What the heck is TAKS Testing? (Austin, San Diego: middle-class, section 8, law school)

[AutumnFOG]

Originally Posted by artsyguy

There are a lot of problems with standardized tests. And teachers should teach to the subject.

Teachers should teach to the necessities of the individual to understand the subject. Teaching to the subject is a problem with standardized tests. I understand what you mean, but given your status of pestering everyone around here, it deserves the correction.

[AutumnFOG]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

It isn't my place to tell you how to evaluate your child's education.

Our experience is that the concentration on the test was short lived - in the weeks leading up to the test. It is also more noticable in elementary school than in later grades. If teaching to the test means being able to solve the problems in the test - which read like reasonable problems to me - then I am OK with it.

As a parent - I told my kids that they shouldn't worry and they would do fine. Whether they are commended or not wasn't that important to me.

As for Monica, if she is in college as she says, then she miraculously passed English in high school. She can't write a paragraph as well as 7th graders should be able to. Based only on what I see in her writing - she should not have been allowed to advance at some point in her education until she could pass a reasonable exit exam.

These are fair points for a lot of kids. But you have to remember that it's likely your children probably are smart enough, and were raised well enough that they'd do well regardless. The real issues with standardized testing was it was supposed to be some sort of fix that would force schools to be accountable for its underperforming and high-risk populations, and its simply made the problem worse.

You kind of hit on one of the big issues with the testing practice in your response. You read the questions and they seem reasonable to you. But the problem is, even within a few districts, the range of cultural, socioeconomic and learning factors amongst students is so vast that it is impossible to create a true, fair "standard".

There is what our kids do know, how they know it, and then there is what our kids should know. The challenge is how to get our kids to know what they should without punishing them.

It is tough to say that about kids, but they all require their own specific instruction. The challenge with that, of course, is doing as much as one can in the allotted time.

[austin-steve]

But the problem is, even within a few districts, the range of cultural, socioeconomic and learning factors amongst students is so vast that it is impossible to create a true, fair "standard".

Yes, but "the range of cultural, socioeconomic and learning factors" among successful achieving adults is not vast. Most financially successful people completed college, know how to read, write and think.

Therefore. the "standards" ought to be designed to produce people ready to travel that path. Even trade-school-destined kids will have a harder time if they can't read and communicate well, both in writing and verbally.

The standards should be determined by what the motivated kids wants to achieve, not what the poorest students are able to manage.

Steve

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by AutumnFOG

These are fair points for a lot of kids. But you have to remember that it's likely your children probably are smart enough, and were raised well enough that they'd do well regardless. The real issues with standardized testing was it was supposed to be some sort of fix that would force schools to be accountable for its underperforming and high-risk populations, and its simply made the problem worse.

You kind of hit on one of the big issues with the testing practice in your response. You read the questions and they seem reasonable to you. But the problem is, even within a few districts, the range of cultural, socioeconomic and learning factors amongst students is so vast that it is impossible to create a true, fair "standard".

There is what our kids do know, how they know it, and then there is what our kids should know. The challenge is how to get our kids to know what they should without punishing them.

It is tough to say that about kids, but they all require their own specific instruction. The challenge with that, of course, is doing as much as one can in the allotted time.

Excellent points. I tried to rep you, but alas, I am too stingy with rep points and must spread more around before giving you another.

[pandorafan5687]

That would be the equivelent of the LEAP testing here in Louisiana.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by AutumnFOG

These are fair points for a lot of kids. But you have to remember that it's likely your children probably are smart enough, and were raised well enough that they'd do well regardless. The real issues with standardized testing was it was supposed to be some sort of fix that would force schools to be accountable for its underperforming and high-risk populations, and its simply made the problem worse.

You kind of hit on one of the big issues with the testing practice in your response. You read the questions and they seem reasonable to you. But the problem is, even within a few districts, the range of cultural, socioeconomic and learning factors amongst students is so vast that it is impossible to create a true, fair "standard".

There is what our kids do know, how they know it, and then there is what our kids should know. The challenge is how to get our kids to know what they should without punishing them.

It is tough to say that about kids, but they all require their own specific instruction. The challenge with that, of course, is doing as much as one can in the allotted time.

If these people of a different culture cannot pass these tests - we learned something. It could be that the test is flawed. It could be that the people of culture aren't being taught well. It could be that these people are not prepared.

I agree it isn't possible to create a single standard. But I avoided the use of "fair" because I don't know what that is. If our school system(s) conclude a child should be able to solve algebra problems with a certain degree of proficiency - then I don't think it should matter if the child is from a different demographic. The scores will tell a story - and over time we should adjust. But as imperfect as it may be - that doesn't mean we should abandon the tests.

We should continually work to improve the tests. But I am not at all confident that we can rely on a more subjective method to perform broad assessment of achievement and knowledge gain.

[woodinvilleguy]

Since the school is rated on the lowest score of the lowest group of kids it really only matters to make sure the lower scoring kids get better scores. Who cars about the other kids in this system. It is very odd to me.

i.e. the poor martian kids get only 70% on the science test then the school gets a 70%. doesn't matter if the rest of the earthlings got 90% on the tests.

[AutumnFOG]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Most financially successful people completed college, know how to read, write and think.

Knowing how to read and write are critical.

Having completed a bachelor's degree is a statistical fallacy that hasn't really meant much in a long time, for a variety of reasons. But mostly because the means of occupation in the United States are no longer set up to provide a ladder. You don't climb from rung-to-rung as you used to, and when you do, the rungs are much farther a part. There are a hundred reasons why this isn't actually true (such as, for instance, the fact that those who don't complete college are actually less likely to acquire large lump sums of debt early in their life, and they sooner and to a greater degree pay taxes), etc etc etc.

Not to mention that salary does not necessarily determine success. I know plenty of rich lunatics and plenty of poor gentlemen.

As far as the "successful people can think" thing, that is an immeasurable intangible.

I think to say that unsuccessful people can't think presupposes too many things that you can't actually know about a person's lack of success. I'm sure there are plenty of people more intelligent than you who've been less successful. That is, as they say, the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.

And about motivated and poor kids, I don't think either option makes sense. People have this tendency to want to create this perception about kids as if they are machinery, as if we can so early pick out the good ones from the bad ones and simply know the difference. Human beings come from in all matters and forms, and there is no pre-set timetable or box from which you can determine when a person will become a good person or a qualified person or a "thinking" person. I am not interested in creating a society full of front-runners.

[AutumnFOG]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

If these people of a different culture cannot pass these tests - we learned something. It could be that the test is flawed. It could be that the people of culture aren't being taught well. It could be that these people are not prepared.

I agree it isn't possible to create a single standard. But I avoided the use of "fair" because I don't know what that is. If our school system(s) conclude a child should be able to solve algebra problems with a certain degree of proficiency - then I don't think it should matter if the child is from a different demographic. The scores will tell a story - and over time we should adjust. But as imperfect as it may be - that doesn't mean we should abandon the tests.

We should continually work to improve the tests. But I am not at all confident that we can rely on a more subjective method to perform broad assessment of achievement and knowledge gain.

I think it should, because our school systems don't always know best. Lest we forget how recently it was that being of a particular color meant belonging to a particular school, or that wearing an armband meant an act of suspension-worthy disobedience.

The situations are just as bad when money comes into play.

Like it or not, for the majority of our history, public schooling in the States has not worked up to the potential that it has been met with. So as far as I am concerned, if a school thinks that a child so be required to do so much as know it's 1-2-3's and A-B-C's, it better have a damn good reason. I applaud the effort that teachers put forth every day in the face of sometimes overwhelming odds, but there isn't a school administration in the land that has earned that same trust.

And yes, the demographics do matter. For instance, when critical thinking problems are catering scenarios that may favor the understanding of a particular ethnic group. This, to me, does not qualify as a "standard" of any sort. As hard as it is to believe, the gap between demographics really is that wide.

[austin-steve]

Having completed a bachelor's degree is a statistical fallacy that hasn't really meant much in a long time

You mean for a long time. Sorry.

OK then, back your statement with data. Show me your list of terrific entry level jobs that don't require a college degree. Pick any Fortune 500 company and look at the base requirements for hire. There is a reason most companies won't even consider candidates that haven't completed college.

And who is better off financially, a college grad with $17K in debt and a $40K starting salary, or a high school grad with no debt, no skills, making minimum wage? A college degree is an asset worth more than the debt uncured to obtain it. Not obtaining a degree in order to avoid debt would be the highest order of stupid.

My 11th grader is going to be touring colleges this summer. She just finished TAKS tests this week, which she declared unbelievably simple and easy. She has difficult believing that there are kids who can't pass these tests.

Steve