Standardized Tests

[FromTheSouth]

The first Lincoln Douglas Debate topic for the new high school year is out, and I thought I'd bring it in here.

Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.

I disagree with the topic. I feel that standardized tests are a necessary evil in high school.

1. The ensure that students are equipped with basic knowledge and analytical skills. These tests test on very basic knowledge. I imagine a majority of the posters on this forum, and especially in this section, are a bit smarter than the average student. I also assume that most of us found these tests easy. I didn't miss a single question and got a perfect 4 on the essay. But I was going for more than a basic education. I wanted to advance past high school and college and make quite a bit of money. For some students, high school is their last education, and ensuring that they can basically understand, analyze, and use information provided to make a proper decision is crucial for society as a whole. Presenting that knowledge on a standardized test ensures that the minimum requirements are met by everyone.

2. People will claim that teachers have to teach to the test instead of teaching the students. Well, let's assume for a second that the information on the test forms the basis of understanding. I know that our standardized tests consisted of vocabulary, reading comprehension, and basic math. In a productive society, it is the duty of the education system to ensure the people are capable in these matters. Everyone, at some point, has to write a report on something, and ensuring that they know proper sentence structure and punctuation is a good thing. Look at the posts on this forum. I red rep "lulz, cuz good Czena is, man more than I red rep content. That juvenile nonsense doesn't serve anything, and drags down the forums. What do you think it does to a workplace? Basic communication is necessary, and if teachers are only teaching it because it's on a test, then the test does it's job. Kids that understand how to form a sentence are still reading 10-12 books a year in high school, and getting exposed to culture and literature. I know that my AP classes spent literally no time preparing for these tests, as we were expected to know the information. If remedial classes are "being taught to the test", ummm, good. They probably need it.

A productive society requires basic information. Everyone should have a basic set of language and math skills. Seriously, college students in restaurants sometimes can't calculate change, adults can't write a complete paragraph, and it disgusts me. These tests ensure that they are being taught these skills, and that makes society more productive.

 

[Ty Burna]

The first Lincoln Douglas Debate topic for the new high school year is out, and I thought I'd bring it in here.

Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.

I disagree with the topic. I feel that standardized tests are a necessary evil in high school.

1. The ensure that students are equipped with basic knowledge and analytical skills. These tests test on very basic knowledge. I imagine a majority of the posters on this forum, and especially in this section, are a bit smarter than the average student. I also assume that most of us found these tests easy. I didn't miss a single question and got a perfect 4 on the essay. But I was going for more than a basic education. I wanted to advance past high school and college and make quite a bit of money. For some students, high school is their last education, and ensuring that they can basically understand, analyze, and use information provided to make a proper decision is crucial for society as a whole. Presenting that knowledge on a standardized test ensures that the minimum requirements are met by everyone.

2. People will claim that teachers have to teach to the test instead of teaching the students. Well, let's assume for a second that the information on the test forms the basis of understanding. I know that our standardized tests consisted of vocabulary, reading comprehension, and basic math. In a productive society, it is the duty of the education system to ensure the people are capable in these matters. Everyone, at some point, has to write a report on something, and ensuring that they know proper sentence structure and punctuation is a good thing. Look at the posts on this forum. I red rep "lulz, cuz good Czena is, man more than I red rep content. That juvenile nonsense doesn't serve anything, and drags down the forums. What do you think it does to a workplace? Basic communication is necessary, and if teachers are only teaching it because it's on a test, then the test does it's job. Kids that understand how to form a sentence are still reading 10-12 books a year in high school, and getting exposed to culture and literature. I know that my AP classes spent literally no time preparing for these tests, as we were expected to know the information. If remedial classes are "being taught to the test", ummm, good. They probably need it.

A productive society requires basic information. Everyone should have a basic set of language and math skills. Seriously, college students in restaurants sometimes can't calculate change, adults can't write a complete paragraph, and it disgusts me. These tests ensure that they are being taught these skills, and that makes society more productive.

I have to agree with you FTS, but you see I don't remember ever taking standardized testing in high school other than CTBS esque bullshit for high school students. I didn't have to take an exit exam in order to graduate high school, hell I graduated as an honor student. But honestly I believe it is a necessary evil, make sure that the student is at least getting the basics down before leaving school. We should at the very least be able to write properly and also perform the most basic math skills.

But why, in this day and age are we having students leaving school that don't have these basic skills? In the early 1900's and 1800's it was understandable for people not to have those skills because many had to quit school in order to work on the family farm or other manual labor job in order to help provide for them. But you see we don't live like that anymore and every child is required to go through the schooling system at least until they are 16 if they wish to make the mistake of quitting. You could say that we as a society have gotten lazy, and don't take education as seriously as we should be. Obviously most of us here understand the importance of education and what avenues it can provide you, but I know personally a startling amount of people that either quit school all together, others who just got their GED, and those that just generally never gave a fuck about school.

I don't understand why people would either struggle with school or would rather quit and not accomplish a damn thing. Honestly, not to be bragging or anything, but most people consider me a very intelligent person, and I didn't really put much effort into school and was generally a mostly A's student. Taking a little time to pay attention in class can at least give you the basic and some intermediate skills in order to succeed in life after school. Oh and as far as those people that quit school, a few don't have jobs and don't have a single ounce of work ethic in them, others may have a job but they never took the time to develop their intelligence and knowledge to ever be able to do anything worthwhile. Meanwhile I am in college and already working a close to $40,000 a year job, just because when it came to my occupation I took the time to learn and educate myself more about computers and networking.

I'm getting away from the topic here, but the way I see it a standardized test should be necessary in order to graduate high school. And honestly, if you have issues with such standardized tests like that, maybe you want to consider what you actually did in school and what you want to do with your life. Even simple manual labor jobs require math skills and other basics that you would learn in high school. Standardized testing at least helps us weed out those that still need further help with the basics, instead of letting them run loose without the abilities to do anything serviceable in society.

And one more point to make here, I believe that people should have to stay in school until they are 18 years old or until they graduate, whichever comes first. If you allow a person at the age of 16 to be able to make the decision to quit school, they are allowing that person to never get anywhere in life. GED's are supposed to be the same as high school diploma's, but are they really? If you were looking at two resumes for a job, one had a GED, other had a high school diploma, what would you choose? The high school diploma of course, because that would prove to me that person can see things through to the end, unlike the applicant with the GED who would show me they took the shortcut out. So I propose that standardized testing is a necessary evil and that people should be required to stay in school, no quitting.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yes, absolutely. Not only have we robbed the majority of students of half the monetary funds they used to have availabe, doubled their class sizes, pushed them into an instant gratification society, and given them all the reasons in the world to shorten their attention span in half, we should also require them to pass a test devised by people who have absolutely nothing to do with education, in which 3/4th of the test will have zero application in that student's life.

Wait, on second thought, that doesn't sound good. Education in the United States is so fundamentally flawed it's ridiculous, from top to bottom. No Child Left Behind demands completely unreasonable standards, while not providing any more money to accomplish those standards. Those with learning disabilities, as well as mental and physical handicapped students, are being mainstreamed into classrooms more and more, require extra attention from teachers, and taking money from students who don't have learning disabilities. Teachers are paid poorly, and are expected to do more than teachers were ever intended to do. Class sizes grow larger every, as school are forced to mainstream more students, with less money to spend on teachers and classrooms. And books? Forget about it. When you get to some of the more poor districts, having new textbooks is just laughable.

Oh, but that's not all. Thanks to technology, and parents' inability to teach self-control, kids these days, more than ever, have very little attention span, feel the need to be entertained all the time, and have this sense of entitlement that says if they are not being entertained, then they have the right to entertain themselves.


And, with all of that going on, circumstances that these children have ZERO control over, while the adults have made their lives and education so, now we're going to give people who AREN'T involved in the educational process the ability to create tests to determine whether or not these students will be allowed to finish school? It's absurd. I've constantly maintained that if the lawmakers in this country were asked to take the standardized tests they require of today's students...and were graded as strictly as today's students, they would fare no better than the average public high school.

So, in short (after a long post), no, it would be absurd to force graduation requirement based upon the performance of one test.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Yes, absolutely. Not only have we robbed the majority of students of half the monetary funds they used to have availabe, doubled their class sizes, pushed them into an instant gratification society, and given them all the reasons in the world to shorten their attention span in half, we should also require them to pass a test devised by people who have absolutely nothing to do with education, in which 3/4th of the test will have zero application in that student's life.

Wait, on second thought, that doesn't sound good. Education in the United States is so fundamentally flawed it's ridiculous, from top to bottom. No Child Left Behind demands completely unreasonable standards, while not providing any more money to accomplish those standards. Those with learning disabilities, as well as mental and physical handicapped students, are being mainstreamed into classrooms more and more, require extra attention from teachers, and taking money from students who don't have learning disabilities. Teachers are paid poorly, and are expected to do more than teachers were ever intended to do. Class sizes grow larger every, as school are forced to mainstream more students, with less money to spend on teachers and classrooms. And books? Forget about it. When you get to some of the more poor districts, having new textbooks is just laughable.

Oh, but that's not all. Thanks to technology, and parents' inability to teach self-control, kids these days, more than ever, have very little attention span, feel the need to be entertained all the time, and have this sense of entitlement that says if they are not being entertained, then they have the right to entertain themselves.


And, with all of that going on, circumstances that these children have ZERO control over, while the adults have made their lives and education so, now we're going to give people who AREN'T involved in the educational process the ability to create tests to determine whether or not these students will be allowed to finish school? It's absurd. I've constantly maintained that if the lawmakers in this country were asked to take the standardized tests they require of today's students...and were graded as strictly as today's students, they would fare no better than the average public high school.

So, in short (after a long post), no, it would be absurd to force graduation requirement based upon the performance of one test.

I expected better from you.

The test I took graded me on reading comprehension, simple analogies, basic math, and the ability to write properly structured sentences. Which of these skills aren't used on a daily basis by....well....everyone?

The kids who didn't pass were allowed to take the test up to five more times, and they were put into classes to help them specifically with what they needed to learn. The tests located deficiencies and those students were given isolated education to bring them up to speed.

I don't know what standardized tests are given where you are, but in Texas, these tests are very basic. As a matter of fact, I think students should be given an exit exam on basic computer skills as well.

Now, the problems you mention with the education system have nothing to do with testing. These problems exist because governments constantly cut education and underpay teachers in order to fund pointless entitlement after pointless entitlement. This is on both sides of the aisle, and every administration and congress is guilty. Millions of dollars are given to schools for new textbooks and computers, but no one is paid to competently use and instruct these gifts. Extra classrooms are built and left empty because no one wants to be a teacher. Is this because of standardized testing or politicians seeking the limelight to tell everyone what they have given schools? I would say the latter, and I would also say that the usage of "latter" should be tested on every student.

 

[Slyfox696]

I expected better from you.

The test I took graded me on reading comprehension, simple analogies, basic math, and the ability to write properly structured sentences. Which of these skills aren't used on a daily basis by....well....everyone?

The kids who didn't pass were allowed to take the test up to five more times, and they were put into classes to help them specifically with what they needed to learn. The tests located deficiencies and those students were given isolated education to bring them up to speed.

I don't know what standardized tests are given where you are, but in Texas, these tests are very basic. As a matter of fact, I think students should be given an exit exam on basic computer skills as well.

You make it sound as if your exit exams were given to third graders. If that's the case, then do the fuck away with them, because it's a waste of education monies.

But, I'm guessing the tests were no where near as easy as you make them sound, which puts me right back at my original point. Let's say I'm a chef...do I need to be able to do analogies, have proper writing structure and grammar, and to be able to know the various facts about science and history (which I'm sure almost all exit exams require science knowledge)? Do those areas REALLY apply to me?

Or, if I plan on becoming a physical education teacher, is it really necessary to know the order of the nine planets in our solar system? Is it necessary to be able to do the square root of 169 in my head? Of course not. But, like you said, those are basic skills and knowledge that 7th graders get...but I can't graduate and go on with my career that has nothing to do with that type of information unless I pass an exam over it.

It's silly. It's just another way for lawmakers who have ZERO idea of what teaching in a school is really like to look into the cameras and say they are trying to make a difference in children's lives. It's a joke. If a school wishes to create an exit exam policy, then I don't have a problem with that. Each individual school district should be tuned into the socio-economic status of the community, and is more likely to provide a better education to its students than a bunch of suits who know nothing about education. Furthermore, if it was the school's decision to give an exam, then the students/parents know that going in, and if they wish to change schools they can. But, I am fervently against allowing those with no knowledge of education determining the educational process.

Now, the problems you mention with the education system have nothing to do with testing.

They most certainly do. Adults in this country have put children, their own and others, at such an incredible handicap it's unreal. While schools have always had problems, the problems in today's schools (speaking mostly of public schools) are as bad as ever. And those problems affect learning and the educational process. Kids aren't the ones who made those problems, the adults are. And to punish those kids by saying "Well, we fucked you over, but if you don't pass this test created by people hundreds of miles away that don't know education, and are graded by people who don't care about you, we'll fuck you over again" just doesn't seem right to me.

These problems exist because governments constantly cut education and underpay teachers in order to fund pointless entitlement after pointless entitlement.

These problems also exist because parents have gone from accepting a teacher's position of authority to openly telling their kids to defy the teacher. These problems exist because technology has advanced to the level it has. These problems exist because the ability to acquire mind and behavior altering drugs has become so easy to get.

Sure, government funding and micromanaging has made it very difficult to provide education, but so has the rest of society, from parents to tech geeks to people who SHOULD be protecting members of society.

This is on both sides of the aisle, and every administration and congress is guilty.

More so with the Republican Party than the Democratic party. Obviously, economics play a part, but in general, you will see the Democrats favor public education more than Republicans. But, as far as spending needed money on pointless projects to satisfy their financial backers, I will agree that blame falls on both sides.

Millions of dollars are given to schools for new textbooks and computers, but no one is paid to competently use and instruct these gifts.

This is a popular myth. I can't speak on other states, only Missouri, but I imagine the situations will be similar in other states.

Money IS provided to schools, but only on certain conditions. And if you can't meet those conditions, then you don't get that money. For example, let's say the state is willing to give $10,000 for computer technology to the school. Sounds great right? Wrong. Because they will ONLY give you that $10,000 if you spend it for students with a mental handicap. That $10,000 CAN'T be spent on the general public.

And, that's only an example, but it demonstrates my point. Money that is given to schools is never just GIVEN to schools. And so money that is actually NEEDED in certain areas will never show up, because lawmakers in the state, who have don't have the first clue as to how education works, feel they know how schools should spend money better than the actual school system does.

Is this because of standardized testing or politicians seeking the limelight to tell everyone what they have given schools? I would say the latter, and I would also say that the usage of "latter" should be tested on every student.

It's because people who don't have knowledge of what they are doing, are the ones who are the ones making the decisions.

To give another example: It would be like telling Vince McMahon he can no longer make decisions about what his on-screen wrestling product will be, and instead, those decisions will be made by 7 members of the local VFW Hall. It's asinine.


The idea of standardized tests are admirable, even if the intent is self-serving. The problem is that these standardized tests are NEVER going to be a fair and objective display of what kids in a certain area need to know. Kids in 2000 student inner city St. Louis high school require a different education than the 70 student rural farming community school. But, since St. Louis and Kansas City hold the wealth and power, what do you think you are going to see on those tests?

Like I said, the idea is admirable, but completely unable to be implemented fairly. And let's not even begin to get into the area of how these tests are graded. Wait, on second thought, let's do. When I was in school, we had (and still have) state issued tests, which are graded by people who have no affiliation with a school district...basically they hire people who don't give a damn. When I was in high school, our teacher told us about an incident that happened on the grading of one of these tests, a math test. The student taking the test was given a math problem; he/she showed all of their work properly, followed every step perfectly, and came up with the correct answer. The problem? When he/she was showing his work while getting to the final answer, the student didn't put his decimal point in the work. Now, I'm not talking about the final answer, he had his decimal point in the final answer. But, he didn't have it in the actual WORKING of the problem. The grader took ALL of the points away from that student. How the fuck is that fair? How is THAT measuring what the student knows and can do? So, if this was the problem: 38.7 + 93.4 +78.8, the student did this

387
934
___
1321
0788
___
210.9 <- Final answer


And, even though the process is right, and the final answer is right, the student lost ALL credit on the question. And this is how we're going to determine who is ready for life?

I have no use for state issued tests in any form, and certainly not when you have people who don't care and don't know being the ones who determine the future of people they will never meet.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Much better. This is what I was waiting for.

You make it sound as if your exit exams were given to third graders. If that's the case, then do the fuck away with them, because it's a waste of education monies.

The test were provided to ensure that students left high school with basic verbal and math skills. In all honesty, what is wrong with make sure that adults in a society can communicate and make proper change? Is understanding what one reads a bad thing? Is being able to calculate how long a car trip takes a problem? Furthermore, the test scores show schools and school districts what areas students are deficient in, and allows for adjustments in curriculum to better prepare the next crop of students. Education is an ever evolving art, and I can't think of another way to standardize methods to give all kids a fair shot.

But, I'm guessing the tests were no where near as easy as you make them sound, which puts me right back at my original point. Let's say I'm a chef...do I need to be able to do analogies, have proper writing structure and grammar,

Yes, you do. You need to effectively communicate with coworkers, the cable company, and the lady at the driver's license office. I'm sure like basic measurement conversion would help a chef. Just because you don't want an advanced degree in astrophysics doesn't mean that school is waste. Why would you say that a standard set of skills isn't necessary to a member of society? What is the point of schools if not to teach these skills?

and to be able to know the various facts about science and history (which I'm sure almost all exit exams require science knowledge)?

Not the ones I took. Reading comprehension, grammar, writing, and basic math. Who doesn't need these skills?

Do those areas REALLY apply to me?

Yes, actually they do. A basic knowledge that America declared her independence in 1776, where Iran is on a map, and what gravity is are basic items that every American child should know. I don't understand why you are against this. If kids don't need to know this, why even have schools? Standardized tests reflect as much on teachers as they do students.

This is what people sound like without these basic skills.

[youtube]lj3iNxZ8Dww[/youtube]

At the very least, standardized tests try to limit moments like this from happening.

Or, if I plan on becoming a physical education teacher, is it really necessary to know the order of the nine planets in our solar system? Is it necessary to be able to do the square root of 169 in my head? Of course not. But, like you said, those are basic skills and knowledge that 7th graders get...but I can't graduate and go on with my career that has nothing to do with that type of information unless I pass an exam over it.

I'm sorry, what career did you start at 17? You should be able to recall simple information such as this, even if you are a PE teacher. And, at the very least a standardized test would have let your school district know that teachers need to teach that there are eight planets in the solar system. Once again, why even have schools if this basic knowledge isn't necessary. All of the skills I have mentioned should be taught in school anyway, so why not test and ensure that the teachers are effectively teaching basic skills? Why not ensure that high school students are set out into the world with a basic knowledge that can enable them to reach for higher earnings and better jobs?

Or, should we adopt a Soviet education system, where students strengths and weaknesses are analyzed at an early age, and children are educated vocationally to fit into a certain social role with no chance to advance? This is the land of opportunity, and you seem to want to take that away.

It's silly. It's just another way for lawmakers who have ZERO idea of what teaching in a school is really like to look into the cameras and say they are trying to make a difference in children's lives.

Which is why funds are earmarked for state boards of education which are full of teachers, principals, and superintendents who have had daily contact with students for decades.

It's a joke. If a school wishes to create an exit exam policy, then I don't have a problem with that. Each individual school district should be tuned into the socio-economic status of the community, and is more likely to provide a better education to its students than a bunch of suits who know nothing about education.

These tests are produced by that same state board of education. But, I only have experience in Texas, so maybe Governor Bush did a pretty good job of tapping into the needs of the students.

Furthermore, if it was the school's decision to give an exam, then the students/parents know that going in, and if they wish to change schools they can. But, I am fervently against allowing those with no knowledge of education determining the educational process.

You have a misconception of the way these tests are administered.

They most certainly do. Adults in this country have put children, their own and others, at such an incredible handicap it's unreal. While schools have always had problems, the problems in today's schools (speaking mostly of public schools) are as bad as ever. And those problems affect learning and the educational process. Kids aren't the ones who made those problems, the adults are. And to punish those kids by saying "Well, we fucked you over, but if you don't pass this test created by people hundreds of miles away that don't know education, and are graded by people who don't care about you, we'll fuck you over again" just doesn't seem right to me.

1. State Board of Education, full of teachers. The same people who write textbooks write these tests. The people who write textbooks are teachers.

2. The tests ensure that no one is being fucked over, as they provide a definitive check on the teachers at that school.

3. The kids are given multiple chances to take the test, targeted tutorials to prepare for second and third chances, and any help they need. These are basic skills, and frankly, if a child can't understand basic communication, then he shouldn't be allowed to graduate. There is no guarantee that someone can graduate at 18, you have to pass classes and fulfill requirements.

These problems also exist because parents have gone from accepting a teacher's position of authority to openly telling their kids to defy the teacher. These problems exist because technology has advanced to the level it has. These problems exist because the ability to acquire mind and behavior altering drugs has become so easy to get.

Umm, thanks for the rant, but we're talking about standardized tests. I agree that parents these days are shit and drugs are too easy to get. Don't blame the TAAS test for that. I don't think the tests come in crates full of pot that is to be distributed to the children.

Sure, government funding and micromanaging has made it very difficult to provide education, but so has the rest of society, from parents to tech geeks to people who SHOULD be protecting members of society.

Great. The education system is not perfect, but these tests ensure that a baseline knowledge is getting to the kids. These tests seem to solve the problems that you see.

More so with the Republican Party than the Democratic party. Obviously, economics play a part, but in general, you will see the Democrats favor public education more than Republicans.

True, but Republicans favor giving everyone better access to the better education provided at private schools. Both sides, however, are bad on education. No one wants to propose longer school days and years, which is what we need, because it doesn't poll well.

But, as far as spending needed money on pointless projects to satisfy their financial backers, I will agree that blame falls on both sides.

Good. We're together on this.

This is a popular myth. I can't speak on other states, only Missouri, but I imagine the situations will be similar in other states.

Money IS provided to schools, but only on certain conditions. And if you can't meet those conditions, then you don't get that money. For example, let's say the state is willing to give $10,000 for computer technology to the school. Sounds great right? Wrong. Because they will ONLY give you that $10,000 if you spend it for students with a mental handicap. That $10,000 CAN'T be spent on the general public.

Certain grants are earmarked for certain projects, yes. It should be like that. There are schools that would take all the money they are given to but better shoulder pads for the football team if they were allowed. Each grant needs to have a certain purpose, and surprisingly enough, these purposes are determined by scores on standardized tests. And, if we look at the Clinton administration, we can note that he gave billions to get the internet into every school, but nothing on teachers to instruct students on how to effectively retrieve information. This is why we are stuck with a generation of kids who can't do anything beyond Youtube and Facebook.

I think every kid should have to pass a basic computer literacy test, both with office applications and internet usage in order to graduate.

And, that's only an example, but it demonstrates my point. Money that is given to schools is never just GIVEN to schools. And so money that is actually NEEDED in certain areas will never show up, because lawmakers in the state, who have don't have the first clue as to how education works, feel they know how schools should spend money better than the actual school system does.

State Board of Education, full of teachers. But let's move a bit further in depth. Who is to determine how to best spend the money? A principal who used to be an English teacher is biased, and a superintendent who works in an office is out of touch with the specific needs of every school. If a school shows a math deficiency in standardized test scores, then that money can be used to better teach math. I am more in favor of standardized tests now than I was before.

It's because people who don't have knowledge of what they are doing, are the ones who are the ones making the decisions.

I think you are badly misguided on how state boards of education work.

To give another example: It would be like telling Vince McMahon he can no longer make decisions about what his on-screen wrestling product will be, and instead, those decisions will be made by 7 members of the local VFW Hall. It's asinine.

The analogy is asinine. It would actually be like telling Vince McMahon that his word was not absolute law, and that there should be an inclusive process based on analysis of ratings breakdowns and buyrates to determine how to move forward.

The idea of standardized tests are admirable, even if the intent is self-serving. The problem is that these standardized tests are NEVER going to be a fair and objective display of what kids in a certain area need to know. Kids in 2000 student inner city St. Louis high school require a different education than the 70 student rural farming community school. But, since St. Louis and Kansas City hold the wealth and power, what do you think you are going to see on those tests?

Basic math and grammar, assessments of punctuation skills? This is what is on standardized tests.

Like I said, the idea is admirable, but completely unable to be implemented fairly. And let's not even begin to get into the area of how these tests are graded. Wait, on second thought, let's do. When I was in school, we had (and still have) state issued tests, which are graded by people who have no affiliation with a school district...basically they hire people who don't give a damn. When I was in high school, our teacher told us about an incident that happened on the grading of one of these tests, a math test. The student taking the test was given a math problem; he/she showed all of their work properly, followed every step perfectly, and came up with the correct answer. The problem? When he/she was showing his work while getting to the final answer, the student didn't put his decimal point in the work. Now, I'm not talking about the final answer, he had his decimal point in the final answer. But, he didn't have it in the actual WORKING of the problem. The grader took ALL of the points away from that student. How the fuck is that fair? How is THAT measuring what the student knows and can do? So, if this was the problem: 38.7 + 93.4 +78.8, the student did this

387
934
___
1321
0788
___
210.9 <- Final answer


And, even though the process is right, and the final answer is right, the student lost ALL credit on the question. And this is how we're going to determine who is ready for life?

OK, that's stupid, and the grader should be fired. Our tests were multiple choice, and the only subjective grading was on the essay. The graders for the essays were a series of English teachers who had stringent guidelines. This debate has put me more in favor of standardized tests and made me love the Texas education system.

I have no use for state issued tests in any form, and certainly not when you have people who don't care and don't know being the ones who determine the future of people they will never meet.

You have completely and totally missed the point of standardized tests. You have missed the methods and completely bastardized the entire process. These tests ensure that students have a basic knowledge that can get them through life. They provide a basis for analysis of the districts curriculum and the ability of teachers. I don't see the problems, and the ones you have mentioned are problems of the education system as a whole, and standardized tests seem to solve some of the problems.

 

[klunderbunker]

In theory, standardized tests are good ideas. Having the students know the same amount of material and cover the same subjects in public school gives people a balanced way to go into either college or the real world.

There's just one small problem: this will hardly ever work. There are SO many things that can stand in the way of this that it's simply not fair to hold everyone to the same level of requirement. It's unfair on every level to expect a school with less money, less teachers, more students and fewer resources to be able to stay on the same level or at the same pace as a school with more resources and money and fewer students.

Now, standardized tests should indeed exist, but not as a graduation requirement. There could be many other ways to determine graduating, primarily the grades that are given by the teachers that know what material was taught during the year and were there to see how well the students learned and absorbed such material. Why should everything have to be determined as a single standard when anything could happen to prevent that? Suppose something, perhaps weather, causes the schools to be closed for a few days and something on the test isn't covered. Should students be held back because they simply didn't have enough time to touch on everything? That's absurd on all levels.

The tests should exist, but they should reflect on how the school is doing, not the students. Perhaps use the test scores to affect funding or additional help being given. If a school does poorly, perhaps additional help, be it in more money, more materials, or updated equipment is needed. However, give the students incentive as well. When I was in middle school, that system was used where the scores determined the funding. However, there was no bearing on student's grades and no incentive to do well. Would you work hard on an exam if there was no incentive? I certainly wouldn't and most didn't. It was fine in theory, but if you're going to ask students to do additional work, give them a reason to do it other than funding for a school they won't be at the next year.

In conclusion, the tests are fine in theory, but in no way is this idea practical. There are far too many differences in each school, even ones in the same town. How can you expect a school with outdated books, overworked teachers and undereducated students to be on the same level as students with the best of everything? It's not a fair request to make.

To end this, think about this for a bit. In seventh grade I was in health class and our teacher called on one of the students that I knew to read. He was 12 years old and simply could not do it. The teacher moved on to continue what she was teaching and didn't mention anything about it. Now I can understand not wanting to call someone out in front of the rest of the class as it could be embarassing. However, apparently she never once said anything to him about it. She never asked if she could help him, she never tried to get him any help. She never mentioned it to anyone that I know of. When he asked her about it, he was told that there simply wasn't time for such additional help as she was on a tight schedule to get in everything for the KATS (standardized) tests at the end of the year. Apparently, knowing the material on the test was more important than being able to read the test itself.

 

[FromTheSouth]

KB, standardized tests only test the very basic of education. I don't see how school closing for a couple of days keeps one from knowing how to use a comma. I don't understand how a couple of snow days prevents a child from being able to read a passage and tell you if the clown bought a lollipop or a squirting flower.

And that is a heartwarming story about the 12 year old. Should be be allowed to graduate if he can't read? We live in a society now that tells everyone it's OK to fail. Well, it's not.

Furthermore, the grades teachers give are subjective. Teachers are often given raises based on how many of their kids pass their class. It is in the teachers best interest to pass as many of her students as she can. Standardized tests serve as nothing more than a check on the education system. They are the one objective measure of a child's literacy and math skills. The ensure that the child can function on a BASIC level. These tests don't ask about thematic allusion is Frankenstein in relation to 18th century transitive political thought. They ask if a child knows that driving three hours at forty miles an hour gets you 120 miles. If someone doesn't know this, should they be allowed to graduate? I say no. Teachers, whose paychecks depend on whether or not the kid graduates, would say yes. It's not OK to be clueless.

 

[klunderbunker]

What kind of high school did you go to? The standardized tests that I took were mainly essays, with another section of multiple choice questions that focused on math, science, social studies, english and humanities. These weren't basic concepts, but stuff you would need a full high school education to know. And sure a few days off could cause it to happen. If a few days are missed, is it fair to ask the students to be able to know the material they might not have had time to cover? Hardly.

No, he shouldn't be allowed to graduate. What he should be able to do is have someone teach him how to read. During his life, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that his being able to read basic english was more important than knowing how the endocrine system works.

They can be a check on the system, that's fine. But it's bullshit to determine if a student can pass high school based on one single exam rather than what they've done for those four years or even that single year. If the tests are multiple choice anyway, couldn't you guess and pass anyway if you had a lot of luck? That's not something you could do over the course of a year with a variety of different assignments and exams. You could potentially do it on an all multiple choice test though. think of it like this. How would you like it if you bought a video game and the whole game consisted of one scene and all you have to do is clear one jump, but it's really hard and you only get one try at it. If you get it, you win and you beat the game, plain and simple. Sound fun?

No it's not ok to be clueless. Since we agree on that, I'd say you would agree that someone that is clueless as to what is actually going on in a class shouldn't be allowed to make or grade a test that determines whether a student graduates or not.

 

[FromTheSouth]

What kind of high school did you go to? The standardized tests that I took were mainly essays, with another section of multiple choice questions that focused on math, science, social studies, english and humanities. These weren't basic concepts, but stuff you would need a full high school education to know. And sure a few days off could cause it to happen. If a few days are missed, is it fair to ask the students to be able to know the material they might not have had time to cover? Hardly.

I am talking about the state board tests. If your school, or even district required more of you, then that is fine with me. What we had to do was take a test in tenth grade, called TAAS (now called TEKS or TAKS). It consisted of very basic knowledge, that I could have passed in sixth grade.

Our school district was the first in the nation to require certain performance standards to pass, but these were for every class. There was a series of four to eight tests that were required of students and they were geared for the specific class. AP students were required to pass harder tests, and more of them, to pass the class. Remedial students were given less and easier tests.

This debate is supposed to be about standardized tests, which test basic knowledge and ensure that students go out into the world with basic communication and math skills. This isn't too much to ask. If a student can't write a sentence, then they don't deserve to graduate.

No, he shouldn't be allowed to graduate. What he should be able to do is have someone teach him how to read. During his life, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that his being able to read basic english was more important than knowing how the endocrine system works.

Totally agreed. And a standardized test would isolate the problem with child and the deficiency in the teachers he's had. Sounds like a winner.

They can be a check on the system, that's fine. But it's bullshit to determine if a student can pass high school based on one single exam rather than what they've done for those four years or even that single year. If the tests are multiple choice anyway, couldn't you guess and pass anyway if you had a lot of luck?

You have a 20-25% chance of guessing correctly on every question. Do you catch the open ended straight or flush on 70% of rivers? The answer is no.

That's not something you could do over the course of a year with a variety of different assignments and exams. You could potentially do it on an all multiple choice test though.

I could potentially fuck Megan Fox tonight because we have compatible genitals, but the odds are so slim that I won't even try. These tests are a culmination of several years and determine that a student in equipped with the most basic of skills to get along in the world. And, if you fail, you get to try again.

think of it like this. How would you like it if you bought a video game and the whole game consisted of one scene and all you have to do is clear one jump, but it's really hard and you only get one try at it. If you get it, you win and you beat the game, plain and simple. Sound fun?

1. Sounds ******ed, but then again, the test isn't the only determining factor in a graduation.

2. Sounds like you failed the analogies section.

3. Why are you equating a failing education system to video games. Instead of putting them on equal footing, I would rather blame one on the other.

4. If I get five chances to make the jump, I sure as hell would figure out how to do it.

5. If I fail the first time and get a specific tutorial on what I did wrong and how to fix it, I would eventually get it.

6. These tests don't test anything that is super hard, like this one jump, and if we want to make it analogous it would be more like killing one goomba to win the game.

\No it's not ok to be clueless. Since we agree on that, I'd say you would agree that someone that is clueless as to what is actually going on in a class shouldn't be allowed to make or grade a test that determines whether a student graduates or not.

I agree. That is why the standardized tests are written by teachers, graded on a scantron machine, and the subjective essay portion is graded under strict guidelines (determined by teachers) and by teachers. They don't pull grocery store bag boys out to grade essays.

 

[klunderbunker]

We had them all four years. They were used to determine our exemptions for finals and
had no bearing on graduation, and they shouldn't have. We did have a writing portfolio which was required to graduate, which was also unfair, but that's a different story for later.

Dude, HE COULDN'T READ. It doesn't take a freaking standardized test to determine that. Hold up a picture of a stop sign. "Can you read that?" No? Ok then you die as you cross a street. There, that's your standardized test. Instead of preparing for a test like that, the time could be taken to teach the kid how to read and prepare him for life i general, not to appease some fucking lawmaker.

As a fellow poker player, no you don't. However, you could and that's why you sweat the last card. Why not just decide the main event of the WSOP on one card? Just play high card for it and take out all planning and skill. let's just have it all come down to luck.

You get to try again? Even better treatment for the real world. "What's that Smith? You failed at balancing our budget and we're bankrupt? Don't worry about it. A simple chapter 11 and you can try again." Know a company that works like that? I'd LOVE to work there.

In response to your numbered points:

1. No it's not the only determining factor but that just makes it worse. Instead of learning and understanding the material you're presented with, you have even more stress put on you besides college, money, job and social life. People that make these tests don't have a clue what life is like for a high school student. To them it's easy as all you have to do is go to school. At least if a teacher that is teaching you on a daily basis makes the tests they have a hint of an idea of what the students are dealing with.

2. Had that in 3rd grade. In high school I had Humanities, which was more like arts. We didn't have time to get to it and I failed that one section because we had too many other things to cover. I got the highest score possible on everything else, but because I didn't know remember the order that art periods in the 1600s went in, I shouldn't have graduated. My 3.85 GPA, 1580 on the SAT and 35 on the ACT just wouldn't have been good enough to get me into college because I didn't graduate because of a standardized test that was written by someone that likely couldn't pass it themself.

3. Why not?

4. Why couldn't you pass it on the first jump?

5. A special tutorial....like maybe the one you should have gotten in the school year with an instructor like a teacher?

6. Not in Kentucky. We didn't have things that were basic. The concepts that we had were higher level questions and subjects.

Having them made by teachers are fine. However, they should be the teachers that teach in that school, the teachers that are with the students daily and know what is taught and what isn't. I have no issue with guidelines and a curriculum, but have it be made by the people that teach the material there, not people that teach it period.

 

[Slyfox696]

The test were provided to ensure that students left high school with basic verbal and math skills. In all honesty, what is wrong with make sure that adults in a society can communicate and make proper change? Is understanding what one reads a bad thing? Is being able to calculate how long a car trip takes a problem?

It's not a "bad thing"...but why must it be a "necessary" thing? What about those who are ESL students? Are we going to require them to show that they have basic verbal skills? Are we going to ruin the rest of their lives by denying them a diploma if they can't? Is that fair?

Furthermore, the test scores show schools and school districts what areas students are deficient in, and allows for adjustments in curriculum to better prepare the next crop of students. Education is an ever evolving art, and I can't think of another way to standardize methods to give all kids a fair shot.

No, what those test scores show is what areas kids didn't score well in. There's a difference between "deficient" and "didn't score well". Deficient indicates an inability...didn't score well says the test scores are low, the reasons of which could be many.

Yes, you do. You need to effectively communicate with coworkers, the cable company, and the lady at the driver's license office.

None of which include writing out a formal essay. So...at what point is proper writing skills a good indication of whether that future chef is ready for life?

I'm sure like basic measurement conversion would help a chef. Just because you don't want an advanced degree in astrophysics doesn't mean that school is waste. Why would you say that a standard set of skills isn't necessary to a member of society? What is the point of schools if not to teach these skills?

The point of schools is the socialization of the next generation. It's about preparing kids for the next step in their lives. Could those things come in handy? Sure. But to handicap a child for the rest of their life because they can't do something at the age of 18, which they may not ever do again for the rest of their existence? That hardly sounds fair.

Not the ones I took. Reading comprehension, grammar, writing, and basic math. Who doesn't need these skills?

Well, I don't know when you went through, but science and math, more than any other area, is what today's government focuses on. Communication arts is high priority, but science and math are top dogs. So, science is definitely very much a part of any state standardized tests these days.

Doing a quick Wikipedia search of the Texas state test, it looks like Science is administered on 5th, 8th, 10th, and exit level exams.

Yes, actually they do. A basic knowledge that America declared her independence in 1776, where Iran is on a map, and what gravity is are basic items that every American child should know.

You know, I graduated my high school 3rd in my class (only because I wasn't a cheater), and graduated college with a near 4.0 GPA. I am entering my third year as a teacher.

I've not ONCE been required, in ANY area of my life since high school, to prove that I know any of those things you mentioned. Personally, I think it's a crime if every American boy doesn't know what the number 714 represents, but who am I to tell someone else what should be important in their lives?

I don't understand why you are against this. If kids don't need to know this, why even have schools?

Because you give them the opportunity to find out what they want to do, and you give them the opportunity to equip themselves for their future.

But, if these kids can't learn it, or simply choose not to, why are we going to punish them the rest of their life by denying them a diploma? I never thought you would be the type of person who insist that the government MAKE people do things.

Standardized tests reflect as much on teachers as they do students.

Which is as much bullshit as it is true. It's true because people who aren't teachers think that if a school gets low test grades it is the teacher's fault. It's bullshit because I have ZERO control over whether or not that child actually gives a damn. For those students who like to make pretty patterns out of the bubbles, I'm going to be blamed? Bullshit.

This is what people sound like without these basic skills.

[youtube]lj3iNxZ8Dww[/youtube]

At the very least, standardized tests try to limit moments like this from happening.

Yes, because clearly having the ENORMOUS pressure of the entire country watching you had nothing to do with that. If you do even passing research on the girl, you'll see she took honors classes in high school and graduated with a 3.5 GPA. Having one moment of temporary stupidity is hardly a ringing endorsement for standardized tests in America.

I'm sorry, what career did you start at 17?

None...I started it when I was in 4th grade and went out for my first basketball practice. And I knew I was going to be a teacher my freshman year of high school. What's your point?

You should be able to recall simple information such as this, even if you are a PE teacher.

And I can, I'm quite intelligent.

But not everyone has the same desire to learn, or the same level of intelligence that I do. And, as I said earlier, not once have I been called upon to know those facts. So why should I be denied the opportunity to do what I really love in life, because of a test I don't pass when I'm 18?

And, at the very least a standardized test would have let your school district know that teachers need to teach that there are eight planets in the solar system.

Nine planets in the solar system when I graduated. Thanks. Pluto wasn't dropped from the planet list until 2005 or 2006, I believe.

Once again, why even have schools if this basic knowledge isn't necessary.

Because, like I said, you give the student's the OPPORTUNITY to learn it. You give them the chance to become something in life. If they choose not to take it, well, that's their decision. But why deny them that opportunity? I mean, if a student passes their classes in school and satisfies school and state requirements for graduation, then they have obviously shown some level of competency at some point in their academic career. Why make the results of ONE test determine their entire future?

All of the skills I have mentioned should be taught in school anyway, so why not test and ensure that the teachers are effectively teaching basic skills?

And I'm sure they are. Teachers' jobs are to provide kids the tools they need to go out after their life in education and become productive members of society. But, unlike what some people think, we don't have this magical ability to open a child's brain and pour in knowledge.

Why not ensure that high school students are set out into the world with a basic knowledge that can enable them to reach for higher earnings and better jobs?

That's what we do. But, what you're proposing doesn't solve the problem of those who aren't. You're just denying them a high school diploma, which these days is tantamount to accusing them of leprosy.

In my way, there are people who don't have those skills but get their diploma and are still likely to be hired. In your scenario, these people STILL don't have their skills, but they also don't have a diploma to put on a job resume. So, how is this standardized testing to graduate helping anyone?

Or, should we adopt a Soviet education system, where students strengths and weaknesses are analyzed at an early age, and children are educated vocationally to fit into a certain social role with no chance to advance? This is the land of opportunity, and you seem to want to take that away.

How the fuck is providing them variety of opportunities, and not penalizing them for the opportunities they don't wish to take depriving them of opportunities? That makes ZERO sense.

Which is why funds are earmarked for state boards of education which are full of teachers, principals, and superintendents who have had daily contact with students for decades.

In Texas. Not in every state.



You have WAY too good of expectations for state boards of education. Here take a look at the Missouri State Board of Education:

http://dese.mo.gov/stateboard/stateboard.html

Furthermore, I'm not going to do the research, but of those people who sit on the Texas Board of Education, how big are the schools/districts that those people come from?

These tests are produced by that same state board of education. But, I only have experience in Texas, so maybe Governor Bush did a pretty good job of tapping into the needs of the students.

Well, looking over the Missouri state Board of Education, I know I'M relieved.

You have a misconception of the way these tests are administered.

Fuck that, I've actually ADMINISTERED these tests. My mother is a former principal and current superintendent. Don't tell me I have a misconception of the way the tests are administered. I've actually administered state issued standardized tests.

Have you?

1. State Board of Education, full of teachers.

In Texas. Not in every state.

The same people who write textbooks write these tests. The people who write textbooks are teachers.

No, they aren't. Textbook companies write textbooks. Many times individual textbooks are written by researchers, and then published by companies like McGraw-Hill.

Furthermore, I bet our State Board of Education can't name ONE person in my entire school district. But, they're going to know what's best for them?

2. The tests ensure that no one is being fucked over, as they provide a definitive check on the teachers at that school.

And now we get to the REAL reason people want standardized tests. This nonsense about the kids is bullshit. People don't give a fuck about the kids, they just want to find ways to get teachers.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of bad teachers, and a lot of unmotivated teachers out there. But when our No Child Left Behind policy says that a 15% improvement in state testing scores qualifies as a failure by the school, because the students with IEPs didn't score high enough, then that is complete bullshit, and I have no use for that.

I don't know how Texas does it, but No Child Left Behind states that by the year 2014, EVERY child will be "proficient" in every area of the test, and in Missouri, if you don't meet the yearly AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) in each of four sub-categories, then you don't meet for the overall school. Nevermind the fact that the overall school actually met the AYP goal, if one or two of the sub-categories don't, then the entire school fails. If you fail, then you get put into what is called School Improvement. By the year 2014 rolls around, EVERY school district in Missouri will be in School Improvement.

Thank you standardized testing. You really are proving the job teachers are doing. Nevermind the fact that testing scores have risen drastically over the last several years, since they haven't risen enough in all categories, then we will shit all over your school, make your district pay for your education elsewhere, fire the teachers, and basically pave the way for only private education.

Of course, when the only schools out there are private schools, not much you can do about that standardized testing then, now can you? Furthermore, it sure would be nice to have segregated schools again, now wouldn't it? Perhaps not by race, but instead by class. THAT is what No Child Left Behind is leading us to. And that route is being paved by standardized testing.

We don't care about the kids, we just want to find ways to criticize the schools and teachers.

3. The kids are given multiple chances to take the test, targeted tutorials to prepare for second and third chances, and any help they need. These are basic skills, and frankly, if a child can't understand basic communication, then he shouldn't be allowed to graduate. There is no guarantee that someone can graduate at 18, you have to pass classes and fulfill requirements.

Why? Why should a child not be allowed to graduate if he doesn't speak the English language well? Has there been a law passed in the last 300 years that I'm not aware of, that legally nominates English as the official language of the United States?

Umm, thanks for the rant, but we're talking about standardized tests.

So am I. I'm giving you ALL of the different things that kids have to worry about today, which put learning information that is insignificant to them on the back burner.

I agree that parents these days are shit and drugs are too easy to get. Don't blame the TAAS test for that. I don't think the tests come in crates full of pot that is to be distributed to the children.

It's not the TAAS anymore, it's the TAKS. Apparently Texas changed in 2003.

And, I don't blame any test for that. What I DO blame the TAKS for would be denying children the right to the best possible life they might be able to have, simply because of a performance on an INCREDIBLY high pressured test.

And, we know what happens to kids when they get put in high pressure situations right?

[youtube]lj3iNxZ8Dww[/youtube]

Nevermind the fact the girl is an honor student and graduated high school with a 3.5. Because she doesn't perform well under pressure on a test, she's not allowed to get a high school diploma...or go to college...or work anywhere that requires a high school education. Good job FTS, you've effectively ruined this girls life at the age of 18 over insignificant material she may never use.

Great. The education system is not perfect, but these tests ensure that a baseline knowledge is getting to the kids. These tests seem to solve the problems that you see.

No they don't. Not at all. You think because you slap down a couple pieces of paper in front of a student, he/she will all of a sudden gain knowledge? Are you a proponent of learning through osmosis? What the hell?

True, but Republicans favor giving everyone better access to the better education provided at private schools.

I know. They endorse the enforcement of a class system, which keeps the poor and uneducated, poor and uneducated.

Why bother with equal rights and opportunities, when you can manipulate the very system which helped you get your breaks in life?

Both sides, however, are bad on education. No one wants to propose longer school days and years, which is what we need, because it doesn't poll well.

We need longer school days and years? Really? Why is that?

Certain grants are earmarked for certain projects, yes. It should be like that. There are schools that would take all the money they are given to but better shoulder pads for the football team if they were allowed.

You have ZERO idea of what you are talking about here. And, that's okay, not everyone has the opportunity to be in the situation I am, where a close family member actually has to work with this stuff.

I'm not talking about giving one giant lump sum of money. What I'm saying is that in order to get certain monies, you must spend them in some of the most ridiculous ways. And if you don't spend them in that way, you don't get the money, and are penalized.

Each grant needs to have a certain purpose, and surprisingly enough, these purposes are determined by scores on standardized tests. And, if we look at the Clinton administration, we can note that he gave billions to get the internet into every school, but nothing on teachers to instruct students on how to effectively retrieve information. This is why we are stuck with a generation of kids who can't do anything beyond Youtube and Facebook.

Again, I realize that you aren't in the same position as I am, but I would like to point out that your comments are so far beyond false it's absurd.

We have teachers in every building in our district, at every level, who try to make use of various technological tools to improve learning. Look up websites like Discovery Education and Study Island. Those two tools are VERY much in use at our school. Furthermore, much time is spent on teaching proper research on the Internet, compared to improper (blogs, wikis, etc.). And we're not the only district like that, there are many around us and in the state doing the same things.

When Clinton was in office, the concept of the Internet was a new thing. Furthermore, it wasn't NEAR as accessible as it is today. In the near future, our district will be improving it's Internet connection through fiber optic cables, which will give us the ability to increase our Internet speed from 3 MB to 1000 MB. The fact that Clinton poured billions of dollars into our school systems is more than ANY President can say since.

I think every kid should have to pass a basic computer literacy test, both with office applications and internet usage in order to graduate.

I think every child should be required to take a computer course. But, to pass a test to graduate? Not a chance.

State Board of Education, full of teachers.

In Texas. Not in every state.

But let's move a bit further in depth. Who is to determine how to best spend the money? A principal who used to be an English teacher is biased, and a superintendent who works in an office is out of touch with the specific needs of every school. If a school shows a math deficiency in standardized test scores, then that money can be used to better teach math. I am more in favor of standardized tests now than I was before.

This is absurd. You're telling me a State panel of people who know NOTHING about individual districts are more qualified to determine where money is better spent than the person who is responsible for that?

Completely fictitious, and I'm almost offended by that, because, as I said, my mom is a Superintendent.

I think you are badly misguided on how state boards of education work.

You're right. I'm sure Peter F. Herschend, the guy who has never actually worked in school district, but DOES own a fairly successful entertainment company is MUCH more qualified to determine what a child needs than my mother, who has been an educator for over 20 years, has three separate degrees in education, and has over ten years of collegiate education in education.

Good point.

The analogy is asinine. It would actually be like telling Vince McMahon that his word was not absolute law, and that there should be an inclusive process based on analysis of ratings breakdowns and buyrates to determine how to move forward.

See above. Peter F. Herschend is the guy from the VFW Hall. My mom is Vince McMahon.

Basic math and grammar, assessments of punctuation skills? This is what is on standardized tests.

You don't even know what fucking test kids take, how the hell do you know what's on the test?

OK, that's stupid, and the grader should be fired.

No, you're missing the point. The grader took off because he or she was SUPPOSED to take off. The grader was just doing the job they were supposed to.

See the problem here?

Our tests were multiple choice, and the only subjective grading was on the essay. The graders for the essays were a series of English teachers who had stringent guidelines. This debate has put me more in favor of standardized tests and made me love the Texas education system.

That's great. Let's see if we can sum up your argument.

Your argument is that a test which is no longer administered, which provided an examination on things which may have nothing to do with a child's future, should determine whether or not that child has a future, and that decision should be left in the hands of people who have never actually worked in the educational system. Furthermore, you theorize that these tests are magical, in that if a child has a test left on the desk, being in the mere presence of said test will magically impart basic knowledge that these students would otherwise never have had. Finally, since (outside of exit exams) the students have no real motivation to do well on the test, we should use those tests to determine the quality of teaching that goes on in our district, and even if great improvement is shown, that should be cause to fire public school teachers, and drive students to the private education, thus creating a segregation between upper and lower class citizens in the type and quality of education they can receive.

I think I pretty much summed up your entire argument.

 

[FromTheSouth]

We had them all four years. They were used to determine our exemptions for finals and
had no bearing on graduation, and they shouldn't have. We did have a writing portfolio which was required to graduate, which was also unfair, but that's a different story for later.

But were they statewide tests? This is the generally accepted definition of standardized tests. What your school or even school district requires is one thing, and frankly, I agree with them. I think an assessment of basic vocabulary, writing, and math is a great requirement. Students still have to pass their classes to graduate, but passing this test is a statewide requirement because the state Board of Education has determined that there is no job where understanding basic passages of text and the ability to add is not necessary.

Dude, HE COULDN'T READ. It doesn't take a freaking standardized test to determine that.

But for the millions of kids who can't read for meaning, this test isolates their deficiency, they are retaught the subject, and then allowed to take it again. This is bad how? A student being able to understand what he reads seems to be the point of school. If he can't do this, either a. he isn't paying attention in school and doesn't deserve a diploma, or b. the school is failing. Either way, a standardized test will announce this problem so that certain measures can be taken to correct the problem. I took my exit exams in tenth grade. The students who couldn't pass were given two years to learn basic skills in reading comprehension and writing. It geared the remainder of their education towards fixing deficiencies. If they couldn't pass at this point, I don't think they deserved to graduate.

Hold up a picture of a stop sign. "Can you read that?" No? Ok then you die as you cross a street. There, that's your standardized test. Instead of preparing for a test like that, the time could be taken to teach the kid how to read and prepare him for life i general, not to appease some fucking lawmaker.

Exactly. He fails the test, takes a year of remedial English, where he learns reading skills, takes the test again, and passes. These tests improve the student and the system.

As a fellow poker player, no you don't. However, you could and that's why you sweat the last card. Why not just decide the main event of the WSOP on one card? Just play high card for it and take out all planning and skill. let's just have it all come down to luck.

But, if a player has no skill, that one card won't matter too much to him. Let's teach these kids the skills, and if they miss the first time, then they get an isolated geared education to fix their problem.

You get to try again? Even better treatment for the real world. "What's that Smith? You failed at balancing our budget and we're bankrupt? Don't worry about it. A simple chapter 11 and you can try again." Know a company that works like that? I'd LOVE to work there.

If the kid can't read a passage and know who bought the car at the end, I don't think he'll be balancing budgets.

In response to your numbered points:

1. No it's not the only determining factor but that just makes it worse. Instead of learning and understanding the material you're presented with, you have even more stress put on you besides college, money, job and social life. People that make these tests don't have a clue what life is like for a high school student. To them it's easy as all you have to do is go to school. At least if a teacher that is teaching you on a daily basis makes the tests they have a hint of an idea of what the students are dealing with.

I don't remember one preparation class in my curriculum. I was in the upper level. In the lower levels, if teachers are "teaching to the test" odds are the students in these classes are deficient in these areas anyway, and need to learn them. If kids can't pass basic reading comprehension, they need to be taught that skill. Coincidentally, that is what is on the test. They are geared to ensure that the remedial students got an education, not to challenge AP students.

2. Had that in 3rd grade. In high school I had Humanities, which was more like arts. We didn't have time to get to it and I failed that one section because we had too many other things to cover. I got the highest score possible on everything else, but because I didn't know remember the order that art periods in the 1600s went in, I shouldn't have graduated. My 3.85 GPA, 1580 on the SAT and 35 on the ACT just wouldn't have been good enough to get me into college because I didn't graduate because of a standardized test that was written by someone that likely couldn't pass it themself.

This is a performance standard for your specific class. I am talking about a statewide basic skills assessment.

3. Why not?

I asked you first.

4. Why couldn't you pass it on the first jump?

My thumb slipped.

5. A special tutorial....like maybe the one you should have gotten in the school year with an instructor like a teacher?

But the teacher is teaching the same skill on the test in their classroom. It doesn't change curriculum. You got a 1580 on your SAT (bastard, I got a 1480), so you don't need to be taught how to structure a sentence.

6. Not in Kentucky. We didn't have things that were basic. The concepts that we had were higher level questions and subjects.

So remedial students had to order the periods of art in the 1600's and analyze the work of Bernini? You didn't have to take basic skills assessments? If not, we are talking about two totally different things.

Having them made by teachers are fine. However, they should be the teachers that teach in that school, the teachers that are with the students daily and know what is taught and what isn't. I have no issue with guidelines and a curriculum, but have it be made by the people that teach the material there, not people that teach it period.

The people who wrote TAAS, when I took it, were selected out of classrooms, and the next summer went to Austin, wrote the test, selected the guidelines for grading the subjective essay, and came back to the classroom with the preparation materials that they wrote for test prep, which coincidentally was part of the curriculum anyway.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yes they were state wide, and the way they taught them, the one that I laid out here as being ineffective, is the system that caused Kentucky to have some of the lowest scores in the country. The education that was being given was to prepare for the tests, not for basic education.

You flat out don't need a standardized test to tell you that. It's fairly easy to tell when a person simply can't read. Pay attention to them. It won't be hard to figure out.

Exactly. He fails the test, takes a year of remedial English, where he learns reading skills, takes the test again, and passes. These tests improve the student and the system.

In other words, patch him up and have him take it again so you can get him out of school? Yeah, GREAT plan there. That's so much better than actually making sure he can do this by just paying attention to him.

I'm all for teaching all kids. That's the point of the system right? However, what sense does it make to have people that are never going to see these kids tell them what they should know and how well they know it? It's a bit easier to know what they know and what they've been taught when you can see them in person and hear them speak and think.

If the kid can't read a passage and know who bought the car at the end, I don't think he'll be balancing budgets.

And in the system here with standardized tests, he wasn't taught to read. He was given the standardized test anyway and passed on to the next grade because it wasn't the school's job apparently to teach him.

No we don't have basic skill assessments. Our math was algebra, geometry and a bit of trig. English was writing about what a passage meant and what was implied in it, not multiple choice questions. The majority of the tests were essays. Those are the standardized tests that we had.

 

[FromTheSouth]

It's not a "bad thing"...but why must it be a "necessary" thing? What about those who are ESL students? Are we going to require them to show that they have basic verbal skills? Are we going to ruin the rest of their lives by denying them a diploma if they can't? Is that fair?

Why do we require those applying for citizenship to pass a test with a basic knowledge of English, but not those who are citizens in our schools? Is that fair? If you want to come here, you need to be able to speak the language that we don't require citizens to speak.

No, what those test scores show is what areas kids didn't score well in. There's a difference between "deficient" and "didn't score well". Deficient indicates an inability...didn't score well says the test scores are low, the reasons of which could be many.

The most likely of which is a deficiency.

None of which include writing out a formal essay. So...at what point is proper writing skills a good indication of whether that future chef is ready for lie?

perhaps the chef wants to write a cookbook, which would require some sentences to be structured.

The point of schools is the socialization of the next generation. It's about preparing kids for the next step in their lives. Could those things come in handy? Sure. But to handicap a child for the rest of their life because they can't do something at the age of 18, which they may not ever do again for the rest of their existence? That hardly sounds fair.

You're acting as if these kids miss one question and they're doomed forever. You take the test in tenth grade. If you fail it, you get a targeted education so the deficiency can be fixed.

Well, I don't know when you went through, but science and math, more than any other area, is what today's government focuses on. Communication arts is high priority, but science and math are top dogs. So, science is definitely very much a part of any state standardized tests these days.

I never took a science exit exam. I do think that kids should have to pass basic computer literacy to graduate though.

Doing a quick Wikipedia search of the Texas state test, it looks like Science is administered on 5th, 8th, 10th, and exit level exams.

Good.

You know, I graduated my high school 3rd in my class (only because I wasn't a cheater), and graduated college with a near 4.0 GPA. I am entering my third year as a teacher.

I applaud you, I graduated 50th in a class of 800 mainly because I blew off calculus and physics II, but aced both AP exams.

I've not ONCE been required, in ANY area of my life since high school, to prove that I know any of those things you mentioned. Personally, I think it's a crime if every American boy doesn't know what the number 714 represents, but who am I to tell someone else what should be important in their lives?

A small group of dedicated citizens is all that has ever induced change in this country. In this case, the small group is the board of education, and the change they are making is ensuring that students are literate in a wide range of areas, so if it doesn't work out as a chef, he can be something else.

Because you give them the opportunity to find out what they want to do, and you give them the opportunity to equip themselves for their future.

But shouldn't we make sure they are equipped?

But, if these kids can't learn it, or simply choose not to, why are we going to punish them the rest of their life by denying them a diploma?

Why go to school? Just give everyone a diploma!!

I never thought you would be the type of person who insist that the government MAKE people do things.

I am the type of person who feels that the government should ensure that the billions they spend are being spent well.

Which is as much bullshit as it is true. It's true because people who aren't teachers think that if a school gets low test grades it is the teacher's fault. It's bullshit because I have ZERO control over whether or not that child actually gives a damn. For those students who like to make pretty patterns out of the bubbles, I'm going to be blamed? Bullshit.

These tests make sure that the teachers message gets across. I know that if my tax dollars are being wasted I want to know. I don't want kids to get diplomas if they can't perform basic functions that are needed in society at large.

Yes, because clearly having the ENORMOUS pressure of the entire country watching you had nothing to do with that. If you do even passing research on the girl, you'll see she took honors classes in high school and graduated with a 3.5 GPA. Having one moment of temporary stupidity is hardly a ringing endorsement for standardized tests in America.

It's not the girl, but the way she spoke, the way she failed to comprehend the question, and the way her answer had no bearing or relevance to the question. It's not her, but a generation of students who think "lol" and "b4" are words. Standardized tests nip idiocy in the bud. Plus, I put the video there because she's pretty.

None...I started it when I was in 4th grade and went out for my first basketball practice. And I knew I was going to be a teacher my freshman year of high school. What's your point?

My point is that basic knowledge and communications skills are essential to everyone. Being able to communicate with your students is very important for a PE teacher, an English teacher, etc. These tests ensure that people can function, not excel.

And I can, I'm quite intelligent.

I know, and I'm proud. But if student A isn't very intelligent, I think he should be able to prove that he learned something to graduate instead of passing because he ran 4.2 40 or because a teacher was up for a raise based on the performance of her students and passed him to get paid.

But not everyone has the same desire to learn, or the same level of intelligence that I do. And, as I said earlier, not once have I been called upon to know those facts. So why should I be denied the opportunity to do what I really love in life, because of a test I don't pass when I'm 18?

Why should a student not have to demonstrate that he learned something to get a diploma. Let's just give them away.

Nine planets in the solar system when I graduated. Thanks. Pluto wasn't dropped from the planet list until 2005 or 2006, I believe.

I know, but I was watching a TV show where a similar argument was made and I wanted to apply it here.

Because, like I said, you give the student's the OPPORTUNITY to learn it. You give them the chance to become something in life. If they choose not to take it, well, that's their decision.

Then why should they be allowed to graduate if they choose not take their education? I sincerely think that you feel school is babysitting, and at the age of 18 you should get a piece of paper that says you are fit to be hired whether you are or not. Taking advantage of an education means taking AP classes and advanced electives. Receiving an education is a requirement, and there is no other way to objectively determine that someone received an education that standardized testing.

But why deny them that opportunity? I mean, if a student passes their classes in school and satisfies school and state requirements for graduation, then they have obviously show some level of comptency at some point in their academic career.

I agree 100%. And an exit exam is one of those requirements. Like I said, these tests aren't determining whether or not a student can interpret Raphael DiSanti's works. They determine whether or not some knows when to use a question mark. This is not too much to ask of someone.

Why make the results of ONE test determine their entire future?

Because life is tough. Because life is a series of events where someone gets one chance to succeed. Because this one test, that students get to take until they pass and demonstrate basic communication skills and the ability to add, is a measure of a childhood of education.

And I'm sure they are. Teachers' jobs are to provide kids the tools they need to go out after their life in education and become productive members of society. But, unlike what some people think, we don't have this magical ability to open a child's brain and pour in knowledge.

I don't even think you understand "standardized test" anymore. And how do we determine if the child has the basic tools to go out into the real world? For years, people have complained about athletes "being passed" when they don't deserve it, or teachers being scared to fail students. This one test determines that kids have these basic tool that you and I agree that they need. How else are we going to know that they actually have them? How are we going to know that out billions of tax dollars are being spend appropriately?

That's what we do. But, what you're proposing doesn't solve the problem of those who aren't. You're just denying them a high school diploma, which these days is tantamount to accusing them of leprosy.

And you're jsut trying to give them one without making them earn it.

In my way, there are people who don't have those skills but get their diploma and are still likely to be hired. In your scenario, these people STILL don't have their skills, but they also don't have a diploma to put on a job resume. So, how is this standardized testing to graduate helping anyone?

It's helping the employer, that's for sure.

How the fuck is providing them variety of opportunities, and not penalizing them for the opportunities they don't wish to take depriving them of opportunities? That makes ZERO sense.

How is does giving them a diploma when they can't form a sentence or add two three digit numbers make them worthy of a single opportunity? You don't just get to float along in life. School should be teaching you that you need to pay attention to superiors, and if someone can't use a comma, there is a pretty high likelihood that they aren't going to be shit in the real world. The world needs ditch diggers. If you choose to not learn how to read, then go suffer in the heat for the rest of your life. All I know is that I pay those taxes, and if someone chooses to not use that money to achieve the MINIMUM standards of communication skills then they can shovel shit forever, even if they want to be a chef. No child should be left behind, but if he wants to sit and smoke crack while the line is moving, I don't think he should be rewarded either. Life is tough. Standardized tests help teach that. Learn to read, pass a test, graduate. Seems pretty simple to me. Your arguments about one test are shoddy at best. I only get one chance to determine what industry will moving up in the ext quarter, and if I fail, then I don't have a job. A chef only has one chance to please a guest in his restaurant, and if he fails, then he loses money. Jesus Christ, I'm halfway fucking done.

In Texas. Not in every state.



You have WAY too good of expectations for state boards of education. Here take a look at the Missouri State Board of Education:

http://dese.mo.gov/stateboard/stateboard.html

Furthermore, I'm not going to do the research, but of those people who sit on the Texas Board of Education, how big are the schools/districts that those people come from?

The state is broken into 15 districts and one person is selected to represent the district. The commissioner is appointed by the governor, and is a superintendent or someone of the like.

Well, looking over the Missouri state Board of Education, I know I'M relieved.

Fuck that, I've actually ADMINISTERED these tests. My mother is a former principal and current superintendent. Don't tell me I have a misconception of the way the tests are administered. I've actually administered state issued standardized tests.

Have you?

No, you got me there. I did tutor kids for the TAAS when I was in college as part of my fraternity's community service, and I took the tests, so I do know the material.

And if you think that these tests are keeping kids from graduating high school on a wide basis, affecting millions of kids and destroying industries and dreams in the process, then you, sir, do not understand the tests.

In Texas. Not in every state.

So, tell me what is on the Missouri State Exit Exams.

No, they aren't. Textbook companies write textbooks. Many times individual textbooks are written by researchers, and then published by companies like McGraw-Hill.

Quick Google search told me that textbooks are written by teachers, professors, and graduate students.

Furthermore, I bet our State Board of Education can't name ONE person in my entire school district. But, they're going to know what's best for them?

Because this is not a shiny happy world where people get individualized everything. The state board of education, at the very least, has to base standards on the lowest common denominator. Coincidentally, standardized tests ensure that students have the most basic skills that they need for every facet of life.

And now we get to the REAL reason people want standardized tests. This nonsense about the kids is bullshit. People don't give a fuck about the kids, they just want to find ways to get teachers.

And now we get real paranoia. No one is going after teachers. Not as much as we should. I am sure you are a great teacher. I am also sure that you can look in the teachers lounge at any point in the day and find 15 people who just showed up to get a paycheck and don't give a shit about the kids.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of bad teachers, and a lot of unmotivated teachers out there. But when our No Child Left Behind policy says that a 15% improvement in state testing scores qualifies as a failure by the school, because the students with IEPs didn't score high enough, then that is complete bullshit, and I have no use for that.

Once again, your problem is with the system, not the test. If the kids pass, they graduate. If they don't, then get help gaining the most basic skills, and take it again. Really, this isn't hard to understand.

I don't know how Texas does it, but No Child Left Behind states that by the year 2014, EVERY child will be "proficient" in every area of the test, and in Missouri, if you don't meet the yearly AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) in each of four sub-categories, then you don't meet for the overall school. Nevermind the fact that the overall school actually met the AYP goal, if one or two of the sub-categories don't, then the entire school fails. If you fail, then you get put into what is called School Improvement. By the year 2014 rolls around, EVERY school district in Missouri will be in School Improvement.

Then they should improve. The program gives you ten years to locate deficiencies and improve them. If Missouri fails to do so, then the problem doesn't lie in the tests or the system, the problem lies with the educators in the state of Missouri.

Thank you standardized testing. You really are proving the job teachers are doing. Nevermind the fact that testing scores have risen drastically over the last several years, since they haven't risen enough in all categories, then we will shit all over your school, make your district pay for your education elsewhere, fire the teachers, and basically pave the way for only private education.

Then target the areas that you fail at and improve. How does this prove that standardized testing shouldn't be a graduation requirement. It's almost like you want to abandon the topic to take me on on President Bush. No Child Left Behind is crap. It failed, not because of bad intentions, but because of misapplied funds and a bastardization of the original intent of the program. How does any of this have to do with keeping one individual child from graduating if he can't form a sentence?

Of course, when the only schools out there are private schools, not much you can do about that standardized testing then, now can you? Furthermore, it sure would be nice to have segregated schools again, now wouldn't it? Perhaps not by race, but instead by class.

Vouchers actually work to end the class differences in education. Vouchers allow poorer students to go to better schools. Vouchers fight against injustice.

THAT is what No Child Left Behind is leading us to. And that route is being paved by standardized testing.

Standardized testing was around way before NCLB.

We don't care about the kids, we just want to find ways to imprive the schools and teachers.

Fixed.

Why? Why should a child be allowed to graduate if he doesn't speak the English language well? Has there been a law passed in the last 300 years that I'm not aware of, that legally nominates English as the official language of the United States?

No, and this is an interesting point. There is no official language. But, then again, English is what the schools teach, and if someone can't get a basic grasp on the language in thirteen fucking years, I have no sympathy for them.

So am I. I'm giving you ALL of the different things that kids have to worry about today, which put learning information that is insignificant to them on the back burner.

You go to school to learn. If you have drama, that sucks. So does everyone else. Learn to read or don't graduate. That seems pretty simple to me.

It's not the TAAS anymore, it's the TAKS. Apparently Texas changed in 2003.

And, I don't blame any test for that. What I DO blame the TAKS for would be denying children the right to the best possible life they might be able to have, simply because of a performance on an INCREDIBLY high pressured test.

Where are the violin players? They'll go well with the bleeding heart. Learn to read and count, or don't graduate. For thirteen years someone is trying to drill it into your head that you need to be able to read to get a job. If you don't choose to believe this teach, then go dig ditches. If you want to be happy, the first lesson you need to learn is to listen to your superiors and perform simple tasks.

And, we know what happens to kids when they get put in high pressure situations right?

[youtube]lj3iNxZ8Dww[/youtube]

Not that high pressure when you get five chances.

Nevermind the fact the girl is an honor student and graduated high school with a 3.5. Because she doesn't perform well under pressure on a test, she's not allowed to get a high school diploma...or go to college...or work anywhere that requires a high school education. Good job FTS, you've effectively ruined this girls life at the age of 18 over insignificant material she may never use.

Then the pressure of the test didn't get to her. She is obviously terrible at handling this terrible pressure the test puts on her. How much pressure is there on someone who has to read one paragraph and bubble in the answer that corresponds to who ordered the pineapple juice?

No they don't. Not at all. You think because you slap down a couple pieces of paper in front of a student, he/she will all of a sudden gain knowledge? Are you a proponent of learning through osmosis? What the hell?

And you think that just giving away diplomas will make them functioning members of society. When I buy something I make sure it works before I use it.

I know. They endorse the enforcement of a class system, which keeps the poor and uneducated, poor and uneducated.

Because some kids are just too poor to learn how to read.? Terrible argument.

Why bother with equal rights and opportunities, when you can manipulate the very system which helped you get your breaks in life?

Why force anyone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when we can just continue to give them everything in their lives. Learn to read, or don't graduate.

We need longer school days and years? Really? Why is that?

Because the state of Missouri is deficient in several areas of education.

You have ZERO idea of what you are talking about here. And, that's okay, not everyone has the opportunity to be in the situation I am, where a close family member actually has to work with this stuff.

No, I know how grants work. But not everyone has the opportunity I have to be able to read something online.

I'm not talking about giving one giant lump sum of money. What I'm saying is that in order to get certain monies, you must spend them in some of the most ridiculous ways. And if you don't spend them in that way, you don't get the money, and are penalized.

I think that any money given to schools should be earmarked to help fix problems instead of just given out. I think that all money given by the government should be for a specific purpose. Otherwise you get a trillion dollar stimulus package which six months later has 700 billion dollars of unspent money.

Again, I realize that you aren't in the same position as I am, but I would like to point out that your comments are so far beyond false it's absurd.

And I would like to point out that for the last thousand words of text you have ignored the subject and tried to score points on ludicrous arguments about class systems and that we're out to get the teachers. I would also like to point out that this how you have admitted you win debates, by narrowing the topic to something you can win on. I would also like to point out that you have failed to answer one time why every child shouldn't be required to demonstrate a very basic knowledge of sentence structure, vocabulary, mathematics, and literacy.

Is it because you know that it is just a terrible idea to give away diplomas to kids when they can't write a paragraph or convert ounces to gallons?

We have teachers in every building in our district, at every level, who try to make use of various technological tools to improve learning. Look up websites like Discovery Education and Study Island. Those two tools are VERY much in use at our school. Furthermore, much time is spent on teaching proper research on the Internet, compared to improper (blogs, wikis, etc.). And we're not the only district like that, there are many around us and in the state doing the same things.

Great. This is an example of how education has evolved through isolating the failures of previous methods. This is what standardized tests do in English and math.

When Clinton was in office, the concept of the Internet was a new thing. Furthermore, it wasn't NEAR as accessible as it is today. In the near future, our district will be improving it's Internet connection through fiber optic cables, which will give us the ability to increase our Internet speed from 3 MB to 1000 MB. The fact that Clinton poured billions of dollars into our school systems is more than ANY President can say since.

Great! Clinton gave you internet. He did it for us too. I don't understand how a faster internet connection improves education, but whatever. We got internet in the late 90's as well. Meanwhile, we didn't get new textbooks because that wouldn't have scored as many political points. We didn't get new teachers with new methods of teaching. We got computers, and no one to show us how to use them for effective research.

I think every child should be required to take a computer course. But, to pass a test to graduate? Not a chance.

Why not? Will they not need computers in their lives?

In Texas. Not in every state.

This is absurd. You're telling me a State panel of people who know NOTHING about individual districts are more qualified to determine where money is better spent than the person who is responsible for that?

Look at test results, look at grant requests, and administrate. Someone has to administrate. What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing? Because you know I'm right? Thought so.

Completely fictitious, and I'm almost offended by that, because, as I said, my mom is a Superintendent.

Because that example could never happen. The superintendent of my school district took state grant funds and spent them at titty bars. Google search Abe Saavedra.

You're right. I'm sure Peter F. Herschend, the guy who has never actually worked in school district, but DOES own a fairly successful entertainment company is MUCH more qualified to determine what a child needs than my mother, who has been an educator for over 20 years, has three separate education degrees, and has over ten years of collegiate education in education.



Good point.

See above. Peter F. Herschend is the guy from the VFW Hall. My mom is Vince McMahon.

So what you're saying is your mom acts as if her word was the word of God, whether or not it's good for the "company." Please, give me a break. I'm sure your mother is incredible at what she does. She has raised a brilliant son, one who is capable of writing a 20,000 word essay in 45 minutes. Unfortunately, someone has to administrate funds. And Mr. Herschend, I'm sure, has a staff that analyzes deficiencies and grant proposals to see where they will do the most good, and he just signs the checks and reports to the governor. I'm sure that staff has educators on it.

You don't even know what fucking test kids take, how the hell do you know what's on the test?

I know what tests I took and for which I tutored. (The last thing I wanted to do was end my sentence in a preposition at this point.)

No, you're missing the point. The grader took off because he or she was SUPPOSED to take off. The grader was just doing the job they were supposed to.

Our tests were multiple choice. If you get the right answer, it doesn't matter how in Texas. This way an objective machine can grade everything except an essay, which is graded on strict guidelines.......

See the problem here?

That's great. Let's see if we can sum up your argument.

Your argument is that a test that is no longer administered, which provided an examination on things which may have nothing to do with a child's future, should determine whether or not that child has a future, and that decision should be left in the hands of people who have never actually worked in the educational system. Furthermore, your theorize that these tests are magical, in that if a child has a test left on the desk, being in the mere presence of said test will magically impart basic knowledge that these students would otherwise never have had. Finally, since (outside of exit exams) the students have no real motivation to do well on the test, we should use those tests to determine the quality of teaching that goes on in our district, and even if great improvement is shown, that should be cause to fire public school teachers, and drive students to the private education, thus creating a segregation between upper and lower class citizens in the type and quality of education they can receive.

I think I pretty much summed up your entire argument.

I think you oversimplified my argument to try and prove a weak point. Let me summarize it for you. Demonstrating a basic knowledge of sentence structure, basic math, basic vocabulary, and the ability to form a paragraph are a more than fail assessment of whether or not a child is fit to receive a diploma from the state that educated him.

Now, I will do the same to your argument.

You can't argue that kids shouldn't have to demonstrate the above mentioned skills to graduate, so you attack the education system, try to tell me you know more because your mom is a superintendent, and try to belittle me because your inability to argue the actual topic means you lose?

 

[Tastycles]

The point of schools is to prepare people for life, in my opinion. This is why my school, where around 95% of the pupils paid a lot of money to go, is a bad school. Sure, the exam results are better than the average school in the country, but being a military school its pupils are near institutionalised when they come out. It is of no suprise to me that the top universities in this country don't offer many places to graduates of my school.

What's the relevance of that? Well put simply that ideal of a school should be putting young people out who are ready to go on to their life and do what they can and want to do. Forcing the students that are at the bottom of the barrel acadmically to enter an exam, to essentially determine what level of fail they will get acheives nothing, and is actually rather humiliating.

Grades at GCSE, the school leaving exams at 16, in this country go A*, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, U. Officially G or higher is a pass, but nobody takes anything less than a C seriously, not even government statistics. I know of two people who have got D, F, U, G, E in their exams (amusingly an anagram of fudge). What's the point with that? Thy can't do anything at all with that, and they could have spent the last two years of school learning a trade rather than acheiving zero in French and science.

The problem affects the other end of the spectrum. A student who isn't intelligent, which is presumably what the exams are for, can get a good mark in the earlier years by working all hours to take in the syllabus. Peversely, somebody who is intelligent but lazy will not rvise and get worse scores. Teenage lethargy tends to be removed with age, and you'll have a situation ten years down the line where a 26 year old with average grades is skipped over someone with great grades but little common sense, that hardly helps employers.

A teacher is far more qualified to asess my ability than a piece of paper. I did incredibly well in my GCSE and A-Levels, but apart from the subjects relevant to what I've gone on to do at university, the only subject that has been of any use to me is electronics, and even then it was the practical side of it.

Exams are fine, but with the marking the way it is and the fact that they don't really say anything about the person who's taken them, they aren't worth the paper they are written on. A teacher should know which of their sutdents are university material, which are technical trade material and which are manual trade material, and that should essentially be the only seperation. That way, if any of those kids can learn towards something that is within their means and thus they don't have to endure the humiliation of failing a chemistry exam that has no bearing on anything they will ever do. Not everyone is cut out for academia, and standardised testing implies they should be.

Exams pigeon hole people too young. If you fail, then you are perceived as a fool, when in reality it may just be the pressure of exams that bother you, or you may have difficulty in foreign languages or in interpreting Shakespeare, none of which matter in the long run. As long as people leave school with a basic ability to read, write and add, that is all that is universally needed. Everything else is a matter of life preparation and sending kids to fail exams they won't ever need isn't preparing them for the real world.

I got pigeon-holed the other way. I got 8 A*s and 2 As in my GCSEs, which was the best in my school by some margin. I was then perceived, and still am a little, as a guy who spends his day doing school work. That couldn't be further from the truth, I just have a good memory. Syllabus based exams aren't tests of anything, they are just memory games and it isn't fair to define someone's life by that.

 

[Slyfox696]

Why do we require those applying for citizenship to pass a test with a basic knowledge of English, but not those who are citizens in our schools? Is that fair? If you want to come here, you need to be able to speak the language that we don't require citizens to speak.

Because those who apply for citizenship are adults. Those who are in schools are not. So now you're going to punish kids because their parents move them to a school they had no say over?

I'm afraid to continue this debate with you FTS. I'm afraid by the time we're done, you're going to be saluting us and stating that the only people who should be allowed in the United States are wealthy white Christian Protestants scholars who speak the English language. So far you've tried to exclude the poor, the disadvantaged, those with learning disabilities, and now those who don't speak the English language primarily. I'm afraid to see who you go after next.

The most likely of which is a deficiency.

Says who? What are you basing this on?

perhaps the chef wants to write a cookbook, which would require some sentences to be structured.

Perhaps he doesn't. So your point is completely invalid.

I never took a science exit exam. I do think that kids should have to pass basic computer literacy to graduate though.

You would now.

A small group of dedicated citizens is all that has ever induced change in this country. In this case, the small group is the board of education, and the change they are making is ensuring that students are literate in a wide range of areas, so if it doesn't work out as a chef, he can be something else.

So somebody that I don't know and never will never meet, knows what is better for me in my life than I do?

Since when have you been such a proponent of governmental control in personal lives?

But shouldn't we make sure they are equipped?

No, we should give them the opportunity to be equipped, and provide them the tools they may need in life.

But, if they choose to not accept them, then they have to live with that.

Why go to school? Just give everyone a diploma!!

These days, you almost have to if you want children to be employed. Which is sad, in my opinion, that places of employment don't bother to take the time to actually find out what skills an individual has, but rather relies on a piece of paper to hire someone or not.

But, it's not like you just hand them the piece of paper and they never have to work for it. Those students still have to meet school and state standards in the classroom in order to get the diploma. If they choose to not graduate and drop out instead, then that's on them. But to deny them an opportunity for employment simply because of a test that was written by people who know nothing about education, and will never meet the children whose lives they disrupt, is completely silly.

I am the type of person who feels that the government should ensure that the billions they spend are being spent well.

I think that is "1984" I hear calling you...

These tests make sure that the teachers message gets across. I know that if my tax dollars are being wasted I want to know. I don't want kids to get diplomas if they can't perform basic functions that are needed in society at large.

No, these tests don't tell you the job teachers are doing, they'll tell you whatever it is the government wants it to tell you. Like I said, when you see a 15% rise in test scores, and the government calls you and your students failures, then it's complete bullshit.

And you know it.

It's not the girl, but the way she spoke, the way she failed to comprehend the question, and the way her answer had no bearing or relevance to the question. It's not her, but a generation of students who think "lol" and "b4" are words. Standardized tests nip idiocy in the bud. Plus, I put the video there because she's pretty.

But, she passed her standardized exit exam. South Carolina began providing those exit exams way back in 1998. So, what's the deal? According to you, people won't sound like her if they pass the exit exam, and yet here you are offering her as proof for those very same exams.

Shoot yourself in the foot much?

http://ed.sc.gov/agency/Accountability/Assessment/old/assessment/programs/hsap/

My point is that basic knowledge and communications skills are essential to everyone. Being able to communicate with your students is very important for a PE teacher, an English teacher, etc. These tests ensure that people can function, not excel.

No, they don't. They just penalize you more if you cannot.

Like I said, these aren't magical tests.

I know, and I'm proud. But if student A isn't very intelligent, I think he should be able to prove that he learned something to graduate instead of passing because he ran 4.2 40 or because a teacher was up for a raise based on the performance of her students and passed him to get paid.

But see, now you're delving into the area of teacher abusing the system. That's a whole other matter. Why are you going to punish kids because of teachers?

Why should a student not have to demonstrate that he learned something to get a diploma. Let's just give them away.

What the fuck do you call those 4+ years he or she spent in high school?

I know, but I was watching a TV show where a similar argument was made and I wanted to apply it here.

I always love doing stuff like that.

Then why should they be allowed to graduate if they choose not take their education? I sincerely think that you feel school is babysitting[/quote]

Holy fucking shit, if you even BEGAN to understand how off you are on that one. I think one of the biggest problems with school is that it IS treated as a babysitting service.

Don't even get me started.

and at the age of 18 you should get a piece of paper that says you are fit to be hired whether you are or not. Taking advantage of an education means taking AP classes and advanced electives.

Why?

Why is taking AP classes a requirement for all students? Do you not understand that not everyone has the desire to do the same things in life?

Receiving an education is a requirement

Completely false.

Receiving an education is NOT a requirement. Being given the OPPORTUNITY to receive an education is a requirement.

I agree 100%. And an exit exam is one of those requirements. Like I said, these tests aren't determining whether or not a student can interpret Raphael DiSanti's works. They determine whether or not some knows when to use a question mark. This is not too much to ask of someone.

I have no problem with exit exams, if they are applied voluntarily by the school. But having people hundreds of miles away with no educational foundations being the one to devise and implement these tests is completely ridiculous.

I don't even think you understand "standardized test" anymore.

Do you? Like I said, I've actually given the damn things. You?

And you're jsut trying to give them one without making them earn it.

They earn it in their 4+ years of high school, passing classes and meet school and state requirements for graduation.

It's helping the employer, that's for sure.

Yes. Don't hire anyone who couldn't pass a test when they were 18. Sounds fair. After all, businesses are much more important to this country than people.

How is does giving them a diploma when they can't form a sentence or add two three digit numbers make them worthy of a single opportunity?

Those people won't pass high school. You seem to think that kids do nothing all day and then magically move on to the next level.

You ARE aware, I would hope, that schools have "classes". And in these classes, "learning" takes place. And each teacher evaluates learning by giving "tests". And those student's don't move to the next level unless they receive a competent "grade".

But, the difference between that and exit exams is that students have an entire school year to prove their competency. You're giving them only a couple hours, and those couple hours may completely erase everything that student did for the last four years.

School should be teaching you that you need to pay attention to superiors

No, it shouldn't. PARENTS should be teaching that.

The world needs ditch diggers. If you choose to not learn how to read, then go suffer in the heat for the rest of your life.

And I need McDonalds cooks too. So who are we to tell people what vocations in life are good and which are bad? Do you not understand that there are people who don't wish to make the most money, or have the highest prestige jobs? If I had ever applied, I have no doubt I could have went to a VERY good law school, and become a lawyer. Or I could have gone to a very good medical school and become a doctor. I know this because I have a cousin doing each, and I did better in high school and college than both of them, and I didn't even try.

But, I didn't. I wanted to be a teacher. Don't put down occupations simply because how you feel they rank in the hierarchy of life.

All I know is that I pay those taxes, and if someone chooses to not use that money to achieve the MINIMUM standards of communication skills then they can shovel shit forever, even if they want to be a chef. No child should be left behind, but if he wants to sit and smoke crack while the line is moving, I don't think he should be rewarded either. Life is tough. Standardized tests help teach that.

Really? How so? Furthermore, are you saying that if a child doesn't pass a test when they are 18, then they are forever doomed to work jobs they don't want?

Basically, are you suggesting we imprison children who make bad decisions, and then punish them the rest of their lives, with no hope for parole?

Learn to read, pass a test, graduate.

Yes, because passing a test shows how much a person really knows about life.

Education is not about tests, it is not about textbooks. It is about preparing children for life. Some people want to be doctors, some want to be farmers, some want to be McDonald's cooks. Education is there to provide everyone the opportunity to do what they want in life, if they are willing to work for it.

Standardized tests don't measure ability. They measure facts that people who don't work in the educational system think people 40 years younger than them ought to know.

The state is broken into 15 districts and one person is selected to represent the district. The commissioner is appointed by the governor, and is a superintendent or someone of the like.

That wasn't my question. My question was how big are the schools those people come from?

No, you got me there. I did tutor kids for the TAAS when I was in college as part of my fraternity's community service, and I took the tests, so I do know the material.

So do I.

And I haven't brought it up before, but I will now. These standardized tests AREN'T just measuring how to do 4+4 and how many planets are in the solar system. They're not easy. Hell, I gave an EIGHTH grade MAP (Missouri Assessment Program) test, and I was asked to read over questions that took me a while to figure out how to do. And, not to toot my own horn, but I was a very good student in high school, and was in the gifted education program. And I had trouble with some questions on the 8th grade exam.

Furthermore, are you aware HOW these tests are given? A teacher cannot tell a student ANYTHING that is asked of them. The only thing a teacher can do is answer questions about the test itself (like how much time is left, will they need a rule for that section, etc.). Any question about a problem on the exam, a teacher can't help with. Which means when you get in situations where a question can be interpreted in different ways by a child, you can't tell them which way to answer the question correctly.

So, while I haven't mentioned it yet, as I've focused on the actual theory, these exams are NOT like what you are mentioning. And, again, I've given these tests...you took them over 6 years ago.

Quick Google search told me that textbooks are written by teachers, professors, and graduate students.

http://www.edutopia.org/textbook-publishing-controversy

Because this is not a shiny happy world where people get individualized everything.

Oh, but you are wrong. Are you not familiar with IEPs?

And now we get real paranoia. No one is going after teachers. Not as much as we should. I am sure you are a great teacher. I am also sure that you can look in the teachers lounge at any point in the day and find 15 people who just showed up to get a paycheck and don't give a shit about the kids.

The fuck they aren't going after teachers. Why don't you actually try becoming a teacher before you speak such ridiculous words. Or better yet, try Topix.com, and just see the crap people say about teachers on there. Or read newspaper articles, and see how much they slam educators.

As far as your 15 people who just show up to get a paycheck...sure, that happens. Not as much where I work, but I know it happens a lot. But, now you are talking about a teacher problem, not a student problem. Perhaps if we didn't treat teachers so poorly in society, dumping every responsibility in the world on them while paying them less than what Alex Rodriguez makes in one AB, then maybe we'd have more and better teachers to replace the ones who don't care.

Once again, your problem is with the system, not the test. If the kids pass, they graduate. If they don't, then get help gaining the most basic skills, and take it again. Really, this isn't hard to understand.

No, my problem is the test failing to take into account the system. These aren't separate issues.

Then they should improve. The program gives you ten years to locate deficiencies and improve them. If Missouri fails to do so, then the problem doesn't lie in the tests or the system, the problem lies with the educators in the state of Missouri.

Yes, because if ONE child in the United States decides to make pretty patterns on his test, then the country fails at education. Great point.

The 100% proficient applies to EVERY state and EVERY child. What you're saying is that if even ONE child doesn't do well on this test, then the entire public school education system fails. Do you realize how stupid you sound when you say such things?

Then target the areas that you fail at and improve.

Teachers do. They do it EVERY day and have for many decades now.

Vouchers actually work to end the class differences in education. Vouchers allow poorer students to go to better schools. Vouchers fight against injustice.

You favor a system that will eventually end public education in favor of private education, and then to prevent an injustice, you're just going to give everyone a voucher to go to private school. So, basically, you're going to have a government funded private school system, in which the government has zero say in how the school system is run.

I thought you were in favor of making sure your government money was being spent well. This whole statement runs the OPPOSITE of what you say. Have the government spend money to educate children, and then have no say in how that money is spent and the type of education those children receive.

I'm guessing you didn't think this part out very long.

No, and this is an interesting point. There is no official language. But, then again, English is what the schools teach, and if someone can't get a basic grasp on the language in thirteen fucking years, I have no sympathy for them.

But, a lot of these children don't go to school for 13 years. A couple years back, we had a kid come in as a junior who spoke ZERO English. He has two years to learn the english language. The kid was extremely bright, as was his younger brother. According to you, though, these kids shouldn't be allowed to work jobs befitting their high intelligence, because their parents moved them into the district two years before they have to take your piss bucket exam.

You go to school to learn. If you have drama, that sucks.

Yes, it does suck. But it sucks more now than when you were in school. And I know that because I graduated at least at the same time, if not after you, and it sucks worse than when I went to school.

Not that high pressure when you get five chances.

The hell it's not. My sister took the ACT 4 times, and felt the same pressure, if not more so, every time. And that wasn't even a test to graduate, that was a test to see how much money should could get to go to college.

How much pressure is there on someone who has to read one paragraph and bubble in the answer that corresponds to who ordered the pineapple juice?

When you say "either pass this test or never have the option to work in any career you want", quite a bit.

I'm thinking you are not familiar with the tests kids take today. Here is a link. Go to it and read the questions that are asked, and then tell me if you think "When a DVD is read, laser light touches the DVD surface and is then measured at location A. What allows light to return to location A after striking the DVD surface?" is just basic information every child needs to know to succeed in life. (that was question 6 on the science exam).

Because some kids are just too poor to learn how to read.? Terrible argument.

No, because the only people who can afford private education are the more wealthy families. Unless you favor providing a governmental voucher to EVERY child in the country...and proving how stupid the voucher system really is.

Because the state of Missouri is deficient in several areas of education.

Maybe you're not aware, but the No Child Left Behind applies to EVERY state...and by 2014, EVERY state will be in violation of NCLB.

It's not just Missouri, I assure you.

No, I know how grants work. But not everyone has the opportunity I have to be able to read something online.

If you only knew how much money was wasted in school systems because the government forces it to be.

I think that any money given to schools should be earmarked to help fix problems instead of just given out. I think that all money given by the government should be for a specific purpose. Otherwise you get a trillion dollar stimulus package which six months later has 700 billion dollars of unspent money.

And the school should be the one to know where it's problems are, not a state entity who doesn't serve a particular district.

And I would like to point out that for the last thousand words of text you have ignored the subject and tried to score points on ludicrous arguments about class systems and that we're out to get the teachers. I would also like to point out that this how you have admitted you win debates, by narrowing the topic to something you can win on. I would also like to point out that you have failed to answer one time why every child shouldn't be required to demonstrate a very basic knowledge of sentence structure, vocabulary, mathematics, and literacy.

And I would like to point out that everything I've written in this thread is why having standardized exit exams are silly, and if you don't understand how it all pieces together, that is more a reflection upon you and your Texas provided education than it is on the way I'm debating the topic.

Great! Clinton gave you internet. He did it for us too. I don't understand how a faster internet connection improves education, but whatever. We got internet in the late 90's as well. Meanwhile, we didn't get new textbooks because that wouldn't have scored as many political points. We didn't get new teachers with new methods of teaching. We got computers, and no one to show us how to use them for effective research.

I guess my biggest problem was assuming you would understand the subtleties of what I was saying, and how it would fit the broader scope, but I guess not.

The point I was making is that in the 90s, Internet was not blazing fast, it wasn't the educational tool it is today, and it was very expensive to run. Clinton laid the foundation for the future to be able to use the Internet, even if it wasn't possible at the time to really make use of it. And, let's not even begin to discuss how schools needed to buy computer labs (which individual computers were VERY expensive at the time), switch from 56k jacks to Ethernet receivers, etc. Now that the Internet is huge, computers are cheap, and the Internet is fast, you see more and more educational facilities using the Internet in its curriculum.

It wasn't reasonable, at the time, to expect the Internet to be used in schools, but since it was obviously going to be a great tool in the future, then it was put into school for their usage.

Why not? Will they not need computers in their lives?

Need? Maybe not. But, they still will have the class. So it's not like they're NOT getting an education on computers.

Look at test results, look at grant requests, and administrate. Someone has to administrate. What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing? Because you know I'm right? Thought so.

See, again, you don't seem to understand how it all pieces together. It's a shame your Texas educational system and it's standardized tests failed you.

Why should people who have NO idea about individual districts be the ones to administrate those districts? Shouldn't the administration of districts be left to those who actually run them and are active in them? You are applying the educational model of Texas to every state. But, it doesn't work like that. For example, there are over 100 school districts in the state of Missouri...and that's before you even leave the districts that start with "d". That doesn't include all the districts that start with a letter after "d". Here's a list:

http://dese.mo.gov/directory/

And, in those districts, there are individual schools. For example, our school district has four schools: elementary, middle, high and alternative.

So you're telling me that the guy who owns Silver Dollar City is responsible for knowing the best way over 200 school districts, with over 500 schools is to be run? More so than the superintendent of those districts?

And, because you obviously haven't understood it thus far, I'll explain to you how it relates to the topic, because your Texas education obviously doesn't get it. The guy who runs Silver Dollar City is NOT as qualified to know what is best for the students of each individual district. Thus, having that person put together a test based on what HE thinks is best does NOT serve the interest of every child in the state. Which means when that person is putting HIS philosophy of education as more important than the philosophy of the people who actually live their own lives.

Which is just another reason that standardized exit exams are silly.

Because that example could never happen. The superintendent of my school district took state grant funds and spent them at titty bars. Google search Abe Saavedra.

But now, once again, you're talking about individuals, not the whole. The majority of superintendents in this country are in their position because they want to help kids become the best they can be. I'm sorry you have such a negative view of administration, but I dare say if you ever had the opportunity to be close to a good administration, and see what they do, not to mention all the bullshit they have to put up with, you would think differently on this part of your stance.

So what you're saying is your mom acts as if her word was the word of God, whether or not it's good for the "company."

Yes, because she is hired to do what's GOOD for the company. And if she doesn't, then the school board or education reviews her contract and decides to renew it or not.

Please, give me a break. I'm sure your mother is incredible at what she does. She has raised a brilliant son, one who is capable of writing a 20,000 word essay in 45 minutes. Unfortunately, someone has to administrate funds. And Mr. Herschend, I'm sure, has a staff that analyzes deficiencies and grant proposals to see where they will do the most good, and he just signs the checks and reports to the governor. I'm sure that staff has educators on it.

So...wait a minute. Now are standardized tests aren't even being written by the people that are hired to do it, but instead are people that this State Board of Education person has hired, whose credentials potentially have ZERO to do with their position?

And this is the best our state can do? You're right, why bother letting the people with 20+ years of educational experience, and three degrees in education determine what's best for children. It's much better left to the anonymous staff of a guy who is only on the state board of education because of his wealth which comes from running Silver Dollar City.

Boy, I sure do have great faith in THIS body to serve the needs of our children.

Just for clarification, I want to see if I have this correct. The guy with NO background in educating students is more qualified to determine what is needed best for thousands of students across hundreds of school districts, than the person in charge of each of those districts, with 20+ years of educational service and three degrees in education? Is that what you are saying?

I know what tests I took and for which I tutored.

Which are no longer in use in the state you graduated from.

I think you oversimplified my argument to try and prove a weak point.

No, I feel I hit it straight on the head.

You can't argue that kids shouldn't have to demonstrate the above mentioned skills to graduate

Except that I already HAVE argued and given examples. Just because you and your Texas education didn't understand them, doesn't make them any less valid.

so you attack the education system

Only to prove why shaping a child's entire life based upon one test is silly.

try to tell me you know more because your mom is a superintendent

Funny, I always thought having actual knowledge of a subject was an important part of any debate. Sorry we can't all be as ignorant as you.

and try to belittle me because your inability to argue the actual topic means you lose?

I belittle you because of your asinine opinions, and because of how badly your proud Texas education has failed you in your quest to understand a post that uses good writing to make a point, as opposed to the "shoot me in the face with your point" posts that you usually see on the forums.

I'm sorry. Next time I'll try to dumb down my post more for you.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Because those who apply for citizenship are adults. Those who are in schools are not. So now you're going to punish kids because their parents move them to a school they had no say over?

The is ridiculous. You're talking about the seven kids in one school who get moved over as exchange students. Those are the only ones that have any excuse. This argument was your excuse for ESL kids. English may not be the official language, but no one is going to be able to get a job above minimum wage without that basic skill. Standardized testing is good for students in that it ensures that they have the most basic set of skill to compete in a job market.

I'm afraid to continue this debate with you FTS. I'm afraid by the time we're done, you're going to be saluting us and stating that the only people who should be allowed in the United States are wealthy white Christian Protestants scholars who speak the English language. So far you've tried to exclude the poor, the disadvantaged, those with learning disabilities, and now those who don't speak the English language primarily. I'm afraid to see who you go after next.

How have I excluded the poor? All I've done is hold everyone to the same standard of basic skills. Are you telling me that we shouldn't expect the poor to be able to speak English? If nothing else, I empower the poor. I tell them that if they can pass this test, the same test the rich kids take, then they are held as equals. It is an easy test. All it does is make sure the education system does its job. I understand that as a member of the education system, you don't like being told that you're not doing a good job, but frankly, kids thinking that "lol" is an acceptable word to use in an essay is a failure of the teachers.

Says who? What are you basing this on?

Seriously? You think a district wide failure in a certain area isn't a sign od a deficiency? You're teaching kids? That scares me.

Perhaps he doesn't. So your point is completely invalid.

He still has to read recipes, convert measurements, and perform any number of operations with basic skills. You can't debate this point, which makes your entire post invalid. You never give a good reason why basic skills shouldn't be tested.

You would now.

And I will never assume that you know anything.

So somebody that I don't know and never will never meet, knows what is better for me in my life than I do?

Then why even have a fucking government? I'll never meet the President, but he makes decisions that effect my life every day. I don't know any congressmen either, so fuck these laws, they don't know what's best for me.

Since when have you been such a proponent of governmental control in personal lives?

I vote Republican, so, umm forever. I just choose to break a couple of laws.

No, we should give them the opportunity to be equipped, and provide them the tools they may need in life.

Right. Standardized tests make sure that they leave school with those tools.

But, if they choose to not accept them, then they have to live with that.

Right, so if they can't demonstrate beasic knowledge, they don't graduate.

These days, you almost have to if you want children to be employed. Which is sad, in my opinion, that places of employment don't bother to take the time to actually find out what skills an individual has, but rather relies on a piece of paper to hire someone or not.



But, it's not like you just hand them the piece of paper and they never have to work for it. Those students still have to meet school and state standards in the classroom in order to get the diploma. If they choose to not graduate and drop out instead, then that's on them. But to deny them an opportunity for employment simply because of a test that was written by people who know nothing about education, and will never meet the children whose lives they disrupt, is completely silly.

And in almost every state, standardized exit exams are one of those standards. Since you feel that students need to meet state requirements, I win. Furthermore, while you continue to indict the education system, a failing system that you are a member of, are you ever going to answer why we shouldn't ensure that students are leaving schools with the basic tools to compete for jobs?

I think that is "1984" I hear calling you...

No, you're mistaken, you hear Alfie Kohn calling you.

No, these tests don't tell you the job teachers are doing, they'll tell you whatever it is the government wants it to tell you. Like I said, when you see a 15% rise in test scores, and the government calls you and your students failures, then it's complete bullshit.

Well, if you improve a failing system by 15%, then you are still failing. I understand your need to protect teachers but blame the system, I just don't get how you don't see how much a hypocrite you're being. The system sucks but the teachers are great. Blaming others...FTW!!!

And you know it.

I know you didn't give me the baseline scores that you improved. If you improve a 60 by 15%, you still fail.

But, she passed her standardized exit exam. South Carolina began providing those exit exams way back in 1998. So, what's the deal? According to you, people won't sound like her if they pass the exit exam, and yet here you are offering her as proof for those very same exams.

Stop focusing on the one specific girl. My point is that all too often the average student would give an answer like that because their teachers leave them unprepared. Standardized testing forces teachers to teach certain material. This material, mind you, forms the basis of communication skills in a society.

Shoot yourself in the foot much?

Nope, but I bet if you shot yourself in the foot, you'd blame the gun, because that's what you're doing in this post.

http://ed.sc.gov/agency/Accountability/Assessment/old/assessment/programs/hsap/

Thanks for focusing on one sentence and taking it out of context to try and prove a weak point. Why again should kids be allowed to graduate if they can't write a sentence properly?

No, they don't. They just penalize you more if you cannot.

You should be penalized if you can't.

Like I said, these aren't magical tests.

Neither did I. I just prefer the to the alternative, which allows teachers to pass kids so their numbers look good without there ever being any accountability.

But see, now you're delving into the area of teacher abusing the system. That's a whole other matter. Why are you going to punish kids because of teachers?

Allowing teachers to abuse the system punishes the kids.

What the fuck do you call those 4+ years he or she spent in high school?

Test prep. That's what you want me to say. This girl obviously has more going for her than getting a high school diploma. Once again, way to take something out of context. I'll dumb down the rest of my post for you.

I always love doing stuff like that.

I got it from the West Wing. One guy was trying to lecture a chick based on the education system in Kirkwood, Oregon. Her response was that textbooks are important, if for no other reason, they accurately place Kirkwood in California.

Then why should they be allowed to graduate if they choose not take their education? I sincerely think that you feel school is babysitting

I do. Look at where we rank internationally. We have far more resources to offer children, but we are a middle of the pack nation. I challenged myself in school. I got college credits, took a second year of physics, and learned calculus. What are the kids who are there because they have to be doing? Fucking off with an adult in the room to make sure no one dies. I think that a standardized test at least shows that teacher made an effort to educate a child.

Holy fucking shit, if you even BEGAN to understand how off you are on that one. I think one of the biggest problems with school is that it IS treated as a babysitting service.

I never disagreed with you that parents today suck ass. As a matter of fact I resoundingly agree with you.

Don't even get me started.

Why?

Why is taking AP classes a requirement for all students? Do you not understand that not everyone has the desire to do the same things in life?

I'm glad I didn't have to go line by line on that one. I said that I took advantage of what was out there for me. That is taking advantage of a situation. I tried to challenge myself. My point is that if one chooses not to take advantage of all the opportunities in front of them, they should be forced to gain basic skills while in school. My argument is that standardized tests best determine that these requirements are met.

Completely false.

Receiving an education is NOT a requirement. Being given the OPPORTUNITY to receive an education is a requirement.

All the states that do have standardized testing would argue that receiving an education is, in fact, a requirement.

I have no problem with exit exams, if they are applied voluntarily by the school.

What is the difference between the school applying them and the state applying them? The school is an arm of the state.

But having people hundreds of miles away with no educational foundations being the one to devise and implement these tests is completely ridiculous.

Our education board commissions classroom educators to write the tests, so you are off base here.

Do you? Like I said, I've actually given the damn things. You?

You give high school exit exams in the elementary school you teach in? There are bigger problems in Missouri than testing.

They earn it in their 4+ years of high school, passing classes and meet school and state requirements for graduation.

State requirements like exit exams.

Yes. Don't hire anyone who couldn't pass a test when they were 18. Sounds fair. After all, businesses are much more important to this country than people.

1. I won't hire someone who couldn't pass a test they got to take five times after targeted education and tutoring.

2. Businesses should be able to determine of someone can understand the employee handbook when they get hired.

Those people won't pass high school. You seem to think that kids do nothing all day and then magically move on to the next level.

The kids who can't pass the test likely can't pass high school either. The tests just provide a check for an idiot football player who got passed based on his forty time. That happens.

You ARE aware, I would hope, that schools have "classes". And in these classes, "learning" takes place. And each teacher evaluates learning by giving "tests". And those student's don't move to the next level unless they receive a competent "grade".

Right, I went to school, so I understand. You do understand that an exit exam ensures that those students can properly apply the information they regurgitated on those tests?

But, the difference between that and exit exams is that students have an entire school year to prove their competency. You're giving them only a couple hours, and those couple hours may completely erase everything that student did for the last four years.

Multiple chances, targeted tutoring....you never address these points because they completely undermine everything you have said. Your debating theory, I'm debating practice. The pragmatic view is superior to the ideological one.

No, it shouldn't. PARENTS should be teaching that.

I phrased that wrong. What I meant to say is that schools should provide a working example of what happens if you fail to listen to superiors.

And I need McDonalds cooks too. So who are we to tell people what vocations in life are good and which are bad? Do you not understand that there are people who don't wish to make the most money, or have the highest prestige jobs? If I had ever applied, I have no doubt I could have went to a VERY good law school, and become a lawyer. Or I could have gone to a very good medical school and become a doctor. I know this because I have a cousin doing each, and I did better in high school and college than both of them, and I didn't even try.

No, I get it. I think we're saying the same thing. But I am also willing to guess that no kids sat in kindergarten hoping to be a grave digger.

But, I didn't. I wanted to be a teacher. Don't put down occupations simply because how you feel they rank in the hierarchy of life.

I never put down teaching as an occupation. I think it's a noble profession. As a matter of fact, I feel that teachers should be rewarded like the military. If you graduate college and do a tour in the military, you get grad school, law school, medical school, paid for. I think if you serve four years as a teacher, the government should fund your furthering education. I love teachers. I dated one. She left town to go work for the state board of education. You can read all about it in the NorCal thread.

Really? How so? Furthermore, are you saying that if a child doesn't pass a test when they are 18, then they are forever doomed to work jobs they don't want?

I am saying that if they don't pass it in one of the multiple chances they get, then they are failing to try, and deserve their lot in life. You never address the multiple chances argument either.

Basically, are you suggesting we imprison children who make bad decisions, and then punish them the rest of their lives, with no hope for parole?

Are you suggesting that we give children who make a conscious decision to fail should be given everything for the rest of their lives?

Yes, because passing a test shows how much a person really knows about life.

It shows how much they know about the basic skills needed to lead a good life.

Education is not about tests, it is not about textbooks. It is about preparing children for life. Some people want to be doctors, some want to be farmers, some want to be McDonald's cooks. Education is there to provide everyone the opportunity to do what they want in life, if they are willing to work for it.

And why, again, should we not ensure that someone has the basic skills to get any of those jobs? You already said that you don't have a problem with tests if the school wants to give them, so you agree that these tests are necessary. Your problem is that the government writes them. The threads to indict the government are found elsewhere.

tests don't measure ability. They measure facts that people who don't work in the educational system think people 40 years younger than them ought to know.

Man you get something and run with it. I don't how many times I have to tell you that teachers write the fucking test. Leaving that out conveniently helps your argument though. Way to contextualize and narrow the debate to a few off the wall points about the education system as a whole instead of the point we're debating.

That wasn't my question. My question was how big are the schools those people come from?

And my point is that every representative represents a wide range of schools and districts. This goes back to your point about rurla education versus city education. One, this shows you to be an elitist. Do you not think that every student should know how to comprehend text and count?

So do I.

And I haven't brought it up before, but I will now. These standardized tests AREN'T just measuring how to do 4+4 and how many planets are in the solar system. They're not easy. Hell, I gave an EIGHTH grade MAP (Missouri Assessment Program) test, and I was asked to read over questions that took me a while to figure out how to do. And, not to toot my own horn, but I was a very good student in high school, and was in the gifted education program. And I had trouble with some questions on the 8th grade exam.

Furthermore, are you aware HOW these tests are given? A teacher cannot tell a student ANYTHING that is asked of them. The only thing a teacher can do is answer questions about the test itself (like how much time is left, will they need a rule for that section, etc.). Any question about a problem on the exam, a teacher can't help with. Which means when you get in situations where a question can be interpreted in different ways by a child, you can't tell them which way to answer the question correctly.

So, while I haven't mentioned it yet, as I've focused on the actual theory, these exams are NOT like what you are mentioning. And, again, I've given these tests...you took them over 6 years ago.

I took them eleven years ago, in tenth grade. And if they've changed, they've changed. But the same point holds true. These test test basic knowledge. There is nothing on them that is not taught in every class required for graduation. Kids do not have to get a perfect score to pass them. If a child can't recite 70% of a remedial education program within five chances and after targeted tutoring sessions then I feel that that child is choosing to fail.

http://www.edutopia.org/textbook-publishing-controversy

Thanks. From that article....

If you're creating a new textbook, therefore, you start by scrutinizing "Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills" (TEKS). This document is drawn up by a group of curriculum experts, teachers, and political insiders appointed by the 15 members of the Texas Board of Education,

Thanks. Teachers and politicians side by side. I assume the teachers write the material and the politicians make sure that it is not offensive to any minority group.

Oh, but you are wrong. Are you not familiar with IEPs?

The fuck they aren't going after teachers. Why don't you actually try becoming a teacher before you speak such ridiculous words. Or better yet, try Topix.com, and just see the crap people say about teachers on there. Or read newspaper articles, and see how much they slam educators.

Look at our education system. Failing to blame the teachers is like firing the manager is a baseball team can't get a hit. Most teachers are awesome and deserve more than they receive. Some, however, suck, and give you all a bad name. That is shitty and unfair. I would send my child happily to any class you teach, but would ask you a million questions about all the other teachers on his schedule.

As far as your 15 people who just show up to get a paycheck...sure, that happens. Not as much where I work, but I know it happens a lot. But, now you are talking about a teacher problem, not a student problem. Perhaps if we didn't treat teachers so poorly in society, dumping every responsibility in the world on them while paying them less than what Alex Rodriguez makes in one AB, then maybe we'd have more and better teachers to replace the ones who don't care.

I agree 100%. Teachers are an amazing resource, and deserve more. I think that standardized testing would be a great aid in eliminating the shit teachers, showing whose students fail consistently, and getting better teachers in their place. Then the slamming starts and the cry for increasing salaries gets louder. I am currently in the middle of a decision to quit my job and start teaching high school economics next year (mainly so I can coach football, a dream of mine) or keep my job with a good salary and benefits.

No, my problem is the test failing to take into account the system. These aren't separate issues.



Yes, because if ONE child in the United States decides to make pretty patterns on his test, then the country fails at education. Great point.

You're telling me that a government program expects 100% of kids to pass a standardized test? That's absurd. That still doesn't explain why these tests shouldn't be a requirement for graduation. If we separate the graduation requirement from the obvious holes in the education system, then what is your argument? Is it still that reading comprehension isn't needed to be a chef, so it shouldn't be a graduation requirement? Or is is that the pressure of a test that you get redos on after targeted tutoring is too much for some kids?

The 100% proficient applies to EVERY state and EVERY child. What you're saying is that if even ONE child doesn't do well on this test, then the entire public school education system fails. Do you realize how stupid you sound when you say such things?

I don't think I said that. That sounds pretty stupid to me too.

OK, I reread that part. Do you really have to pass every kid to get funding? That sounds ridiculous. But let's separate government stupidty from student proficiency for the purpose of this debate.

Teachers do. They do it EVERY day and have for many decades now.

The tests isolate areas that need improvement. They are an aid to good teachers.

You favor a system that will eventually end public education in favor of private education, and then to prevent an injustice, you're just going to give everyone a voucher to go to private school. So, basically, you're going to have a government funded private school system, in which the government has zero say in how the school system is run.

This sounds like exactly what you want. Half your post is about how the government is ruining education.

But actually, what I am in favor of is giving the kids with the least a little help. I am not the fascist, classist monster you think I am.

I thought you were in favor of making sure your government money was being spent well. This whole statement runs the OPPOSITE of what you say. Have the government spend money to educate children, and then have no say in how that money is spent and the type of education those children receive.

Then I guess we decided to change sides halfway through.

I'm guessing you didn't think this part out very long.

But, a lot of these children don't go to school for 13 years. A couple years back, we had a kid come in as a junior who spoke ZERO English. He has two years to learn the english language. The kid was extremely bright, as was his younger brother. According to you, though, these kids shouldn't be allowed to work jobs befitting their high intelligence, because their parents moved them into the district two years before they have to take your piss bucket exam.

I am sure that there are excpetions to the testing procedures. I am sure that kids like this get an out or some help, or a different test.

And if they don't, changing the entire system to accomodate two kids is stupid.

And if they don't get exceptions, that is even more stupid.

Yes, it does suck. But it sucks more now than when you were in school. And I know that because I graduated at least at the same time, if not after you, and it sucks worse than when I went to school.

That's because parents allow kids to grow up too fast. What drama do kids have now that they didn't have in the late 90's? Their jeans are tighter?

The hell it's not. My sister took the ACT 4 times, and felt the same pressure, if not more so, every time. And that wasn't even a test to graduate, that was a test to see how much money should could get to go to college.

She comes from a smart family, I'm sure she did fine. I never took the ACT, I only took the SAT, scored a 1480 and moved on. I was hungover though. I wonder how I could have done. Part of me thinks the hangover made me focus more and improved my score, like the Jordan flu game against Utah.

When you say "either pass this test or never have the option to work in any career you want", quite a bit.

I stand by it. It's the kids that can't pass class that fail the test. It just reinforces their deficiencies.

I'm thinking you are not familiar with the tests kids take today. Here is a link. Go to it and read the questions that are asked, and then tell me if you think "When a DVD is read, laser light touches the DVD surface and is then measured at location A. What allows light to return to location A after striking the DVD surface?" is just basic information every child needs to know to succeed in life. (that was question 6 on the science exam).

Reflection and refraction are simple to understand. Understanding what a reflection is may very well be basic information.

No, because the only people who can afford private education are the more wealthy families. Unless you favor providing a governmental voucher to EVERY child in the country...and proving how stupid the voucher system really is.

Private schools give financial aid. You and I are products of public education and we are doing fine, are we not?

Maybe you're not aware, but the No Child Left Behind applies to EVERY state...and by 2014, EVERY state will be in violation of NCLB.

Then the problem lies in the program not the tests.

It's not just Missouri, I assure you.

I know, this is the part I was referring to when I apologized in the VIP Lounge. I really do like you.

If you only knew how much money was wasted in school systems because the government forces it to be.

Texas spends the same amount of money on students as California, and does so with 2/3 of the students. I come from a state that is rather efficient with education funds, but I do get the idea.

And the school should be the one to know where it's problems are, not a state entity who doesn't serve a particular district.

Someone has to administrate and there are educators on staffs that help make these decisions. You are far too smart to believe that grants are unilateral decisions.

And I would like to point out that everything I've written in this thread is why having standardized exit exams are silly, and if you don't understand how it all pieces together, that is more a reflection upon you and your Texas provided education than it is on the way I'm debating the topic.

Your constant indictments of NCLB and the system as whole show problems with the system, not the tests, and you abandoned the idea of tests as a graduation requirement 5,000 words ago. Again, sorry about this part.

I guess my biggest problem was assuming you would understand the subtleties of what I was saying, and how it would fit the broader scope, but I guess not.

Oh no, I understand. I understand that you have a logical disconnect between the problems with system (as in NCLB affeecting funding based on scores) and the idea of making these tests a graduation requirement. It is the goal of the school to graduate every student. It just doesn't happen.

The point I was making is that in the 90s, Internet was not blazing fast, it wasn't the educational tool it is today, and it was very expensive to run. Clinton laid the foundation for the future to be able to use the Internet, even if it wasn't possible at the time to really make use of it. And, let's not even begin to discuss how schools needed to buy computer labs (which individual computers were VERY expensive at the time), switch from 56k jacks to Ethernet receivers, etc. Now that the Internet is huge, computers are cheap, and the Internet is fast, you see more and more educational facilities using the Internet in its curriculum.

It wasn't reasonable, at the time, to expect the Internet to be used in schools, but since it was obviously going to be a great tool in the future, then it was put into school for their usage.

My argument is that that money could have been used to hire teachers and buy new books. My school bought like 400 Dells for a computer lab in every wing. At that point, that money could have been used to hire three or four teachers and cut down on the 35+ student classes.

Need? Maybe not. But, they still will have the class. So it's not like they're NOT getting an education on computers.

OK.

See, again, you don't seem to understand how it all pieces together. It's a shame your Texas educational system and it's standardized tests failed you.

Gee, and here I was putting away an analysis of retail markets ahead of Q4 in order to determine the direction of a large stock portfolio. God, I am stupid.

Why should people who have NO idea about individual districts be the ones to administrate those districts? Shouldn't the administration of districts be left to those who actually run them and are active in them?

Because districts make grant requests to the state and the state doles out limited funds. The state has pertinent information on the district, some of it thanks to standardized tests, and approves or denies those grants based on need. Like I said, someone has to administrate, and the states have chosen who does it. There is some lump sum money that goes to districts. This comes from property tax revenue. Districts get to spend this as they wish, and federal grants gets prioritized. It's not like every district has it's fate determined solely on grants form an administrator. I know that you know this information, I just wonder why you exclude it.

You are applying the educational model of Texas to every state. But, it doesn't work like that. For example, there are over 100 school districts in the state of Missouri...and that's before you even leave the districts that start with "d". That doesn't include all the districts that start with a letter after "d". Here's a list:

http://dese.mo.gov/directory/

And, in those districts, there are individual schools. For example, our school district has four schools: elementary, middle, high and alternative.

So you're telling me that the guy who owns Silver Dollar City is responsible for knowing the best way over 200 school districts, with over 500 schools is to be run? More so than the superintendent of those districts?

No. I am telling you that he knows how to balance a book and run a business, and the people on his staff know how to run school districts, and when they combine their abilities, an effective, efficient system is the product.

And, because you obviously haven't understood it thus far, I'll explain to you how it relates to the topic, because your Texas education obviously doesn't get it. The guy who runs Silver Dollar City is NOT as qualified to know what is best for the students of each individual district. Thus, having that person put together a test based on what HE thinks is best does NOT serve the interest of every child in the state. Which means when that person is putting HIS philosophy of education as more important than the philosophy of the people who actually live their own lives.

See above. Your leaving out facts and information to idealize a silly argument.

Which is just another reason that standardized exit exams are silly.

But now, once again, you're talking about individuals, not the whole. The majority of superintendents in this country are in their position because they want to help kids become the best they can be. I'm sorry you have such a negative view of administration, but I dare say if you ever had the opportunity to be close to a good administration, and see what they do, not to mention all the bullshit they have to put up with, you would think differently on this part of your stance.

The whole first half of your post is about valuing the individual over the whole, and now all of a sudden we need to look at the whole of the situation.

Yes, because she is hired to do what's GOOD for the company. And if she doesn't, then the school board or education reviews her contract and decides to renew it or not.

So...wait a minute. Now are standardized tests aren't even being written by the people that are hired to do it, but instead are people that this State Board of Education person has hired, whose credentials potentially have ZERO to do with their position?

Teachers write the tests. Not every teacher in the state has input. I've been clear about this. Nice try.

And this is the best our state can do? You're right, why bother letting the people with 20+ years of educational experience, and three degrees in education determine what's best for children. It's much better left to the anonymous staff of a guy who is only on the state board of education because of his wealth which comes from running Silver Dollar City.

So now we're focusing on this one individual and not the whole again? Just making sure. I am sure that the people on his staff are just as qualified as your mom to admister funds.

Boy, I sure do have great faith in THIS body to serve the needs of our children.

Just for clarification, I want to see if I have this correct. The guy with NO background in educating students is more qualified to determine what is needed best for thousands of students across hundreds of school districts, than the person in charge of each of those districts, with 20+ years of educational service and three degrees in education? Is that what you are saying?p/quote]

Still twisting the same argument. There are all kinds of former district employers helping to prioritize grants. It's not one person, you know that. You're too smart to believe that.

Which are no longer in use in the state you graduated from.

No, I feel I hit it straight on the head.

Except that I already HAVE argued and given examples. Just because you and your Texas education didn't understand them, doesn't make them any less valid.

Well your Missouri education never taught you how to communicate. You jump back from one contradictory point to another and fail to answer question with anything better than "a chef doesn't need to know how to write a book."

Only to prove why shaping a child's entire life based upon one test is silly.

Stop acting like this is some pop quiz that only comes around once a year and is taken under lock and key in front of employers. These tests are a breeze.

Funny, I always thought having actual knowledge of a subject was an important part of any debate. Sorry we can't all be as ignorant as you.

If you have any knowledge, which I question, then use it. You are asserting that one person administers all funds for the state board of education. You fail to respond to several points I make. Seriously, if these are your best posts ever, then you have overrated yourself from day one. They are full of off topic nonsense and ideological rantings. Answer the questions you are asked. Calling me ignorant isn't answering the questions. It's a two year old throwing a fit because he was smacked down by a parent.

I belittle you because of your asinine opinions, and because of how badly your proud Texas education has failed you in your quest to understand a post that uses good writing to make a point, as opposed to the "shoot me in the face with your point" posts that you usually see on the forums.

I'm sorry. Next time I'll try to dumb down my post more for you.

You TRY to belittle me because you can't argue the basic point that we need a way to determine that every child has the basic tools to go out in the world and succeed. Instead of debating the topic, you call names and indict the education system as a whole. I love how you tell me the system is failing without acknowledging that you are a member of that system. Stop trying so hard to be an asshole and answer the fucking questions.

 

[xAsianRejectx]

As a student who took a standardized test I say, Why the hell not distribute them?
Here in California every High School teen in the 10th grade is required to take this test and pass. This is called the CASHEE. If they don't, they get many more oppurtunities to do so. The test allows the students to show they have basic knowledge and education and are capable to graduate.

Honestly though, these tests are a piece of cake. One of the easiest standardized tests I've taken. It's very simple with basic knowledge in english and math. If a student can't pass, then they truly need help with learning this material. My school even decided to make a class out of helping students to pass this the second time. It's very easy for most students to pass it.

 

[laxfan41]

I believe that there absolutely should be standardized tests. However something that I don't believe was right was that in the 90's and maybe even now but I don't think so, the girls took a different and easier test than the boys because the boys got better grades than the girls. That is absolutely idiotic, just because one group does better than the other doesn't mean that you have to punish the winners, even if it was the boys getting an easier test that would still be wrong, but that is not the point.

People will claim that teachers have to teach to the test instead of teaching the students. Well, let's assume for a second that the information on the test forms the basis of understanding. I know that our standardized tests consisted of vocabulary, reading comprehension, and basic math. In a productive society, it is the duty of the education system to ensure the people are capable in these matters. Everyone, at some point, has to write a report on something, and ensuring that they know proper sentence structure and punctuation is a good thing. Look at the posts on this forum. I red rep "lulz, cuz good Czena is, man more than I red rep content. That juvenile nonsense doesn't serve anything, and drags down the forums. What do you think it does to a workplace? Basic communication is necessary, and if teachers are only teaching it because it's on a test, then the test does it's job. Kids that understand how to form a sentence are still reading 10-12 books a year in high school, and getting exposed to culture and literature. I know that my AP classes spent literally no time preparing for these tests, as we were expected to know the information. If remedial classes are "being taught to the test", ummm, good. They probably need it.

I agree, and also, if the test is what you need to know to go on to the next level of education and be succesful in life, wouldn't you want to learn the test.

The average percentile of the tests would show what school has a smart student body and what schools don't. It is also a reality check for students, parents and teachers, when I went to school, a 93% was the lowest A you could get, 85% was the lowest B you could get, 76% was the lowest C you could get, 70% was the lowest D and anyhing below that was an F. Some schools now have like 85% is still an A, and then you could go home to your parents and say "I got an A ma!" but with standardized tests where a 50 percentile is average with the nation, it gives you an estimate of whether you are smart or not. So to summarize, I think standadized tests are essential.