6 ms·

> I've seen no good reason to think that standardized testing is something that improves this situation Standardized testing is a measurement. Measurement is n

> I've seen no good reason to think that standardized testing is something that improves this situation Standardized testing is a measurement. Measurement is necessary to improve, but not the improvement itself.

threatofrain 5y ago
Further, every classroom in some way employs standardized measurement, unless we're talking about classrooms where some students get a fundamentally different exam. For the same reasons of comparable measurements, an instructor for a course would have difficulty knowing how well people are doing if everyone took different tests. The "standard" part of an exam simply means that the person who is metaphorically sitting next to you doesn't get an easier, harder, or weirder test. IMO this is a return to administrative opacity and favor trading.
- sanxiyn 5y ago
  You are right in the literal sense, but "standardized test" is usually used to mean test administered to a group larger than a classroom.
klyrs 5y ago
Not to get all Heisenberg about this, but in my experience, standardized testing is a measurement which can have a significant impact on the education system. I'm not familiar with Ontario's system, but No Child Left Behind was a travesty because teachers had a strong mandate to teach to the test, and spend months on test-prep. Education got worse as a result. And then there's the matter of what the measurement is used for -- NCLB was used not to bring help to the schools that needed it most, but to punish them and reward the ones that were relatively well off -- closing schools in poor neighborhoods (reducing local employment) and lengthening those students' commutes (further raising the barrier for them to participate in their education).
- abernard1 5y ago
  > Education got worse as a result. While NCLB had negative side effects, education in America has been getting worse since the 1960s. The SAT is substantially easier than it was in the 1960s as well. NCLB had no impact on test scores either, so how do we even know education got "worse" if we've given up broad-based statistical evaluation criteria? Seriously, what's the measuring stick other than an assertion? > closing schools in poor neighborhoods This might as well be a talking point from the NEA. Real-adjusted education expenses in America have tripled in the last 50-60 years. There has never been more funding or power for public education than now and we've never had as incompetent or entitled class of teachers as we do now.
- sanxiyn 5y ago
  You can use measurements to make stupid decisions (haven't we all seen it at work), but that's not an argument against measuring. That's an argument against stupid decisions.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    The question is not whether or not to measure, it's how much of your resources do you devote to performing the measurement. From what I saw of NCLB, the measurement was extremely resource-intensive, and severely hindered teachers' ability to teach: that is an argument against this specific methodology of measuring, not measurement in general. That it was then used to justify stupid decisions was salt in the wound.
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  Here in Ontario we have a standardized achievement test called EQAO which is quite controversial and it has the exact problems you describe. As we should know as engineers, averages are a pretty garbage measure if that's all you have. A couple English-As-Second-Language learners in the class, or a class with some learning challenged kids in it, and the average is thrown off. Is the teacher bad? Is the school bad? You won't know without a much closer look than a simple test can give you. My daughter was in French Immersion and all the curriculum taught in French, but EQAO was done in English. Vocabulary for math is different. An adult can translate fairly easily... but a kid in grade 3? The test is used by various actors (including the right wing Fraser Institute) to "rate" schools on "quality", which is a dubious practice given aforementioned issues of statistical variance. Parents have been been known to pick neighbourhoods (to move to) based on these scores, which only hurts the school and neighbourhood. The test is also optional, though most parents don't seem to realize this. We've come around to telling our kids that if they don't want to take it, don't and we don't care about their scores.

threatofrain 5y ago

Further, every classroom in some way employs standardized measurement, unless we're talking about classrooms where some students get a fundamentally different exam. For the same reasons of comparable measurements, an instructor for a course would have difficulty knowing how well people are doing if everyone took different tests. The "standard" part of an exam simply means that the person who is metaphorically sitting next to you doesn't get an easier, harder, or weirder test. IMO this is a return to administrative opacity and favor trading.

sanxiyn 5y ago
You are right in the literal sense, but "standardized test" is usually used to mean test administered to a group larger than a classroom.

klyrs 5y ago

Not to get all Heisenberg about this, but in my experience, standardized testing is a measurement which can have a significant impact on the education system. I'm not familiar with Ontario's system, but No Child Left Behind was a travesty because teachers had a strong mandate to teach to the test, and spend months on test-prep. Education got worse as a result. And then there's the matter of what the measurement is used for -- NCLB was used not to bring help to the schools that needed it most, but to punish them and reward the ones that were relatively well off -- closing schools in poor neighborhoods (reducing local employment) and lengthening those students' commutes (further raising the barrier for them to participate in their education).

abernard1 5y ago
> Education got worse as a result. While NCLB had negative side effects, education in America has been getting worse since the 1960s. The SAT is substantially easier than it was in the 1960s as well. NCLB had no impact on test scores either, so how do we even know education got "worse" if we've given up broad-based statistical evaluation criteria? Seriously, what's the measuring stick other than an assertion? > closing schools in poor neighborhoods This might as well be a talking point from the NEA. Real-adjusted education expenses in America have tripled in the last 50-60 years. There has never been more funding or power for public education than now and we've never had as incompetent or entitled class of teachers as we do now.
sanxiyn 5y ago
You can use measurements to make stupid decisions (haven't we all seen it at work), but that's not an argument against measuring. That's an argument against stupid decisions.
- klyrs 5y ago
  The question is not whether or not to measure, it's how much of your resources do you devote to performing the measurement. From what I saw of NCLB, the measurement was extremely resource-intensive, and severely hindered teachers' ability to teach: that is an argument against this specific methodology of measuring, not measurement in general. That it was then used to justify stupid decisions was salt in the wound.
cmrdporcupine 5y ago
Here in Ontario we have a standardized achievement test called EQAO which is quite controversial and it has the exact problems you describe. As we should know as engineers, averages are a pretty garbage measure if that's all you have. A couple English-As-Second-Language learners in the class, or a class with some learning challenged kids in it, and the average is thrown off. Is the teacher bad? Is the school bad? You won't know without a much closer look than a simple test can give you. My daughter was in French Immersion and all the curriculum taught in French, but EQAO was done in English. Vocabulary for math is different. An adult can translate fairly easily... but a kid in grade 3? The test is used by various actors (including the right wing Fraser Institute) to "rate" schools on "quality", which is a dubious practice given aforementioned issues of statistical variance. Parents have been been known to pick neighbourhoods (to move to) based on these scores, which only hurts the school and neighbourhood. The test is also optional, though most parents don't seem to realize this. We've come around to telling our kids that if they don't want to take it, don't and we don't care about their scores.