4 ms·

The thing is, what do you gain by knowing that school X scores 13% lower on standardized tests than school Y? That school X is worse than school Y? How does tha

The thing is, what do you gain by knowing that school X scores 13% lower on standardized tests than school Y? That school X is worse than school Y? How does that help you provide a better educational experience for the students? My mom's been a teacher for ~40 years, and one thing to realize about standardized tests it that they don't provide any new information to the teachers---the teachers already know which students are struggling and which students aren't. In fact, standardized testing reduces teachers' ability to respond to variation in student ability, because all students need to be prepped for the same test. Preparing lesson plans is one of the most time-consuming aspects of being a teacher, and standardized tests make that task more difficult by adding more requirements. IMO, it would be better to focus on ways to reduce teachers' administrative burdens---perhaps by making it easier to collaborate and share lesson plans with other teachers[1]. [1] And I mean genuinely make it easier to collaborate, not forcing teachers to spend 90 minutes a day trying to enter their plans into the latest and greatest ed-tech website. If you want the information standardized, hire someone specifically to transcribe paper plans into whatever system the school administrators pick.

cgmg 9y ago
"How does that help you provide a better educational experience for the students?" It helps you identify which schools are in need of special attention and require structural changes.
- repsilat 9y ago
  With some competitive pressure from school choice at the margins, coupled with per-student funding, it would also provide incentives for schools to improve.
  - jacalata 9y ago
    In practice, it seems to create a black hole where a school that serves a population that isn't good at tests (e.g disabled kids, non English speakers) gets low scores so everyone who could get a good score leaves and then the school does even worse and gets less funding and then the school is failing and the "fix" is to fire the administration, spend money bringing in new staff who don't know the area or the students, and expect that to solve the systemic issues revealed by poor test scores. To avoid this, schools are indeed incentivized to improve - for instance, by directing low performing students to stay home on the day of the test, or by discouraging students with learning difficulties from attending at all.
    - bonesss 9y ago
      This effect is visible in urban centers as well. Public education is supposed to be a leg up into the world for everyone, not the start of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
    - bluGill 9y ago
      That means we are not using the tests results correctly though. Knowing there is a problem is the first step in fixing it - but it doesn't tell you what the next step is.
  - CryptoFascist 9y ago
    The idea that competitive pressure improves school performance is one of those simple, obvious, and wrong Econ 101 ideas.
    - cgmg 9y ago
      Do you have evidence to back up your claim that it is "wrong"?
    - repsilat 9y ago
      Even if the bad schools can't respond to incentives to improve, allowing students to choose good schools over bad ones naturally increases utility.
      - wahern 9y ago
        No it doesn't. It could easily result in less social utility by promoting self-segregation and the concentration of funding into high achievement schools where the marginal utility of each additional dollar is substantially diminished at the outset. The reason why kids from poor families do poorly in school is also the reason why those families are _least_ likely to be selective in their choice of schools. These are not independent phenomena. So unless the only utility function that matters is freedom to choose your school, approaches like vouchers are unlikely to improve things and could easily not only perpetuate but exacerbate achievement gaps and derivative social issues, like crime.
        cgmg 9y ago
        The evidence indicates that voucher systems improve test scores, graduation rates, and other aspects of both public and private schools, not just the latter: http://educationnext.org/rising-tide/ http://educationnext.org/rising-tide/
        wahern 9y ago
        15 years later, http://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/28/vouchers-not-improve-student-achievement-stanford-researcher-finds/ http://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/28/vouchers-not-improve-stu... I wouldn't expect charter schools to actually change much because the evidence is very clear that the most important factor in achievement, overwhelmingly, is the child's home environment.
bluGill 9y ago
It is possible (even likely) that our current standardized tests need some adjustment to fit the needs. However the purpose of standardized tests is there are standardized needs. As a member of society I want everybody to know some things. If a kid passes first grade without getting the correct answer to 2+2 there is a problem, it isn't acceptable to say your school doesn't teach math until second grade. In a single school that is just fine, but people move and so on a national scale that does not work. Now I understand that not all kids have the same abilities or backgrounds, and both make a big difference in how far those kids can go. That needs to be managed, but it needs to be managed in the standardized process. It does seem to me that teachers should have a few common lesson plans to choose from. There is no reason a teacher should have to create their own plan. Being a good teacher within a plan should be easier because they can prepare to use a working plan.
- wahern 9y ago
  Now I understand that not all kids have the same abilities or backgrounds, and both make a big difference in how far those kids can go. That needs to be managed, but it needs to be managed in the standardized process. If our society were prepared to manage the fundamental issues that plague our educational system, then your rationale makes perfect sense, assuming that the standardized lesson plans were designed to facilitate the assessment of meaningful programs. But we're not prepared. Rather, the standardization efforts were an excuse to avoid addressing the fundamental issues, and have become a distraction that causes authorities to focus on the wrong aspects of educational reform. The overwhelming factor in educational achievement of a population is the quality of home life, and in particular the participation of adult family members. Poor families have neither the time, money, nor enculturation to facilitate meaningful improvements in home life. Without a social commitment targeting the root causes, such as by providing free day care, the standardization efforts achieve nothing, and unnecessarily constrain local control. Since the Bush-era standardization reforms, the achievement gap has only _grown_. And we're still matriculating kids without the requisite skills as the alternatives, like holding kids back year-after-year, are neither desirable nor practical.

cgmg 9y ago

"How does that help you provide a better educational experience for the students?" It helps you identify which schools are in need of special attention and require structural changes.

repsilat 9y ago
With some competitive pressure from school choice at the margins, coupled with per-student funding, it would also provide incentives for schools to improve.
- jacalata 9y ago
  In practice, it seems to create a black hole where a school that serves a population that isn't good at tests (e.g disabled kids, non English speakers) gets low scores so everyone who could get a good score leaves and then the school does even worse and gets less funding and then the school is failing and the "fix" is to fire the administration, spend money bringing in new staff who don't know the area or the students, and expect that to solve the systemic issues revealed by poor test scores. To avoid this, schools are indeed incentivized to improve - for instance, by directing low performing students to stay home on the day of the test, or by discouraging students with learning difficulties from attending at all.
  - bonesss 9y ago
    This effect is visible in urban centers as well. Public education is supposed to be a leg up into the world for everyone, not the start of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    That means we are not using the tests results correctly though. Knowing there is a problem is the first step in fixing it - but it doesn't tell you what the next step is.
- CryptoFascist 9y ago
  The idea that competitive pressure improves school performance is one of those simple, obvious, and wrong Econ 101 ideas.
  - cgmg 9y ago
    Do you have evidence to back up your claim that it is "wrong"?
  - repsilat 9y ago
    Even if the bad schools can't respond to incentives to improve, allowing students to choose good schools over bad ones naturally increases utility.
    - wahern 9y ago
      No it doesn't. It could easily result in less social utility by promoting self-segregation and the concentration of funding into high achievement schools where the marginal utility of each additional dollar is substantially diminished at the outset. The reason why kids from poor families do poorly in school is also the reason why those families are _least_ likely to be selective in their choice of schools. These are not independent phenomena. So unless the only utility function that matters is freedom to choose your school, approaches like vouchers are unlikely to improve things and could easily not only perpetuate but exacerbate achievement gaps and derivative social issues, like crime.
      - cgmg 9y ago
        The evidence indicates that voucher systems improve test scores, graduation rates, and other aspects of both public and private schools, not just the latter: http://educationnext.org/rising-tide/ http://educationnext.org/rising-tide/
        wahern 9y ago
        15 years later, http://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/28/vouchers-not-improve-student-achievement-stanford-researcher-finds/ http://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/28/vouchers-not-improve-stu... I wouldn't expect charter schools to actually change much because the evidence is very clear that the most important factor in achievement, overwhelmingly, is the child's home environment.

bluGill 9y ago

It is possible (even likely) that our current standardized tests need some adjustment to fit the needs. However the purpose of standardized tests is there are standardized needs. As a member of society I want everybody to know some things. If a kid passes first grade without getting the correct answer to 2+2 there is a problem, it isn't acceptable to say your school doesn't teach math until second grade. In a single school that is just fine, but people move and so on a national scale that does not work. Now I understand that not all kids have the same abilities or backgrounds, and both make a big difference in how far those kids can go. That needs to be managed, but it needs to be managed in the standardized process. It does seem to me that teachers should have a few common lesson plans to choose from. There is no reason a teacher should have to create their own plan. Being a good teacher within a plan should be easier because they can prepare to use a working plan.

wahern 9y ago
Now I understand that not all kids have the same abilities or backgrounds, and both make a big difference in how far those kids can go. That needs to be managed, but it needs to be managed in the standardized process. If our society were prepared to manage the fundamental issues that plague our educational system, then your rationale makes perfect sense, assuming that the standardized lesson plans were designed to facilitate the assessment of meaningful programs. But we're not prepared. Rather, the standardization efforts were an excuse to avoid addressing the fundamental issues, and have become a distraction that causes authorities to focus on the wrong aspects of educational reform. The overwhelming factor in educational achievement of a population is the quality of home life, and in particular the participation of adult family members. Poor families have neither the time, money, nor enculturation to facilitate meaningful improvements in home life. Without a social commitment targeting the root causes, such as by providing free day care, the standardization efforts achieve nothing, and unnecessarily constrain local control. Since the Bush-era standardization reforms, the achievement gap has only _grown_. And we're still matriculating kids without the requisite skills as the alternatives, like holding kids back year-after-year, are neither desirable nor practical.