7 ms·

"This is the most important sentence in the article. It points to a problem in the test itself - California's students didn't just get magically stupider." Yes

"This is the most important sentence in the article. It points to a problem in the test itself - California's students didn't just get magically stupider." Yes. Having gone through public education in California the tests were treated as a total joke. They had no weight to your grades and there was zero incentive to do well. Often you wouldn't even get the results. In elementary school it was common for a teacher to say "When you have finished with this test, you can go to lunch" -- well kids would just start filling in bubbles. These tests were also accompanied by a sheet to see if you have tried drugs or sex all anonymous. My entire 3rd grade class did heroin.

swivelmaster 9y ago
When was this? I graduated high school in 2002 and felt like the tests were taken fairly seriously. I went to school in Marin, though, so I don't know how that compares to anywhere else.
- Pigo 9y ago
  I agree, it always seemed to me that most of us didn't want people to think we're stupid. It seems sad that you have to worry that a kid will just fill in whatever so they can go to lunch. That seems like a self-esteem or discipline problem, not a fault of test taking. For all the complaining, I'm curious what a better solution would be for finding out how much kids are learning.
- Redoubts 9y ago
  I’m only a couple years younger than you, but I definitely experienced a significant “trying is for white people” attitude when I was in school in LA.
labster 9y ago
Easy solution: make the tests count for a significant chunk of the students' grades. Or at certain years, require a passing grade on the standardized tests to be promoted to the next grade.
- EpicEng 9y ago
  Yes, boil the entire year down to one or two tests which have been shown to be a poor indicator of knowledge and performance. We'll just start holding back 25% of students. What could go wrong?
- tptacek 9y ago
  If we're going to have an enforced one-size fits all national curriculum, we can do better than the one we reverse engineer from some stupid standardized test.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    Can we?
    - tptacek 9y ago
      If we can't, then we have no hope of succeeding with a one-size-fits-all national curriculum anyways, so either way the point is moot.
- whipoodle 9y ago
  But, why?
- Kluny 9y ago
  First you have to make the case that it's actually a problem. Test scores didn't go up. So what? Is it actually a problem if the scores just stay the same? I mean, they can only get so high before you have to start screwing with the test to get different results. Why not just accept that the same scores year-over-year mean we're pretty much doing fine?
- npunt 9y ago
  As is typical, easy solutions are often bad solutions. Teaching to the test would be the first-order effect, and that is a terrible use of class time.
- ashark 9y ago
gizmo686 9y ago
>They had no weight to your grades and there was zero incentive to do well. This doesn't seem like that bad of an idea. One of the bigger problems with tests is that they tend to become a terrible metric once people start preparing for them specifically (and test-prep can suck the oxegyn out of real education). If the students and teachers don't care about the test, it is much easier (but still difficult) to make a test that gives useful feedback to the school system. Of course, you want students to take it seriously enough while there taking it.
- mcny 9y ago
  > This doesn't seem like that bad of an idea. One of the bigger problems with tests is that they tend to become a terrible metric once people start preparing for them specifically (and test-prep can suck the oxegyn out of real education). If the students and teachers don't care about the test, it is much easier (but still difficult) to make a test that gives useful feedback to the school system. Of course, you want students to take it seriously enough while there taking it. I remember when I was a senior in college, my professor asked me to take a test one day. She said it had nothing to do with my grades and it was to compare the outcome of our college's program with other colleges (BS Math). I still gave it my best shot even though I don't remember if I got to see the result. I don't like how you need so many licenses to be a teacher. Most college lecturers do not have a background in education and definitely don't have a license and we do just fine. The licenses just feel like a way to limit supply.
  - maskedSlacker 9y ago
    >I don't like how you need so many licenses to be a teacher. Most college lecturers do not have a background in education and definitely don't have a license and we do just fine. The licenses just feel like a way to limit supply. Teaching adults who pay for the privilege of being in your class is VERY VERY different from teaching children who are forced to be in your class. The latter requires a very special skill set that can only be described as 'managing psychopaths'. The former just requires you to show up and tell them they're on "responsible for the material" (i.e. they're on their own).
_mg 9y ago
Not a testee in these tests but I put C for everything in my day. No incentive.
npunt 9y ago
The lack of incentive to do well is precisely the point of these tests, and they are designed with this context in mind. The testing regimen relies on the same level of apathy in both students and teachers being present year after year, which provides a nice baseline for statistical analysis/comparison. Incentives mess everything up. See also: NAEP [1] Source: worked in ed covering this subject, studied assessment in ed school with one of the creators of the standards. [1] https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
- watwut 9y ago
  I don't get why incentives mess test up? I would try harder on graded test, including preparation.
  - gizmo686 9y ago
    When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. The more you prepare specifically for a test, the harder it is to determine how much of your score is based on your general understanding of what is being tested, and how much is based on you exploiting the test.
    - cm2187 9y ago
      And the more you discriminate between good students who prepared the test and the bad students who didn't bother, exaggerating the contrast.
    - watwut 9y ago
      If I don't study at all ever, only then is my understanding pure and not contaminated by studying for a test? If I dont study for the test, then you basically measure how long ago it was when I was revising the material last time (if it was last week I get much better result then if it was month and half ago) and you have even more random in terms of whether my learning coincided with I focused on what would count as "exploitation" of this test or different test. For example, was you focusing on speed during easy exercises or ability to solve hard problems last three weeks? It is pretty much random choice and preparation lets you get back to other mode relatively fast - while without it you get worst results with kids who accidentally did wrong thing and it has nothing to do with understanding of material, just a random chance. Motivation to actually prepare yourself removes that random. The exploitation of specific test, especially if you dont understand base material, gets you only so far compared to that.
lostboys67 9y ago
At least they haven't gone down the UK route where kids a rigidly prepared for the multiple tests and GCSE /A levels. There was a recent scandal where half way through A levels (final two years of high Scholl) if you where not predicted to get a B you got kicked out to protect the schools ranking.
omginternets 9y ago
>It points to a problem in the test itself Please forgive what might be construed as quibbling, but I'm increasingly dismayed by the doxa that poor scores on tests reflect poor testing practices. To be clear, testing practices in the U.S. are crappy, but so is the secondary education system in general (at least, compared to much of Western Europe). More to the point: these results point to a problem either with the test or with the educational system, or with the cultural values surrounding education in the U.S. My bet, having lived on both continents, is on the latter. I invite the reader to read Assimov's 1980 essay A Cult of Ignorance, as it provides a good description of what I believe to be the fundamental problem.
- catawbasam 9y ago
  Your comment would have been more credible if you had spelled 'Asimov' correctly.
  - wcarron 9y ago
    That's false. A simple spelling mistake, which everyone makes from time to time, does not invalidate his or her comment.
  - omginternets 9y ago
    And your would be more credible if it had substance.
- swivelmaster 9y ago
  You're misunderstanding the entire point of my post. I'm not talking about the scores being bad, I'm talking about the scores miraculously shifting downward for every state that uses that test in the last year.

swivelmaster 9y ago

When was this? I graduated high school in 2002 and felt like the tests were taken fairly seriously. I went to school in Marin, though, so I don't know how that compares to anywhere else.

Pigo 9y ago
I agree, it always seemed to me that most of us didn't want people to think we're stupid. It seems sad that you have to worry that a kid will just fill in whatever so they can go to lunch. That seems like a self-esteem or discipline problem, not a fault of test taking. For all the complaining, I'm curious what a better solution would be for finding out how much kids are learning.
Redoubts 9y ago
I’m only a couple years younger than you, but I definitely experienced a significant “trying is for white people” attitude when I was in school in LA.

labster 9y ago

Easy solution: make the tests count for a significant chunk of the students' grades. Or at certain years, require a passing grade on the standardized tests to be promoted to the next grade.

EpicEng 9y ago
Yes, boil the entire year down to one or two tests which have been shown to be a poor indicator of knowledge and performance. We'll just start holding back 25% of students. What could go wrong?
tptacek 9y ago
If we're going to have an enforced one-size fits all national curriculum, we can do better than the one we reverse engineer from some stupid standardized test.
- throwanem 9y ago
  Can we?
  - tptacek 9y ago
    If we can't, then we have no hope of succeeding with a one-size-fits-all national curriculum anyways, so either way the point is moot.
whipoodle 9y ago
But, why?
Kluny 9y ago
First you have to make the case that it's actually a problem. Test scores didn't go up. So what? Is it actually a problem if the scores just stay the same? I mean, they can only get so high before you have to start screwing with the test to get different results. Why not just accept that the same scores year-over-year mean we're pretty much doing fine?
npunt 9y ago
As is typical, easy solutions are often bad solutions. Teaching to the test would be the first-order effect, and that is a terrible use of class time.
ashark 9y ago

gizmo686 9y ago

>They had no weight to your grades and there was zero incentive to do well. This doesn't seem like that bad of an idea. One of the bigger problems with tests is that they tend to become a terrible metric once people start preparing for them specifically (and test-prep can suck the oxegyn out of real education). If the students and teachers don't care about the test, it is much easier (but still difficult) to make a test that gives useful feedback to the school system. Of course, you want students to take it seriously enough while there taking it.

mcny 9y ago
> This doesn't seem like that bad of an idea. One of the bigger problems with tests is that they tend to become a terrible metric once people start preparing for them specifically (and test-prep can suck the oxegyn out of real education). If the students and teachers don't care about the test, it is much easier (but still difficult) to make a test that gives useful feedback to the school system. Of course, you want students to take it seriously enough while there taking it. I remember when I was a senior in college, my professor asked me to take a test one day. She said it had nothing to do with my grades and it was to compare the outcome of our college's program with other colleges (BS Math). I still gave it my best shot even though I don't remember if I got to see the result. I don't like how you need so many licenses to be a teacher. Most college lecturers do not have a background in education and definitely don't have a license and we do just fine. The licenses just feel like a way to limit supply.
- maskedSlacker 9y ago
  >I don't like how you need so many licenses to be a teacher. Most college lecturers do not have a background in education and definitely don't have a license and we do just fine. The licenses just feel like a way to limit supply. Teaching adults who pay for the privilege of being in your class is VERY VERY different from teaching children who are forced to be in your class. The latter requires a very special skill set that can only be described as 'managing psychopaths'. The former just requires you to show up and tell them they're on "responsible for the material" (i.e. they're on their own).

_mg 9y ago

Not a testee in these tests but I put C for everything in my day. No incentive.

npunt 9y ago

The lack of incentive to do well is precisely the point of these tests, and they are designed with this context in mind. The testing regimen relies on the same level of apathy in both students and teachers being present year after year, which provides a nice baseline for statistical analysis/comparison. Incentives mess everything up. See also: NAEP [1] Source: worked in ed covering this subject, studied assessment in ed school with one of the creators of the standards. [1] https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

watwut 9y ago
I don't get why incentives mess test up? I would try harder on graded test, including preparation.
- gizmo686 9y ago
  When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. The more you prepare specifically for a test, the harder it is to determine how much of your score is based on your general understanding of what is being tested, and how much is based on you exploiting the test.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    And the more you discriminate between good students who prepared the test and the bad students who didn't bother, exaggerating the contrast.
  - watwut 9y ago
    If I don't study at all ever, only then is my understanding pure and not contaminated by studying for a test? If I dont study for the test, then you basically measure how long ago it was when I was revising the material last time (if it was last week I get much better result then if it was month and half ago) and you have even more random in terms of whether my learning coincided with I focused on what would count as "exploitation" of this test or different test. For example, was you focusing on speed during easy exercises or ability to solve hard problems last three weeks? It is pretty much random choice and preparation lets you get back to other mode relatively fast - while without it you get worst results with kids who accidentally did wrong thing and it has nothing to do with understanding of material, just a random chance. Motivation to actually prepare yourself removes that random. The exploitation of specific test, especially if you dont understand base material, gets you only so far compared to that.

lostboys67 9y ago

At least they haven't gone down the UK route where kids a rigidly prepared for the multiple tests and GCSE /A levels. There was a recent scandal where half way through A levels (final two years of high Scholl) if you where not predicted to get a B you got kicked out to protect the schools ranking.

omginternets 9y ago

>It points to a problem in the test itself Please forgive what might be construed as quibbling, but I'm increasingly dismayed by the doxa that poor scores on tests reflect poor testing practices. To be clear, testing practices in the U.S. are crappy, but so is the secondary education system in general (at least, compared to much of Western Europe). More to the point: these results point to a problem either with the test or with the educational system, or with the cultural values surrounding education in the U.S. My bet, having lived on both continents, is on the latter. I invite the reader to read Assimov's 1980 essay A Cult of Ignorance, as it provides a good description of what I believe to be the fundamental problem.

catawbasam 9y ago
Your comment would have been more credible if you had spelled 'Asimov' correctly.
- wcarron 9y ago
  That's false. A simple spelling mistake, which everyone makes from time to time, does not invalidate his or her comment.
- omginternets 9y ago
  And your would be more credible if it had substance.
swivelmaster 9y ago
You're misunderstanding the entire point of my post. I'm not talking about the scores being bad, I'm talking about the scores miraculously shifting downward for every state that uses that test in the last year.