5 ms·

In the UK, we have spent ages and a lot of effort in testing, league tables, improvement plans, improvement targets for schools. There is a slowly growing real

In the UK, we have spent ages and a lot of effort in testing, league tables, improvement plans, improvement targets for schools. There is a slowly growing realisation that the result may not be good for the children. See the Wolf report https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-00031-2011 https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicati... and also a short OFSTED report into Maths teaching, see the newspaper summary below. The full report may be of interest to you as it explains the pedagogy of mathematics well. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2982483/Ofsted-testing-culture-undermining-maths.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2982483/Ofsted-testing-... Teaching is a highly dimensional task. Assuming you could devise a metric space adequate to the task, my teaching at any point would be represented by a set of coordinates. The norm of the coordinates of my 'point' in the space might be higher or lower than the norm of another teacher. How do you decide which one of us is less 'bad'?

yummyfajitas 15y ago
Your first link, near as I can tell, doesn't even attempt to address the question of whether standardized tests are beneficial or harmful. It seems to be about the merits of vocational vs higher education. Your second link provides no data on whether testing is good for children. It merely shows that actual teaching methods do not conform to what the author's believe are the best teaching methods. No data is provided on student outcomes. Teaching is a highly dimensional task...How do you decide which one of us is less 'bad'? Any goal-oriented system is designed to maximize some arbitrary objective function. With standardized tests, you are forced to write down your objective function and admit it's an arbitrary choice. What benefit do we receive from having an unspecified objective function and no uniform method of measurement?
- keithpeter 15y ago
  Link 1: Appendix VIII talks about maths assessment, but I accept that this reference may be too UK specific to be useful anywhere else. It fits into a discourse about syllabus content &c Link 2: Outcomes are improving year on year, but OFSTED found that understanding of Maths is decreasing. Implication is that outcome measures are not appropriate "What benefit do we receive from having an unspecified objective function and no uniform method of measurement?" Children who can think for themselves. I think we may have an example of paradigm incommensurability here. You are seeing some kind of Goals -> Measuring Instrument -> Optimisation system, I'm seeing a political system with a lot of stakeholders and children that need to learn. As a practitioner, I find it hard to abstract from the daily process of meeting the needs of a very diverse student group. We may be talking past each other.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    I read Appendix VIII, I really can't see where it shows math assessments have harmed outcomes. Nor can I figure out where your second link shows math understanding is decreasing. Could you maybe quote the text you feel shows this? I must be missing something here. Children who can think for themselves. How do you know you get this without uniform tests? And for that matter, what does it even mean? As for me, I'm well aware of political realities. I just don't see how avoiding careful measurement, clearly stated objects and transparency helps a political system give better results.
    - keithpeter 15y ago
      The second link summarises an OFSTED report into the teaching of mathematics. The report suggests that teaching to the test is a problem in some UK schools. The report says that teaching to the test damages understanding in maths. I accept that the short abstract I linked to may not provide evidence of those things. "How do you know you get this without uniform tests?" The health or otherwise of our small companies, and the creativeness of artists, musicians, mathematicians, and the vigorousness of our politics. "And for that matter, what does it even mean?" It means what it has always meant! It means young adults who can take responsibility for themselves and others and who can act in society. Seriously, there is a level where one has to simply point rather than define (Wittgensteinish argument). "I just don't see how avoiding careful measurement, clearly stated objects and transparency helps a political system give better results." Because there are different stakeholders, and each part of your process will be challenged, and interpreted differently by some, and others will 'collapse' the wider concept of education down to a narrow focus on measurable outcomes. Not sure if I'm making sense here because I'm in a different place I suspect.
    - aestetix 15y ago
      My two favorite metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of teaching are whether the students can teach other students, and whether they can create something new to share. They are very simple metrics which completely disregard test scores, a metric I reject. Gatto has some good things to say about this. So does Neil Postman, in his book "Technopoly."

yummyfajitas 15y ago

Your first link, near as I can tell, doesn't even attempt to address the question of whether standardized tests are beneficial or harmful. It seems to be about the merits of vocational vs higher education. Your second link provides no data on whether testing is good for children. It merely shows that actual teaching methods do not conform to what the author's believe are the best teaching methods. No data is provided on student outcomes. Teaching is a highly dimensional task...How do you decide which one of us is less 'bad'? Any goal-oriented system is designed to maximize some arbitrary objective function. With standardized tests, you are forced to write down your objective function and admit it's an arbitrary choice. What benefit do we receive from having an unspecified objective function and no uniform method of measurement?

keithpeter 15y ago
Link 1: Appendix VIII talks about maths assessment, but I accept that this reference may be too UK specific to be useful anywhere else. It fits into a discourse about syllabus content &c Link 2: Outcomes are improving year on year, but OFSTED found that understanding of Maths is decreasing. Implication is that outcome measures are not appropriate "What benefit do we receive from having an unspecified objective function and no uniform method of measurement?" Children who can think for themselves. I think we may have an example of paradigm incommensurability here. You are seeing some kind of Goals -> Measuring Instrument -> Optimisation system, I'm seeing a political system with a lot of stakeholders and children that need to learn. As a practitioner, I find it hard to abstract from the daily process of meeting the needs of a very diverse student group. We may be talking past each other.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  I read Appendix VIII, I really can't see where it shows math assessments have harmed outcomes. Nor can I figure out where your second link shows math understanding is decreasing. Could you maybe quote the text you feel shows this? I must be missing something here. Children who can think for themselves. How do you know you get this without uniform tests? And for that matter, what does it even mean? As for me, I'm well aware of political realities. I just don't see how avoiding careful measurement, clearly stated objects and transparency helps a political system give better results.
  - keithpeter 15y ago
    The second link summarises an OFSTED report into the teaching of mathematics. The report suggests that teaching to the test is a problem in some UK schools. The report says that teaching to the test damages understanding in maths. I accept that the short abstract I linked to may not provide evidence of those things. "How do you know you get this without uniform tests?" The health or otherwise of our small companies, and the creativeness of artists, musicians, mathematicians, and the vigorousness of our politics. "And for that matter, what does it even mean?" It means what it has always meant! It means young adults who can take responsibility for themselves and others and who can act in society. Seriously, there is a level where one has to simply point rather than define (Wittgensteinish argument). "I just don't see how avoiding careful measurement, clearly stated objects and transparency helps a political system give better results." Because there are different stakeholders, and each part of your process will be challenged, and interpreted differently by some, and others will 'collapse' the wider concept of education down to a narrow focus on measurable outcomes. Not sure if I'm making sense here because I'm in a different place I suspect.
  - aestetix 15y ago
    My two favorite metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of teaching are whether the students can teach other students, and whether they can create something new to share. They are very simple metrics which completely disregard test scores, a metric I reject. Gatto has some good things to say about this. So does Neil Postman, in his book "Technopoly."