Standerdized Testing - TravelPUNK Backpacker College Student Budget Travel Message Boards!

**juliagulia** · 05-25-2005, 03:15 PM

So, I just took the HSAs (Maryland High School Assessments) today and some people in school were having a debate on whether or not assessments like these (and the ones we had to take in like....3rd/5th grade) are really necessarry.

Some people were saying things like the government had to know how smart kids really are and have to figure out why SAT scores are the staying the same but more and more high school graduates leave with 4.0s. Then other people were saying that kids won't work all of the school year, but when it comes to the final tests, theyll pass, so theyre allowed to pass the grade (like my sister who used to live in NC, she got Ds all through 8th grade, but she got As on her tests, so the were requiered to pass her).

So, since fellow TPunkers have so many opinions, i was wondering how you guys felt about this?

Should standerdized testing stay, or is it bad?

**bluepea** · 05-25-2005, 03:37 PM

If however many years of schooling (I never had to take these so I'm not sure how they go) can be summarized into one test, what the hell is the point of making students go to high school for four years? If it's an accurate depiction, let them take the test their frosh year and if they pass, well they are saved from wasting four years of their life.

**space virgin** · 05-25-2005, 03:38 PM

I don't know about other states, but here in Washington the WASL is pretty much reviled. The problem isn't the test itself, it's that the student isn't graded on whether or not the they get the answer "right"-- they grade a big percentage on HOW they got to the answer, and if the method isn't in their realm of acceptability, the student will get a lower score. In essence, it seems to be emphasizing standardized THINKING instead of knowledge.

Fortunately, I graduated before it was implemented.

**omisan** · 05-25-2005, 03:43 PM

Like everything else, I think standardized testing has its merits and its drawbacks. I won't go into the whole litany of them, but I think it suffices to say that what's important is how the results are used.

I'd say that solely relying on the results of testing or solely relying on past records of merit for admissions/employment/promotion/etc. is just bad decision-making. But using a combination of factors helps round out the process.

You illustrate the case of good students who don't do well on the exams... and yeah, standardized testing can be a pitfall there. But I also look at it in terms of finding an edge for people. If I'm an admissions official and am looking at two students with a 4.0 grade point average and a stellar record, I'm then going to put more weight into their test scores.

Same thing goes as a manager at work - I could get a couple of impeccable resumes, but if I had to decide between them, I'd have to see who performed better in some form of testing/certification/etc. (at least, for technical positions) to see which of the two edges the other out. You can say that it's unfair because some people don't do well on exams, etc., but when it comes to professional decisions, I want somebody who can handle a little bit of pressure within a strict timeline.

"What about people who simply do better because they took a course that specifically helps them with the test...?" Well then, obviously they're resourceful enough to gear up properly when faced with an obstacle. No, they may not be more learned just because they can ace a standardized test, but it shows me that they're more on the ball in terms of how to get past things... and to me that's pretty important.

At least you guys have new SATs now that take into account writing, etc. The old SATs were pretty limited in scope and considered "culturally biased" by many. (Simply because words like "lobster::expensive" would come up in the analogies in the English section, and some poor kids didn't know what a lobster was.) But what's more worrisome to me than any inherent cultural bias in testing is the fact that test results are constantly misused as indicators of the success and effectiveness of the educational system, dictating future budgets and resources. That, to me, is a pile of crap.

**LiveFreeorDie** · 05-25-2005, 05:49 PM

Great post Omi. I'd say you wrapped it up nicely.

Arthur · 05-25-2005, 05:59 PM

omisan said it all

**omisan** · 05-25-2005, 06:39 PM

Thanks, guys..

BTW - Julia, -2 points - it's spelled "standArdized."

(Or "standardised" for you anglophiles...)

**LostFarmboy** · 05-25-2005, 09:26 PM

right on omi, about the tests that is. And the spelling, i learnt a new word - anglophile - someone who isn't english but likes all things english, even the way the english spell words, like standardised.

Ah forced learning, i have to whip out the dictionary to understand posts. TP - a learning resource

**voyd** · 05-26-2005, 09:01 AM

Yes, every field uses standardized testing to HELP level the playing field and equally gauge performance and ability.

NFL uses combine testing to measure raw athletic ability, for instance.

And part of the test (as Omi said) is also your ability to perform under pressure - which is crucial in the real world, too. So, that definitely should count!

Most people with high grades also scored high on standardized testing, anyways. At least myself and everyone I knew.

The applicability of the test depends on how well it's written - but I think most are fairly decent and a helluva lot better than nothing at all! Seriously folks, I don't want underqualified engineers and doctors out there when peoples' lives are depending upon them. And America can NOT afford any more dumbing down when global competition keeps rising as well as our outsourcing! We're just gonna get creamed if we get any stupider!

People just don't realize how crucial smart people are to society - and instead ridicule them as nerds! As the world keeps evolving technologically around us though, dumb people are doomed to become extinct like dinosaurs to the smaller, furry mammals!

**bluepea** · 05-26-2005, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Seriously folks, I don't want underqualified engineers and doctors out there when peoples' lives are depending upon them.

Yes, but it is only high school afterall. You still have to have good grades and score well on the SATs/ACTs to get into college, and for a good college, had to have applied yourself with extra curricular activities. Then go on to whatever graduate level you'll need.

I don't agree with dumbing down edcuation by any means, but I think that the tests do just that. Stories of teachers revolving the education around what will be on the test instead of rounding out what students are learning... stories of "dumb" students not having to take the test to keep the school/states average up... BS like that.

Not every student intends on going to college. Some join the military where the ASVAP (hmmm... is that right?) is what gets weighed. Some plan on working blue collar jobs for their lives. What employer is going to care what a factory employee scored on their high school test - just as long as you can keep packin those milk crates. Even as (unedcuated [ie nothing further than HS]) people advance in their careers, how they can do the job is whats important and whether or not they have the skills for advancement. Will someone really reflect on their 27 year old employees high school test? I know people who practically dropped out of HS that are managers at factories. Not real prestigious, but they did manage to move up.

I just don't understand it all I guess. I think tests such as ACT/SATs and their counterparts do a well enough job in giving people that extra "oomph" when it comes to admissions and assigning a number to someones intellect. If people really care about advancing themselves, they will.

Also, we need dumb people

- actually only half joke. There still needs to be people in the world to do the menial jobs no one else wants to - fast food, shelf stocking, factory work, meat plants, labor, etc (note: I'm not saying that only dumb people work these jobs. I'm just saying that they are typically reserved for people with little-no education). If everyone is forced into some level of education, the standards for more professional jobs will continue to rise, making further education that isn't to the extreme unnecessary except for your own benefit.

**TimmyJames1976** · 05-26-2005, 10:07 AM

well, i was just checking on omisan's bar recommendations on a seperate thread and i saw this and hate to put in a quick reply.

i used to work for a company that grades these things....specifically the ones administered by states to the public schools...like the ones talked about here. just to settle the record....they are rigged. it may matter what you get for college and whatnot, but the are %100 rigged. the different school districts will not use a company if that company does not provide the specific curve that the schol district is looking for. in rder for this to happen, the grading company, by order of the schhol district, will alter the way that the open ended questions are graded part way thorugh the grading process. example: if a 0, 1, or 2 is the score for a hand written answer...the first %30 of tests graded may be graded on the concept that "if the student answers blah blah blah they get a 1, but if its only blah they get a 0." If by that point in the grading the school feels that the scores "do not acurtaly show the students smarts they then say, 2ok, if they say blah blah blah, or blah, they get a 1. Only give a 0 if they say Yadda Yadda." When this is dont the previously graded tests are not rescored. You may get a 0 on a question your friend answered identically and received a 1. This happenes more times them not. The whole set up is a farce. It is schools trying to get government funding, not about the actual education being provided. This is not speculation, this is first hand information.

**voyd** · 05-26-2005, 10:17 AM

^^ Just like in various interscholastic sports divisions, some high schools are more competitive than others. So, a bottom-quarter student at a top school could be "smarter" than a valedictorian at a lousy school. Now, if you want to find the most qualified kids in the COUNTRY (not just each variable school), you HAVE to use some form of standardized measurement. That's the purpose of it.

Now, how well they achieve that could be debateable, but I do agree with their purpose.

And I agree that a garbageman's job is vital to society, even if it doesn't require a degree. However, to remain a superpower and be able to afford garbagemen - we MUST maintain a technological edge. This is absolutely crucial both militarily and economically!

Timmy - That is a VERY serious allegation - but one I would NOT doubt. I SUSPECTED that is why they recently decided to change the SATs and make a lot of it ESSAY QUESTIONS. Just so they COULD subjectively fudge the grading - for various political purposes!

**bluepea** · 05-26-2005, 10:19 AM

Oh, I 100% agree Voyd. I just don't think that standarized testing is the only way to go about it.

**bellelass** · 05-26-2005, 11:26 AM

Quote:

You can say that it's unfair because some people don't do well on exams, etc., but when it comes to professional decisions, I want somebody who can handle a little bit of pressure within a strict timeline.

Exactly.. I used to get so irritated at those whinging kids in my class who assured us they got B's rather than A's cause they cant handle pressure... Well if you cant handle pressure what sort of job do you think you'll get?

Quote:

Simply because words like \"lobster::expensive\" would come up in the analogies in the English section, and some poor kids didn't know what a lobster was.

Although I must point out that if a kid doesnt know a word like "lobster" when they're taking the SAT's they deserve the score they get... Just being a bit of the devil's advocate here.

As for steady SAT scores and rising 4.0's...
I went to a large, affluent high school and graduated in a class of 969. I was ranked in the 16%. That's all well and fine, except for the top 10% rule here in texas makes it near impossible to get into a leading texas uni without being in the top 10% of your class. My gpa wasnt weighted, so if I worked and made an A in an AP class, it was for the same credit someone of similar intelligence got for doing nothing and making an A in a level class. So I made a few B's at the cost of my GPA, but I learned more. These jerk offs were automatically accepted to college while I had to wring my hands and accost the postman daily.
Then when I get to university its even worse. I am all for the advancement of minorities and under-priviliged people. Hell, I myself grew up as poor as they come. But I get to school and there are kids from inner-city houston who were indeed in the top ten percent at their school, but are hardly college-ready. I really feel for these kids, cause they get in and then many of them wash out in the first year or so because they just cant hack it.
Alright, sorry for the bitching-fest, but its really a problem here. And in my high school, if you just barely missed an A you conned the teacher into giving it to you anyway... You plead your perfect 4.0 and they would cave. If that didnt work, you'd get your parents involved and around here most parents (not mine) are more interested in appearances than reality. I was never involved in such treachery but I saw it happen far too often. The education system is so broken.

**space virgin** · 05-26-2005, 11:51 AM

I absolutely agree that testing is necessary and some form of "standardized" testing even more so. I still believe, however, that (at least in WA state's case) tests shouldn't punish students who think differently than the "norm". For example: If you take the WASL and get 95 out of 100 questions (or however many) correct, *but* your method of achieving those answers isn't the acceptable "standard", you'll get a lower score than someone who answers, say, 88 out of 100 correctly but whose thought process more closely resembled what they're looking for. (Obviously this tends to be more of an issue in mathematics and science.) Does that make sense? What I'm saying is that basically it just reminds me of hive mentality, and please note that I'm *ONLY* talking about the WASL test here, I do not know shite about any other states' standardized tests.

On the other hand maybe I'm a little sensitive to this because I was one of the kids that frequently got the "correct" answer in a different manner than others.

And Steph: Yeah, you're right about those damn AP / Honors classes. I took several and they didn't count for SHIT on my GPA, otherwise I should have graduated with close to a 4.0.

I say \"close to\" a 4.0 because I was far too lazy in high school to actually work that hard, haha. Ah well, at least I still got accepted into several good schools-- that's all that matters, right??

**voyd** · 05-26-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bellelass@May 26 2005, 12:25 PM
Hell, I myself grew up as poor as they come.* But I get to school and there are kids from inner-city houston who were indeed in the top ten percent at their school, but are hardly college-ready.

Ha, it was the same way nearly 10 years ago when I went to college. My guidance counselor flat-out told me, "Asians are not eligible for minority enrollment because your test scores are too high."

So, the smallest minority in the US (<4% population) is NOT considered a "minority" in undergrad admissions affirmative action? And not because we DON'T face discrimination, but because we have been forced to work harder to surmount it? Wow, nice circular logic there morons! That was when I started realizing there was something very racist and illogical with our political system...

BTW, our family was one of the most frugal at our school, which had many richer Whites, Blacks, Latinos, etc. Still, I managed to always test in the top 1% on all standardized testing. Well, what choice did I have? My last name wasn't "Washington" or "Mendoza," and I didn't have an alumni parent either. And I did notice many of them with lesser scores getting into more prestigious colleges, and at my college as well (not saying many weren't FULLY-qualified, either).
This is just my personal opinion from my POV though - and I'm sure many might disagree here with me. B)

**TimmyJames1976** · 05-26-2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by voyd@May 26 2005, 10:16 AM

Timmy - That is a VERY serious allegation - but one I would NOT doubt.* I SUSPECTED that is why they recently decided to change the SATs and make a lot of it ESSAY QUESTIONS.* Just so they COULD subjectively fudge the grading - for various political purposes!

Sadly it is not an allegation at all. It is completly turthful from the horses mouth honest to God fact. It was the most ridiculous thing I ever saw happen. It was not even just one state. To add to the craziess of it all, it was a state very highly regarded in the public education system. SAT's are a test that I do not know the grading procedure, but I would't doubt a shady system either. The fact it that unfortunatly today eduction is a business and like any other business it bend or breaks rules for the bottom line. And boy oh boy do I have a whole tangent about the way advertising is used on children. I cannot remeber the name, but the marketers actual call advertising towards youth something different then advertising towards adults (because their synapses are not completly formed yet an dthey can be brain washed easier. I saw evidence of this on tests too.

Side note: SOHO rules even though I never found teh French House