4 ms·

I opted my children out of flossing. The dentist couldn't understand why I would do this. I told him it was my legal right, and a decision that my husband and

by beloch 13y ago

I opted my children out of flossing. The dentist couldn't understand why I would do this. I told him it was my legal right, and a decision that my husband and I had thought through carefully... Yeah, yeah. Silly comparison. However, I'm trying to make the point that testing, so long as it isn't the end-all motivation of all teaching efforts, serves a useful purpose and, while there are other possible methods of evaluation and feedback, testing is the backbone of most school systems at present. As such, teachers understandably fail to understand when parents opt their children out of tests. This might explain why those teachers and school officials had such difficulty making logical arguments in favor of it. To them, it was like opting those children out of flossing. The author of this article does make the case that the school didn't argue very convincingly in favor of the tests, but neither did she make any form of convincing argument against the tests beyond stress. Arguably, learning that early and thorough preparation reduces stress is a tremendously important lesson for kids, even beyond what they're actually studying! Testing also teaches children to remain calm under pressure, and that random chance ("Oh, I won't study that. What are the odds it will be a question?") is a cruel mistress. Yes, it is your legal right to opt your children out of both taking tests and flossing. Take a stand! Hooray for your legal rights!

jacobolus 13y ago
> testing is the backbone of most school systems at present Any school system for which a state standardized test is the “backbone” of student “evaluation and feedback” is completely and utterly broken. There may be some schools like that, but I hope to never interact with them. Every school I’ve ever interacted with had student assignments with careful grading, teacher-created tests relevant to the material being studied, report cards with grades or ideally written feedback from the teacher, etc. I would consider those the “backbone” of student assessment. State standardized tests are mostly a waste of time and pretty unrevealing about students, in comparison to actually looking at the students’ work.
- beloch 13y ago
  That's not a valid generalization. I grew up in a city that was/is tops in it's province for education. This province is consistently at/near the top of the country, and that country's education system is consistently rated in the top ten world-wide and always well above the U.S.. We had standardized tests in grades 6, 9, and 12. They were weighted heavily towards our grades (50% in grade 12) and were, hence, a pretty big deal. The grade 12 tests also serve the same function for universities as SAT's, only on a per-subject basis. e.g. If you apply to a University mathematics program, they might not care about your results in social studies. Note: A key difference between these exams and SAT's is that curricula in the U.S. are often designed to help students pass SAT's, while the standardized tests here are designed to test the province's curriculum.
  - dainla 13y ago
    If you're from another country, you really don't understand the problem. Teachers time is spent teaching kids how to pass the test, not teaching kids what they need to know to succeed in life. It is a very broken system
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Student A took test X and got an 86. Student B took test Y and got a +++. How do you evaluate whether one or both students are making adequate progress?
  - sanderjd 13y ago
    You trust Student B's teacher to have written prose that attempts to answer that question. Now, how you compare students is a trickier question. But I think a lot of folks don't think comparison should be the primary goal of the education system.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      You need comparability, otherwise you get into perverse situations like "B would have passed if he took test X, but he got unlucky". You also run into agency problems like teacher Y assigning everyone an A just to avoid whining students. http://qz.com/157579/confession-of-an-ivy-league-teaching-assistant-heres-why-i-inflated-grades/ http://qz.com/157579/confession-of-an-ivy-league-teaching-as...
      - sanderjd 13y ago
        I don't disagree that you need comparability, but I see it as an unfortunate reality that is orthogonal to, and should be very carefully traded off against, actual education. Education is the goal, and tracking student progress relative to one another is merely a means to that ends, and as such, it is very reasonable to actively debate whether it is helping or hindering. That the progress-tracking-based system is game-able is a symptom of the disease.
yoha 13y ago
> The dentist couldn't understand why I would do this. I told him it was my legal right, and a decision that my husband and I had thought through carefully... > Yeah, yeah. Silly comparison. Yup, would have been better off without it. > testing is the backbone of most school systems at present. I think that's exactly where the problem is: kids are not supposed to help schools get funds, schools are supposed to train kids for real life. The purpose of SATs is deeply questioned. They try to give a single number to evaluate someone. There is a common fallacy on the matter. Say you want to evaluate programmers. You find out that your best programmers write code than the others, so you decide to track how much code each one has added to the source. You know what happens next: your code base just grew tenfold. That's because when you use a measurement, you are evaluating this measurement and nothing else. Getting back to SATs, it means that you are evaluating the skills of kids at taking standardized tests, and I don't think this is a very useful skill as an adult. > The author of this article does make the case that the school didn't argue very convincingly in favor of the tests, but neither did she make any form of convincing argument against the tests beyond stress. Good, then it does not matter if they are taken or not; it is therefore very reasonable to avoid an unnecessary burden. > Arguably, learning that early and thorough preparation reduces stress is a tremendously important lesson for kids, even beyond what they're actually studying! Testing also teaches children to remain calm under pressure, and that random chance ("Oh, I won't study that. What are the odds it will be a question?") is a cruel mistress. I find it quite depressing to see that schools are now supposed to train you to take a test. How is that any relevant? What was the original purpose of school again? This is the same fallacy as I above: tests are made to check the training pupils where given, not the other way around. > Yes, it is your legal right to opt your children out of both taking tests and flossing. Take a stand! Hooray for your legal rights! How is that an argument?
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  You find out that your best programmers write code than the others, so you decide to track how much code each one has added to the source. I linked to real tests elsewhere in the thread. You find that the best students can compute the area of a rectangle given a ruler and simplify (x^3y^2)(x^4y). You start testing that, and you know what happens next: all your students can compute area given a ruler and simplify algebraic equations. Wait, isn't that a good thing?

by beloch 13y ago

jacobolus 13y ago

> testing is the backbone of most school systems at present Any school system for which a state standardized test is the “backbone” of student “evaluation and feedback” is completely and utterly broken. There may be some schools like that, but I hope to never interact with them. Every school I’ve ever interacted with had student assignments with careful grading, teacher-created tests relevant to the material being studied, report cards with grades or ideally written feedback from the teacher, etc. I would consider those the “backbone” of student assessment. State standardized tests are mostly a waste of time and pretty unrevealing about students, in comparison to actually looking at the students’ work.

beloch 13y ago
That's not a valid generalization. I grew up in a city that was/is tops in it's province for education. This province is consistently at/near the top of the country, and that country's education system is consistently rated in the top ten world-wide and always well above the U.S.. We had standardized tests in grades 6, 9, and 12. They were weighted heavily towards our grades (50% in grade 12) and were, hence, a pretty big deal. The grade 12 tests also serve the same function for universities as SAT's, only on a per-subject basis. e.g. If you apply to a University mathematics program, they might not care about your results in social studies. Note: A key difference between these exams and SAT's is that curricula in the U.S. are often designed to help students pass SAT's, while the standardized tests here are designed to test the province's curriculum.
- dainla 13y ago
  If you're from another country, you really don't understand the problem. Teachers time is spent teaching kids how to pass the test, not teaching kids what they need to know to succeed in life. It is a very broken system
yummyfajitas 13y ago
Student A took test X and got an 86. Student B took test Y and got a +++. How do you evaluate whether one or both students are making adequate progress?
- sanderjd 13y ago
  You trust Student B's teacher to have written prose that attempts to answer that question. Now, how you compare students is a trickier question. But I think a lot of folks don't think comparison should be the primary goal of the education system.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    You need comparability, otherwise you get into perverse situations like "B would have passed if he took test X, but he got unlucky". You also run into agency problems like teacher Y assigning everyone an A just to avoid whining students. http://qz.com/157579/confession-of-an-ivy-league-teaching-assistant-heres-why-i-inflated-grades/ http://qz.com/157579/confession-of-an-ivy-league-teaching-as...
    - sanderjd 13y ago
      I don't disagree that you need comparability, but I see it as an unfortunate reality that is orthogonal to, and should be very carefully traded off against, actual education. Education is the goal, and tracking student progress relative to one another is merely a means to that ends, and as such, it is very reasonable to actively debate whether it is helping or hindering. That the progress-tracking-based system is game-able is a symptom of the disease.

yoha 13y ago

> The dentist couldn't understand why I would do this. I told him it was my legal right, and a decision that my husband and I had thought through carefully... > Yeah, yeah. Silly comparison. Yup, would have been better off without it. > testing is the backbone of most school systems at present. I think that's exactly where the problem is: kids are not supposed to help schools get funds, schools are supposed to train kids for real life. The purpose of SATs is deeply questioned. They try to give a single number to evaluate someone. There is a common fallacy on the matter. Say you want to evaluate programmers. You find out that your best programmers write code than the others, so you decide to track how much code each one has added to the source. You know what happens next: your code base just grew tenfold. That's because when you use a measurement, you are evaluating this measurement and nothing else. Getting back to SATs, it means that you are evaluating the skills of kids at taking standardized tests, and I don't think this is a very useful skill as an adult. > The author of this article does make the case that the school didn't argue very convincingly in favor of the tests, but neither did she make any form of convincing argument against the tests beyond stress. Good, then it does not matter if they are taken or not; it is therefore very reasonable to avoid an unnecessary burden. > Arguably, learning that early and thorough preparation reduces stress is a tremendously important lesson for kids, even beyond what they're actually studying! Testing also teaches children to remain calm under pressure, and that random chance ("Oh, I won't study that. What are the odds it will be a question?") is a cruel mistress. I find it quite depressing to see that schools are now supposed to train you to take a test. How is that any relevant? What was the original purpose of school again? This is the same fallacy as I above: tests are made to check the training pupils where given, not the other way around. > Yes, it is your legal right to opt your children out of both taking tests and flossing. Take a stand! Hooray for your legal rights! How is that an argument?

yummyfajitas 13y ago
You find out that your best programmers write code than the others, so you decide to track how much code each one has added to the source. I linked to real tests elsewhere in the thread. You find that the best students can compute the area of a rectangle given a ruler and simplify (x^3y^2)(x^4y). You start testing that, and you know what happens next: all your students can compute area given a ruler and simplify algebraic equations. Wait, isn't that a good thing?