8 ms·

I was glad to see this paragraph included in the article: > By the time they take the eighth-grade tests in the spring of the year, they already know which hig

by blahedo 14y ago

I was glad to see this paragraph included in the article: > By the time they take the eighth-grade tests in the spring of the year, they already know which high school they will be attending, and their scores on the test have no consequences. “The eighth-graders don’t care; they rush through the exam, and they don’t check their work,” Abbott said. “The test has no effect on them. I can’t make an argument that it counts for kids. Anytime anyone makes an argument that teachers should be evaluated based on their kids' test scores I have to explain about the problems of misaligned incentives. If the kids are not motivated to do their best, it's not going to be a fair evaluation of the teacher even if you manage to solve ALL the many other problems with high-stakes testing. And a lot of students aren't motivated to do their best on these kinds of tests, for a variety of reasons.

ktizo 14y ago
I did relatively badly in my last year of school compared to my previous years as I had been given an unconditional offer for university, so spent most of my time that year reading books and dicking around.
- Drbble 14y ago
  How did university turn out? Why go if you don't want to learn?
  - ktizo 14y ago
    I love learning. Am currently using a lot of my spare time to teach myself 3d printing technologies, some basic fluid dynamics, the voronoi/delauney maths stuff, and the thermodynamics of engine design. Plus there is all the stuff I have to keep on top of professionally as a programmer, which is an inexaustable and ever growing list of often arbitrary methods and technologies. As for university, turns out I disliked it almost as much as I disliked school, so I dropped out and went into industry for a while. Dropped out of that too for ages as I got bored of all the corporate nonsense, although I have been back into it in the past few years to try and raise some cold hard cash for a few projects I've got going. Am considering going back to university at some point however, as I wouldn't mind doing either nanotechnology or neurology and most of the equipment involved in those is out of my current price range. To be honest though, most of my heroes are dead philosophers of one form or another, so I am pretty happy with a roof, food, clean clothes, regular showers, access to the internet and a large pile of books. Besides, in my experience the majority of people at university aren't there because they want to learn, but rather because they are expected to go by their parents. The people who are there purely for the pursuit of knowledge and without being pushed are the exception rather than the rule.
  - daleharvey 14y ago
    I went mostly for the social aspects (to make friends and party basically) and to get me the piece of paper that helps getting a job. Some of the courses at university interested me, but most of what I learnt that benefited my career I did outwith my courses. It was still some of the best years of my life and would recommend anyone to go, but I dont think a thirst for university prescribed knowledge is the only valid reason to go.
  - arethuza 14y ago
    I was in a similar situation - a few months in my final year at high school I got five unconditional acceptances from universities. basically, after that point I did hardly any work at school - although up till then I had worked hard and good exam results that got me the offers. For a few months I mucked about, went to parties, chased girls, cycled.... it was awesome. When I went to university I knew I had to start working hard again and I got a First and won a year prize and went on to do post-grad research work - although I did leave in the final year of my PhD to co-found a startup because I had realised that I didn't want to work in academia. Both teachers at school and my PhD supervisor told me I'd regret my decisions - and I haven't and it's nearly 30 years since I left high school and 17 years since I dropped my PhD work.
icarus_drowning 14y ago
I teach 6-8th grade music at a local charter school, and while my performance isn't tested through standardized exams, I can attest to my colleagues' enormous frustration with this very issue. For example: during our standardized testing this year, the school put in huge amounts of effort to align student incentives, most of which were silly and clearly ineffective. (My personal favorite? Disallowing students to bring their own books to read after they finished the test to "encourage" them to check their work instead of hurrying through so they could read the next chapter of The Hunger Games. Talk about easy ways to incite student frustration and contempt!) I can attest to students finishing a test in less than 10 minutes despite being given more than an hour, or refusing to do any of the test at all. I've heard horror stories of students using the multiple-choice answer documents to make pictures by filling in the bubbles, or simply choosing to color in bubbles so lightly that they can't possibly be read. I know of examples in prior years wherein students chose to write essays about how much they hate testing on the essay portion instead of addressing the infantile tripe they were assigned. Now, these are obviously exceptions to the rule (I'm a bit biased, but I think our students are almost uniformly excellent), but it is amazing how much damage one student can do by choosing not to care. (Or, in some cases, using their answers to vent their frustration). And why should they? As far as I know, rewarding students for higher performance is disallowed, leaving teachers with very few tools with which to convince students that these tests matter. Sure, you can go on and on about how their scores will be "important" in their future (which, to my knowledge, isn't always true), but that only goes so far. Sometime during the 2 weeks of intensive testing, the kids just don't care anymore. I'm all for assessing the performance of teachers, and I'm not sure how to fix the problem (or even if it can be fixed), but one thing seems clear to me: they're doing it wrong. [Updated to fix punctuation errors]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - Drbble 14y ago
    Because these are statewide standardized tests that intend to treat everyone equally, not to help students learn.
  - 14y ago
clarky07 14y ago
This is almost exactly what I was going to write. Until you get to ACT or SAT's, students really don't have much incentive to do well on standardized tests. Generally they have no effect whatsoever so many kids don't take them seriously. The tests mean so much more to the teachers and the school districts than the do to the kids. This makes them a terrible proxy for how the teachers and districts are actually doing.
- ShabbyDoo 14y ago
  I probably spent over 100 hours preparing for the SAT/ACT exams as a 16 year-old. Given that I received over $50K (early '90's) in merit-based college scholarship money based mostly on these scores, I effectively "earned" $500/hour studying. I have yet to earn this much as an adult.
  - thaumasiotes 14y ago
    Why do you believe that those 100 hours are responsible for your score? In the world where you studied for 0 hours and got $45k in merit-based scholarships, what was your hourly return to studying?
    - kgermino 14y ago
      Speaking for myself, I know the first time I took the ACT I went in not even sure what the four subjects were. Did well, took a study class at my high school, bought a review book, did practice tests, etc. Took it again two months afterwards, exact same composite score. I realize the test prep helps some people tremendously, but I think the ACT at least does a decent job of testing what you actually know (or at least how good you are at taking tests) than how well you prepared.
      - malyk 14y ago
        I had a similar experience where I took the SAT three separate times and scored exactly the same on the verbal section each time. The math section improved between tests one and two, but was the same for test three. And they weren't "good" scores at all. 560 on verbal and 590 to 620 on math. But I also took the SAT 2 subject area tests which I felt were much more accurate assessments of my abilities where I scored 670 in writing and 680 in math without studying at all and only one exposure to the test. I never really cared about those scores so much, but it definitely makes me question the value of the SAT for much of anything.
Drbble 14y ago
Per that quote, the problem is that the tests are too-low stakes.
nooop 14y ago
It is even worth than that: > “They’re not accepting answers that are mathematically correct,” Abbott notes, “and accepting answers that aren’t mathematically correct.” The test just seems to be a retarded thing designed by a clueless bureaucrat.

by blahedo 14y ago

ktizo 14y ago

I did relatively badly in my last year of school compared to my previous years as I had been given an unconditional offer for university, so spent most of my time that year reading books and dicking around.

Drbble 14y ago
How did university turn out? Why go if you don't want to learn?
- ktizo 14y ago
  I love learning. Am currently using a lot of my spare time to teach myself 3d printing technologies, some basic fluid dynamics, the voronoi/delauney maths stuff, and the thermodynamics of engine design. Plus there is all the stuff I have to keep on top of professionally as a programmer, which is an inexaustable and ever growing list of often arbitrary methods and technologies. As for university, turns out I disliked it almost as much as I disliked school, so I dropped out and went into industry for a while. Dropped out of that too for ages as I got bored of all the corporate nonsense, although I have been back into it in the past few years to try and raise some cold hard cash for a few projects I've got going. Am considering going back to university at some point however, as I wouldn't mind doing either nanotechnology or neurology and most of the equipment involved in those is out of my current price range. To be honest though, most of my heroes are dead philosophers of one form or another, so I am pretty happy with a roof, food, clean clothes, regular showers, access to the internet and a large pile of books. Besides, in my experience the majority of people at university aren't there because they want to learn, but rather because they are expected to go by their parents. The people who are there purely for the pursuit of knowledge and without being pushed are the exception rather than the rule.
- daleharvey 14y ago
  I went mostly for the social aspects (to make friends and party basically) and to get me the piece of paper that helps getting a job. Some of the courses at university interested me, but most of what I learnt that benefited my career I did outwith my courses. It was still some of the best years of my life and would recommend anyone to go, but I dont think a thirst for university prescribed knowledge is the only valid reason to go.
- arethuza 14y ago
  I was in a similar situation - a few months in my final year at high school I got five unconditional acceptances from universities. basically, after that point I did hardly any work at school - although up till then I had worked hard and good exam results that got me the offers. For a few months I mucked about, went to parties, chased girls, cycled.... it was awesome. When I went to university I knew I had to start working hard again and I got a First and won a year prize and went on to do post-grad research work - although I did leave in the final year of my PhD to co-found a startup because I had realised that I didn't want to work in academia. Both teachers at school and my PhD supervisor told me I'd regret my decisions - and I haven't and it's nearly 30 years since I left high school and 17 years since I dropped my PhD work.

icarus_drowning 14y ago

I teach 6-8th grade music at a local charter school, and while my performance isn't tested through standardized exams, I can attest to my colleagues' enormous frustration with this very issue. For example: during our standardized testing this year, the school put in huge amounts of effort to align student incentives, most of which were silly and clearly ineffective. (My personal favorite? Disallowing students to bring their own books to read after they finished the test to "encourage" them to check their work instead of hurrying through so they could read the next chapter of The Hunger Games. Talk about easy ways to incite student frustration and contempt!) I can attest to students finishing a test in less than 10 minutes despite being given more than an hour, or refusing to do any of the test at all. I've heard horror stories of students using the multiple-choice answer documents to make pictures by filling in the bubbles, or simply choosing to color in bubbles so lightly that they can't possibly be read. I know of examples in prior years wherein students chose to write essays about how much they hate testing on the essay portion instead of addressing the infantile tripe they were assigned. Now, these are obviously exceptions to the rule (I'm a bit biased, but I think our students are almost uniformly excellent), but it is amazing how much damage one student can do by choosing not to care. (Or, in some cases, using their answers to vent their frustration). And why should they? As far as I know, rewarding students for higher performance is disallowed, leaving teachers with very few tools with which to convince students that these tests matter. Sure, you can go on and on about how their scores will be "important" in their future (which, to my knowledge, isn't always true), but that only goes so far. Sometime during the 2 weeks of intensive testing, the kids just don't care anymore. I'm all for assessing the performance of teachers, and I'm not sure how to fix the problem (or even if it can be fixed), but one thing seems clear to me: they're doing it wrong. [Updated to fix punctuation errors]

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- Drbble 14y ago
  Because these are statewide standardized tests that intend to treat everyone equally, not to help students learn.
- 14y ago

clarky07 14y ago

This is almost exactly what I was going to write. Until you get to ACT or SAT's, students really don't have much incentive to do well on standardized tests. Generally they have no effect whatsoever so many kids don't take them seriously. The tests mean so much more to the teachers and the school districts than the do to the kids. This makes them a terrible proxy for how the teachers and districts are actually doing.

ShabbyDoo 14y ago
I probably spent over 100 hours preparing for the SAT/ACT exams as a 16 year-old. Given that I received over $50K (early '90's) in merit-based college scholarship money based mostly on these scores, I effectively "earned" $500/hour studying. I have yet to earn this much as an adult.
- thaumasiotes 14y ago
  Why do you believe that those 100 hours are responsible for your score? In the world where you studied for 0 hours and got $45k in merit-based scholarships, what was your hourly return to studying?
  - kgermino 14y ago
    Speaking for myself, I know the first time I took the ACT I went in not even sure what the four subjects were. Did well, took a study class at my high school, bought a review book, did practice tests, etc. Took it again two months afterwards, exact same composite score. I realize the test prep helps some people tremendously, but I think the ACT at least does a decent job of testing what you actually know (or at least how good you are at taking tests) than how well you prepared.
    - malyk 14y ago
      I had a similar experience where I took the SAT three separate times and scored exactly the same on the verbal section each time. The math section improved between tests one and two, but was the same for test three. And they weren't "good" scores at all. 560 on verbal and 590 to 620 on math. But I also took the SAT 2 subject area tests which I felt were much more accurate assessments of my abilities where I scored 670 in writing and 680 in math without studying at all and only one exposure to the test. I never really cared about those scores so much, but it definitely makes me question the value of the SAT for much of anything.

Drbble 14y ago

Per that quote, the problem is that the tests are too-low stakes.

nooop 14y ago

It is even worth than that: > “They’re not accepting answers that are mathematically correct,” Abbott notes, “and accepting answers that aren’t mathematically correct.” The test just seems to be a retarded thing designed by a clueless bureaucrat.