Standardized Testing

[Miharu]

This article caught my eye a few months back when I was doing some research for a paper on the US's education system and its various problems:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/22/education/22education.html

The bulk of this piece centers around the following point:

Many of the tests that states are introducing under N.C.L.B. contain many questions that require students to merely recall and restate facts, rather than do more demanding tasks like applying or evaluating information.

Another common argument made against standardized testing (the SAT in particular) is how these exams simply tell us how well a student can take something like the SAT/SAT II, but very little beyond that. Keep in mind that the original intention of standardized testing was to give educators a general idea on where students stood at an intellectual level.

Many states have begun to develop standardized testing to meet state standards. Arguments in support claim that there needs to be some proficiency that a student should demonstrate after a year of education. The student, teacher and school need to be accountable for test results. Opponents of standardized testing claim that a single assessment will reduce the quality and levels of learning. They say that students will be trained to take a test because teachers will be forced to "teach the test."

(taken from http://www.essortment.com/all/standardizedtes_riyw.htm)

While I am in agreement with the point that there needs to be a way of measuring where students stand after a year of schooling, the current methods of standardized testing just don't cut it.

So what are your thoughts on this? Just what does standardized testing do for our country as a whole in this day and age, and how does the pressure it puts on schools/teachers/students affect our education system as a whole?

 

[ArcPoint]

If I recall correctly, standardized testing is to see what you KNOW, not what you can figure out. These schools should be teaching you what you're supposed to know. I would argue that it focuses our system on a point, the point being a standardized test.

The only problem I see with judging students based on an intellectual level is: What is intelligence? Is it the ability to figure out things? Some people excel at different "parts" of intelligence, than others. Like for example, some one might not be good with logic and reasoning, but excel in something like spacial reasoning.

 

[M.K]

If I recall correctly, standardized testing is to see what you KNOW, not what you can figure out. These schools should be teaching you what you're supposed to know. I would argue that it focuses our system on a point, the point being a standardized test.

The only problem I see with judging students based on an intellectual level is: What is intelligence? Is it the ability to figure out things? Some people excel at different "parts" of intelligence, than others. Like for example, some one might not be good with logic and reasoning, but excel in something like spacial reasoning.

Teaching something for a test is not good information. Good information is things that we can apply to regular life on a daily basis. What meeting marked the turning point for Christianity in Europe? The Council of Trent, but when (unless you are a history scholar) are we going to be put on the spot to know this sort of info?
Standardized tests should be a test of our comprehensive ability, such as math problems/writing analysis/reading comprehension. Nothing should be recalling minuscule facts or restating knowledge

 

[Miharu]

If I recall correctly, standardized testing is to see what you KNOW, not what you can figure out. These schools should be teaching you what you're supposed to know. I would argue that it focuses our system on a point, the point being a standardized test.

But how practical is the knowledge that students are being tested for? That's the gripe I've always had with standardized testing. I would argue that focusing our education on the point of standardized testing is a terrible idea, since very little of what is needed to pass the tests is even practical.

The only problem I see with judging students based on an intellectual level is: What is intelligence? Is it the ability to figure out things? Some people excel at different "parts" of intelligence, than others. Like for example, some one might not be good with logic and reasoning, but excel in something like spacial reasoning.

I agree, for the same reasons that you gave, that there's no proper way to define intelligence so that we place everyone on a comparative scale and have it be "fair" at the same time.

 

[ArcPoint]

But how practical is the knowledge that students are being tested for? That's the gripe I've always had with standardized testing. I would argue that focusing our education on the point of standardized testing is a terrible idea, since very little of what is needed to pass the tests is even practical.

How do we determine what "practical information" is? Different careers involves different knowledge bases. School until college is supposed to be a general education - because nobody in that school knows exactly what profession you're going into, so how could you judge practical application? Why should we bother learning biology if our chosen profession isn't going to involve biology? Well, because the school has no idea that I'm going to be something other than a biology major.

What'd be stupid is if someone was taking a class for his Major's Degree and they started talking about stuff that is irrelevant to the subject. But until the college level, all the education is general. I don't want to get into my major at pre-school, you know?

I agree, for the same reasons that you gave, that there's no proper way to define intelligence so that we place everyone on a comparative scale and have it be "fair" at the same time.

Or accurate, for that matter.