We don't need no education.... testing

pO157.

Posted to Etcetera on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 11:09:54 AM EST. RSS.

A recent news article suggests that state governments are less likely to impose new high-stakes testing requirements to graduate. Although 2/3rds of the nation's high school students are required to pass a standardized test in partial fulfillment of graduation requirements, 2006 was one of the first years that no state adopted a new exam for pupils to take. One state, Utah, backed off its initial plan to refuse to graduate those who did not pass.

School systems were already rated on their student performance in testing by the provisions created in the No Child Left Behind act which mandated that schools make adequate progress each year towards meeting goals. As expected, some states and school systems began to get creative in how they calculated their progress -- not without grudging approval from the federal government. Sanctions could be severe for the states and school system, with penalties allowing for the students to be free to transfer, at education system expense, to a non-failing school.

However, testing conducted for the purpose of rating school systems is much different than exams meant to determine if a student should be allowed to gain a diploma. Although both are high stakes, only one applies the risk directly to severe consequences individual students' lives, potential success and economic opportunity.

While all of this has been a major boon to the field of psychometrics, and salaries going so high that some states are claiming poverty in not being able to afford qualified candidates.

Of course, if their children do not do well on the testing some parents are suing to ensure they get their diplomas on time. In response to this some states have set up processes for waivers, exemptions, or simply allowing the young adults to graduate but branding the diploma with an inscription stating they failed the exit exam.

All of this is quite shocking, considering most states do not even test at the high school senior level. Idaho, only requires its students to test at the 8th grade level, though this will soon change. Others require only 10th grade knowledge. There is no central standard.

Is there too much high stakes testing in this country? Is there too little? Should students be prevented from graduating if they do not pass an exit exam? Should there even be an exit exam? What do you think?

< Pseudo-Porn Isn't Real Porn, Is It?

When Does Keeping My Beer Cold Turn Into Domestic Abuse? >

Tags: written by pO157, education, testing, schools (all tags)

Add this story to:

This story: 20 comments (5 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

2	Re: We don't need no education.... testing port1080. Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 08:13:17 AM EST 5.00 (brilliant)

I'm not sure what the answer to our failing education system is, but I've come to believe that whatever it is, just changing the system won't do it. The problem is cultural - we simply don't value education anymore. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is considered useless in our society - we only care about what will make us a quick dollar, more beautiful, or get us laid faster (which, I suppose, is dependent on the other two). Our educational system as is would be more than adequate if students actually wanted to learn - but that's not what society teaches them they should want. I deal with college freshmen on a daily basis (and I was one not that long ago), and they're much more interested in when the next party will be than when the next exam will be. I don't think that either of the solutions proposed (on the one side, more testing, on the other side, more discretion for teachers to do their thing) will do anything unless American culture shifts towards valuing education and learning for the sake of learning.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

4 2	Re: We don't need no education.... testing ms sue. Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 12:21:38 PM EST 4.00

The problem is cultural - we simply don't value education anymore.

Au contraire, my dear port. Why, just today I read an article in the LAT that serves as an excellent example of how we value education. Numerous teachers were describing how they and their schools distribute summer reading lists to their students, with some even mandating assignments based thereon. And would you believe that many of the students seemed to enjoy the process?

The only problem was -- all of the schools mentioned in the article were either private or magnets and comprised a fairly affluent population, judging by location. It seemed telling and sad that no mention was made of similar reading lists or assignments at notoriously lagging schools in poor neighborhoods, although they certainly may exist.

Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is considered useless in our society - we only care about what will make us a quick dollar, more beautiful, or get us laid faster (which, I suppose, is dependent on the other two).

I agree, and this was the gist of one the most contentious debates I'd ever had on Plastic. Another member was adamant that majoring in anything that didn't have a direct link to a specific job or industry was a total waste of the student's -- and society's -- time and money. Basically, if you want to spend your time reading books, he posited, go to the library and do it yourself but that college should be for those training for specific positions. In other words, "knowledge for the sake of knowledge is...useless."

9 4	Re: We don't need no education.... testing Thalia. Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 12:01:15 AM EST 5.00

While I'm fond of knowledge as an abstract concept, I must admit that I have some issues with people going to college for 4+ years, going into huge debt to get a degree in underwater basketweaving, so that they can be employed as secretaries at $30K a year, and struggling to repay those education loans. (Yes, I work with someone like that, although she majored in art history). Learning is a good thing, encouraging people to go into debt & spend years on a subject that's not going to help them get laid or get a job? I wouldn't mind if these kids came out knowing their fate, but most of them go through all that education firmly believing that it will lead to success in the real world, and that seems cruel.

Thalia

11 9	Re: We don't need no education.... testing port1080. Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 07:43:57 AM EST 5.00 (brilliant)

Yes, I work with someone like that, although she majored in art history

Art history is one of the few that really doesn't translate into anything useful - however, a large chunk of humanities / social science majors (philosophy, history, sociology, politicial science, et. al.) learn the sort of things that business majors should be learning (methods of interpersonal organization, the history of the businesses they're working for, how to be creative and think flexibly, and so on). The problem is that the "good old boys" network of alumni + university career services rarely provides the same level of opportunity for those students as they do for those who choose the "business major" route.

I was a history major as an undergrad, and most of my fellow classmates ended up going on to work in business, one way or another, and are doing well - but it took them a lot more effort, becuase nobody thought they should be doing it. It's a bit of a catch 22 - they're smart, motivated, and qualified, but they get passed over for the intellectually un-curious business majors that slept through their classes due to excessive hangovers.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

11

Re: We don't need no education.... testing

Thalia.

Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 12:45:20 PM EST

none

I agree with you that most of those degrees to translate to useful knowledge. But I think it would be better for the history/polisci majors if they were aware of this. After all, it's quite handy to know the practical application of this learning. Most of the linguistics and history majors I know are now software people, the polisci & philosophy majors are mostly lawyers. Both of them are being helped by what they learned. (The folks that did best in 1L law school were the philosophy majors, they had learned to present arguments from both sides in a really helpful format & how to do research.) But that's my point. This is the "learning that is applicable to future life," which the original poster was advocating against.

Thalia

13

Re: We don't need no education.... testing

ms sue.

Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 02:56:20 PM EST

none

This is the "learning that is applicable to future life," which the original poster was advocating against.

By "original poster," you are referring to me. But I was merely replying to the parent post, written by port himself, who said:

The problem is cultural - we simply don't value education anymore. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is considered useless in our society - we only care about what will make us a quick dollar

My initial response was in agreement. But it's a sentiment that is not incompatible with the idea that liberal arts majors such as philosophy, English, history, etc., can lead to high-level employment, something you and I both expressed in very similar fashion.

To say that I advocate "against learning that is applicable to future life" is to misinterpret my words. If I'm advocating against anything, it would be the idea that liberal arts studies such as the ones we're discussing are a waste of time. I think they can, given the right student and the right instruction, satisfy both the desire for knowledge and lead to future careers.

12 9	Re: We don't need no education.... testing ms sue. Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 12:25:59 PM EST none

Learning is a good thing, encouraging people to go into debt & spend years on a subject that's not going to help them get laid or get a job?

But most liberal arts areas of study are not really "subjects" in any kind of narrow interpretation. Even your art history colleague, if she went to a decent school and was fortunate to have good profs, gained a broad perspective that touched on many disciplines. With luck, she also learned how to research and write well and effectively. Since she serves as an anecdote, it's hard to tell exactly what her led her to her current job and what the future holds for her. But I've known many engineers and others who majored in more concrete areas who have not always lived up to their potential or found what you might consider a job commensurate with their background.

"Underwater basketweaving"? Dare I say...strawman? Seriously, that's right up there with the examples used by the member I referenced in my previous post, although his all revolved around some form of lesbian feminist studies, IIRC.

7 2	Re: We don't need no education.... testing nmiguy. Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 02:24:42 PM EST none

we simply don't value education anymore.

Well lets look at that word "value".

Nowadays, there is public school funded by our tax dollars, and we figure we get the basic education for the basic buck. We expect our kids to learn how to read and add. Whether they can understand deep philosophy or decode the human genome out of grade school, most people wouldn't expect that.

But when we get to the realm of higher education, and the cost that comes out of pocket, then we are talking about "value" I mean what is it worth to get a college education if you're $200,000 or more in debt right out of the gates? It would take people years and years to pay off their college debt, assuming they can get a job in their field of expertise. It is an investment. Still, it is also usually a good investment. People with a college degree fare far better in getting great paying jobs than a high school drop out. (Unless you live in Massachusetts, where a toll taker in the Mass Pike makes 70 grand with a GED because he is related to a local politican.)

Some fields require intense commitment and struggle. Law school, Med school, the sciences they require years and years of investment and take years and years to see a return on investment. It can be discouraging and one can say "is it worth it?" For many, it isn't.

Say you go to college and invest a few hundred grand to become a grade school teacher. You know what teachers get paid? Education doesn't pay squat, but it sure does cost a lot.

The culture you speak of has been developed over years and years of investment and return on investment. Kids may not understand the totality of the education picture, but it does seep down to them. Teachers get discouraged, parents get apathetic at the thought of paying for college. Kids can't get excited about education because from the top down at every level you find frustration and resignation at an education system that is "valued" less and less.

The days are long gone where a high school drop out could find a great job in a factory and live a happy prosperous life. Those jobs have all been outsourced. We're talking burger flipping at McDonalds without a degree, with a degree a high level of competition for tech jobs.

You hit the nail on the head with the word "value". Since I got my degree my pay has doubled. It has been worth it for me, but I can totally see why some would get discouraged and not see the value in education, because of the cost and return on investment. But a wise man told me that education is the best investment you'll ever make. I'll say it is right up there, after marrying my wife and having my 2 kids.

I have a friend who never went to college, is a single mother who is really struggling. She became a Goth and never invested in education. I wish she did.

10 7	Re: We don't need no education.... testing Thalia. Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 12:52:21 AM EST none

The reason I don't believe this is because I have attended schools in other countries. Teachers don't get paid any more than they do here. In fact, in many communist countries back then, street sweepers made considerably more than teachers. But teaching & education was respected. I'm not sure of the why. Maybe it's for the same reason that education is respected in Jewish culture... whatever is in your head, whatever you know, cannot be taken away from you. You'll always have that knowledge.

Thalia

14 7	Re: We don't need no education.... testing Steve Urkel. Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 01:05:31 PM EST none

I guess being a Goth doesn't pay like it used to.

14

Re: We don't need no education.... testing

Thalia.

Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 02:14:01 PM EST

none

I hear Visigoths make considerably more. She should consider upgrading.

1	One of the problems... T Slothrop. Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 06:04:14 PM EST none

...with this testing obsession can be seen very clearly in my home state of North Carolina. As a result of multiple layers of state and federal mandates, public school teachers here have lost much if not almost all of their autonomy in how they approach the curriculum. The phenomenon is known as "teaching the test" and that is literally all they have time to do. What it promotes is a rigidly structured teaching style that stresses rote learning of whatever material is going to appear on the state tests, while any material that isn't tested is simply ignored. Not taught. You don't need to know it.

I'm sure this was not the intention behind the testing frenzy, but it is the unfortunate result.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

3 1	Re: One of the problems... rombuu. Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 12:08:35 PM EST none

Oddly, no one seems to complain when doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, etc... have to take tests to complete their credentials. How come no one complaints that their surgeon only was "taught to the test"? Nobody wants an engineer who has thrown a little creativity into figuring the load bearing weight of their structures?

8 3	Re: One of the problems... Thalia. Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 11:54:46 PM EST 4.00 (informative)

Actually, there are quite a few who think that the entire purpose of testing for lawyers (aka the Bar Exam) is to keep others out & it provides no value and should be abolished. I know that I studied for the Bar & haven't used any of that knowledge since.

Thalia

6 3	Re: One of the problems... teaweed. Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 01:25:42 PM EST 3.00 (obnoxious)

Here's how I prioritize what schools do and should do:

Socialize kids.
Teach basic, functional stuff.
While socializing, fill the the time (because the basics don't take 13 years) by: a) Broadening the horizon (foreign exchange, the arts, etc.) and, b) Vocational preparation (both college prep and the blue-collar skills traditional meant by the word 'vocational')

Presumably, it doesn't take a testing frenzy to ensure the basics are covered. Testing for broad horizons is beside the point; joining the debate team or varsity football and getting a preview of oneself as an orator or athlete is sufficient. Certifying vocational skills seems appropriate, but as one rarely plunges into a skilled trade immediately after high school, perhaps aptitude or SAT/ACT testing would be more appropriate?

Testing has its usefulness, the question is whether the current spate of testing serves kids, schools, society or wanking, administrative bureaucracy.

5 3	Re: One of the problems... T Slothrop. Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 12:46:16 PM EST 2.00 (offtopic)

Why are you stalking me? Do you have me confused with someone else? I was always T. Slothrop on plastic, and to the best of my knowledge I never trading a single post or PM with you. I certainly never publicly said anything bad about you.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

17 3	Re: One of the problems... snwodttam. Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 12:11:07 AM EST none

Oddly, no one seems to complain when doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, etc... have to take tests to complete their credentials. How come no one complaints that their surgeon only was "taught to the test"? Nobody wants an engineer who has thrown a little creativity into figuring the load bearing weight of their structures?

Almost no one complains because these tests are for adults who have chosen specialized fields and are taking a definitive career path. The assumption is that the people taking these tests have developed the life skills and gotten the basic education from childhood and young-adult-life.

I feel the point of junior high and high school should be to give students a well rounded education in all areas of life (from math to wood shop). Let them choose a specific path and specialize later in life.

This story: 20 comments (5 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

pO157.

Posted to Etcetera on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 11:09:54 AM EST. RSS.

Re: We don't need no education.... testing

port1080.

Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 08:13:17 AM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

2

Re: We don't need no education.... testing

ms sue.

Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 12:21:38 PM EST

4

Re: We don't need no education.... testing

Thalia.

Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 12:01:15 AM EST

9

Re: We don't need no education.... testing

port1080.

Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 07:43:57 AM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

11

Re: We don't need no education.... testing

Thalia.

Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 12:45:20 PM EST

13

Re: We don't need no education.... testing

ms sue.

Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 02:56:20 PM EST

9

Re: We don't need no education.... testing

ms sue.

Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 12:25:59 PM EST

2

Re: We don't need no education.... testing

nmiguy.

Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 02:24:42 PM EST

7

Re: We don't need no education.... testing

Thalia.

Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 12:52:21 AM EST

7

Re: We don't need no education.... testing

Steve Urkel.

Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 01:05:31 PM EST

14

Re: We don't need no education.... testing

Thalia.

Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 02:14:01 PM EST

One of the problems...

T Slothrop.

Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 06:04:14 PM EST

1

Re: One of the problems...

rombuu.

Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 12:08:35 PM EST

3

Re: One of the problems...

Thalia.

Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 11:54:46 PM EST

4.00 (informative)

3

Re: One of the problems...

teaweed.

Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 01:25:42 PM EST

3.00 (obnoxious)

3

Re: One of the problems...

T Slothrop.

Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 12:46:16 PM EST

2.00 (offtopic)

3

Re: One of the problems...

snwodttam.

Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 12:11:07 AM EST