grammar, understanding poetic language--but learning these concepts can be taken through multiple avenues. More importantly, students learn the most not when they are being lectured and jotting down notes, but when they are synthesizing this information and reproducing it to one another. Individual choice, plus group work for students to respond to one another's work, allows for an individualized education that gets reinforced in a community, connecting individual experience to a more "universal" learning standard.

Assessment is a whole different issue. Too many teachers are not properly instructed in developing assessment. All too many times teacher's create assessments which inadvertently help the student who hasn't actually learned the material, but knows how to trick the system and get a good grade.

Good test taking skills does NOT equal actual knowledge. Take a franizpanics test, for instance, and you can easily see the skills are not necessarily correlated.

---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------

Franzipanics test: http://quizilla.teennick.com/quizzes/6672767/test-of-franzipanics-the-strangest-quiz-youll-ever-take

Multiple Intelligences: http://literacyworks.org/mi/assessment/findyourstrengths.html
(I couldn't find the one I took a few weeks ago, but this should suffice)

I'm hitting two notes here--one, reinforcing that test taking skills and strategies are different than core knowledge or the skill sets acquired in the content area.

The second, being that people are more adept to learning in certain forms than others. I have high oral, and interpersonal intelligences, but am severely lacking in some of the others. Therefore, I (conveniently) learn fairly well in lecture and in discussion settings. Not everyone is like me; some people need visuals. Some people need physical interaction with what they are learning.

The idea that students are workhorses that, if pushed hard enough and have the stoic appreciation of reading and regurgitation, will succeed is absurd, and antiquated for a reason.

 

[fade]

Group work is one of those things that makes fine logical sense. It doesn't take much effort to see that group work and class participation are good things.

BUT.

In reality, I have had no luck with either. The students simply don't want to do them. They find them tacky or cheesy. They don't pay attention. They don't interact during participation time. The groups chat rather than attend. They'd rather have the lecture because it requires minimal effort from them in the moment, even if they understand logically that the result will be less desirable.

A compromise that I've found in my teaching (and if I can pat myself on the back, I'm a pretty damn good teacher) is to alter my lectures so that I teach the why rather than the what. I have seen more lightbulbs turn on this way. If for instance, you explain a derivative, give the definition, and then move to problems, the student learns it exactly like that. An unaffixed definition with no real meaning. It's a nebulous set of rules. On the other hand if you take the time to put it in a historical perspective, and show the usefulness of a derivative in addition to the rules, you get a huge return.

 

[ElJuski]

Well obviously different teachers have different teaching styles. Also, different classes will be receptive to different techniques. I can't blame you for not doing the one exact thing that I enjoy doing myself. If your practice works best for you, and you have your student's best interests in mind, and they score highly in your class, then you are a great teacher, and you're doing what is right.

So far, community work in the classroom has been beyond helpful for me.

---------- Post added at 06:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 PM ----------

That came off kind of snarky, anyways. What I mean to say, is, that's just my philosophy. Obviously you come off competent and know what you're doing.

Also, you're a geologist, right? A much different content area than English (unless I'm wrong, in which case, if it works, it works!)