Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 140 posts

Re: Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools

#131

Post by rahimnathwani »

themartorana wrote: post #99
SilasX wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that disagrees with me: yes, schools should teach a general understanding, rather than drilling a narrow toolbox that works on one specific test. But then: - As I said above, you would need to cite which test question are game-able, and which encourage this narrow teaching, which critics never do. - If the problem is that teachers try to satisfy this goal by trying to game the tests, then the problem is…

"From September until Christmas vacation, [Brookside] was like any school you would imagine. Then, once they got back from Christmas break, for the next nine weeks until testing began, it was a different animal. What they did was drop their curriculum, drop their texts, and instead study exclusively from a standardized-test prep book. Kids weren't getting a liberal arts education, but prepping to a very narrowly draw…

Do you (A) oppose standardised testing in general, or (B) just object to (i) the way the test results are used as incentives/whatever, and (ii) think they test too narrow a set of subjects, or (C) something else?

You raise an objection to raises and funding being tied to test outcomes. Why would this be bad? Sure, if the tests are testing the wrong things, then we should fix the tests. But, it's not impossible to measure educational outcomes. Why should teachers continued employment, and pay, not reflect how well they are measured to be doing, at the thing they are paid to do?

Re: Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools

#132

Post by 6d0debc071 »

matwood wrote: post #125
6d0debc071 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you are arguing that we as a society need to lower our general education standards? Is this not the exact opposite of what we need to be doing? Math in particular is so important whether dealing with personal finances or simply thinking abstractly. What happens when the hypothetical taxi driver job goes away? If society didn't care enough to try and teach that person some general education when we had the chance…

I'm not sure I can relate at all to your argument when you are arguing against basic math education. Standardize testing is not testing physics or law or medicine. It is testing bog standard basics. If we cannot get our youth up to that standard then something is very wrong, and blaming it on a test is a huge mistake. >The taxi-driver is probably better off not having taken a mathematics course (under the current cur…

The bog standard basics presumably relate to more advanced areas, for the purposes of your argument. Otherwise the taxi driver would be unemployed, and out of luck, regardless.

Nonetheless, I've yet to be convinced of the necessity of meeting that standard, basic or not. If one is to look at the UK education system, which doesn't seem to produce measurably worse employment or lives for its participants than the US, then one will note that the maths being taught in the papers given by the person I was responding to in the US is not dissimilar to the lower stream maths GCSE - taken at around 16 - in which a C is a quite acceptable grade for most purposes. Even then, there are things there that would not show up in a GCSE paper - a kid wouldn't need to know scientific notation to pass that test with a C.

As for payday loans etc. The obvious answer is 'don't accept deals you don't understand' it's possible to sting people on a great number of things, based on your advantage in some area that they do not understand. If it's not maths it will be penalty fees hidden in the legalize. By the time you're up to needing scientific notation and square roots to understand your loan, it's a deal that someone ought not to have taken in the first place.

It does not seem unfair to me to ask: You describe it as basic, and threaten all these consequences if it's not taught... there are places where that level of performance is not expected, and these consequences do not seem any more in evidence. So, why should I buy into the idea that this knowledge is needed?

Re: Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools

#133

Post by Kequc »

tsotha wrote: post #122
Kequc wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just did some wikipedia sleuthing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#P... > The US Census declared that in 2010 15.1% of the general population lived in poverty: 22% of all people under age 18 13.7% of all people 19–21 and 9% of all people ages 65 and older.

Poverty statistics in the US don't include government programs. How many of those kids are hungry after welfare and food stamps?

Aren't government programs in the US globally famous for being woefully inadequate and embarrassing? Who brings up America's social safety net in defense of the upper class? It's clear you aren't letting this topic go but this isn't the place for it.

Re: Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools

#134

Post by tsotha »

Kequc wrote: post #133
tsotha wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poverty statistics in the US don't include government programs. How many of those kids are hungry after welfare and food stamps?

Aren't government programs in the US globally famous for being woefully inadequate and embarrassing? Who brings up America's social safety net in defense of the upper class? It's clear you aren't letting this topic go but this isn't the place for it.

>Aren't government programs in the US globally famous for being woefully inadequate and embarrassing?

Only to people who haven't actually looked at them. US welfare programs are certainly adequate to ensure nobody goes hungry. If children are going hungry it means their parents are spending money earmarked for food on something else.

Re: Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools

#135

Post by lm______ »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #124
acdha wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Scroll up - it was smelendez who made the claim that teachers take their stress out on students, not me. I just phrased it in a manner that gives teachers agency. No, you were making a blanket statement about an entire profession. Saying that people react poorly under prolonged stress is a simple statement of fact, with decades of concurring evidence from fields ranging from business and education to neuroscience,…

No, you were making a blanket statement about an entire profession. I didn't claim that teachers take their stress out on students. I simply claimed that if they did, they are horrible and unprofessional. My claim is conditional on smelendez being right. Again, scroll up. If you want to dispute that characterization, and argue that it's professional behavior to let your emotions get in the way of work have at it. I d…

> I didn't claim that teachers take their stress out on students. I simply claimed that if they did, they are horrible and unprofessional.

Maybe there is misunderstanding around the phrase "take out on" (it doesn't imply intentionality to me), but how could stress not affect a teacher's performance in the class room? It doesn't mean they're horrible and unprofessional, it means they're human!

Re: Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools

#136

Post by saganus »

jonlucc wrote: post #53
saganus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my limited experience with friends from private schools, I've seen that they usually have better infrastructure, lab equipment, etc. Also from what I was told, teachers usually are payed better so a lot of them come from better universities and also it seems that they are better updated on current technologies. Of course this will depend on school and I also think even private schools get some crappy teachers/ba…

That's fascinating to me, because when I was in high school, it was opposite. I visited a few private school science class labs because I was in a sort of city-wide science club, and the ones in private schools generally had worse infrastructure and supplies. Also, one of my teachers mentioned that she considered herself payed-up for tithing to the church for the rest of her life because she worked for less pay at a…

Maybe it could be due to being different countries?

I was talking about Mexico in this case.

I'm not saying there aren't shitty private schools in Mexico. There are a lot of everything. You can find some of the best high schools and colleges from the public side, as well as from the private.

But in general I found that here most private schools had at least nicer infrastructure. Maybe teachers were a mixed bag since you can also have old school catholic/religious institutions that would have really retrograde teachers, but again, at least in the infrastructure side money did seem to buy much better things.

That might also have to do with the fact that taxes in Mexico are not prioritized for education and so most public schools are really lacking in pretty much everything. Students and teachers basically put a significant part of the expense in school materials as well as things like paint for the buildings, repairing broken bathrooms, etc. It's a really dire situation that gets worse every day.

Under this context then, a private institution that can raise a significant amount of money from parents, will usually manage to make a very big difference.

We are talking about the difference between having a public college where most bathrooms were non functional, had no toiler paper or soap (so pretty much only running water if that) vs a private college where there is a Starbucks inside campus and other such amenities (like fully functional bathrooms and plenty of them, etc). Same thing for labs and of course the students capacity to buy newer (or even any kind) of laptops, etc.

Same thing for high schools where there is no space to play sports vs having a fully stocked gymnasium with a soccer field, showers, etc.

I guess that was my view at least.

Re: Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools

#137

Post by lm______ »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #69
lm______ wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DIBELS, MAPS, Common Core, etc. Some of these happen multiple times a year. I honestly can't remember all of the names, but I can assure you there were more. I was a tutor -- I never administered any of these tests -- and it was three years ago. Just Google "first grade standardized tests" and you'll find some more, though I can't remember which of those in particular the kids at my school took. Each state has its ow…

Googled "first grade standardized tests" and not seeing anywhere near 6 or 7 plus more. Sure you can't remember them all?

Yes, I'm sure. Why are you so hellbent on doubting me?

Re: Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools

#138

Post by jessedhillon »

SilasX wrote: post #100
jessedhillon wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think there's a qualitative difference involved in teaching for the purpose of instilling enough knowledge to pass an exam, versus teaching to instill a passion for the material? Making dioramas, drawing political cartoons, and wearing togas while reciting Mark Antony's speech from Julius Caesar were the kinds of things that kept me motivated to read and understand material in which I held no innate interes…

It's far more important that students can add than that they got to goof around in togas. Ideal world? They can do both. But if they can't do the math, then the togas just have to wait.

Sounds like you have a lot of experience teaching.

Re: Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools

#139

Post by plonh »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #131
themartorana wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"From September until Christmas vacation, [Brookside] was like any school you would imagine. Then, once they got back from Christmas break, for the next nine weeks until testing began, it was a different animal. What they did was drop their curriculum, drop their texts, and instead study exclusively from a standardized-test prep book. Kids weren't getting a liberal arts education, but prepping to a very narrowly draw…

Do you (A) oppose standardised testing in general, or (B) just object to (i) the way the test results are used as incentives/whatever, and (ii) think they test too narrow a set of subjects, or (C) something else? You raise an objection to raises and funding being tied to test outcomes. Why would this be bad? Sure, if the tests are testing the wrong things, then we should fix the tests. But, it's not impossible to mea…

The most profitable companies on earth got their by having a time horizon of longer than 8 months . there are critically important things that you can't measure on a multiple choice test

Re: Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools

#140

Post by xjlin0 »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #4
littletimmy wrote: post #3

The rich send their kids to private schools. Therefore, this problem does not apply to the rich. Therefore, this problem will not be solved.

This made me pause and think for a moment. What do rich kid schools do? I have no idea. I went to a dumb kid rural high school. But for some reason through the endless education discussion I've never heard brought up what rich kid schools do differently. Even if the answer is "but we can't do that because we're poor". Man. Now you've got me all curious...

My sister sends her son to a private school, academia type, very intense on read/write/arithmetic, especially in their daily homework (more than 12 pages/day), and that's for age 5!!! Not exaggerate about the home work because I helped it, practicing writing many words, read short and easy stories, some summation like 12+4. Pretty surprising to see an age 5 do that, though painful for him.
Post reply on HN