Why are people so opposed to standardized tests?

[villageidiot1]

[quote=phetaroi;60792552][quote=tnff;60788825]

Originally Posted by mingna

One of the things that I've learned over a long life is a general principle that small "systems" fail, and bigger "systems" step in and try to fix the failure.

I started out my teaching career in western NYS, and -- at least back then -- every community had their own school system. I student taught in a very good suburban school system (at least at that time) -- the Greece school district. My first job for pay was in the rural school district where the high school was Midlakes -- again a very good school system where the community took great pride in their schools. Then a year at East Irondequoit school system...and you know you have problems when you're sitting in front of your television sorting out the laundry and there's your principal being grilled on "60 Minutes". Individual communities having their own control in a school system is OFTEN a scenario for disaster. When I was growing up in the Palmyra-Macedon school system in western NYS, the population got to vote on the school budget each year. And almost every year it failed. The reason -- it was the only budget people got to vote on, so due to wanting lower taxes, they would vote down that one budget. Year after year. And in the end, each year, they would ultimately pass a scaled down budget...and then usually approve supplemental packages, typically resulting in the original budget essentially being passes. It was folly. On the other hand, the state Regents program was (at least at that time) excellent and well respected, and the state university system was almost a model for state university systems. Local failure, state success...at least in general.

I spent about 9 years of my career in Prince George's County, Maryland. It started out fairly decent, but they voted in "TRIM" (tax relief in Maryland) in the county, the school system's quality plummeted, and quite a few of us packed up and left. I just drove across the Potomac River and settled down in Fairfax County public schools -- one of the best school systems in the nation -- where people supported the school system.

What's my point with all this. The more local a school system is, the more it is at the mercy of ignorant voters. And I'm sorry, but a lot of voters are awfully ignorant.

One year I went on a trip to Thailand and was the guest of the Thai Ministry Of Education at several schools. At one school they asked me to explain the American education system. They actually laughed when I told them there was virtually no national policy or governing board for the most important nation in the world. And I don't blame them. Because it smacks of no real standards.

I'm from PA and totally agree. We have 500 school districts in this state. Most of the western part of the state has a population decline yet there is no discussion of merging districts or closing schools. My local district could easily close 1-2 of four elementary schools. We have a neighboring district that has less than 50 students per graduating class. The two districts are geographically close and could easily merge. They could continue to operate two high schools for a period of time but consolidate administrations. Yet nobody will suggest this. As long as there is enough state money to keep each district operating, nothing will change and local property taxes will continue to increase to for a declining enrollment. I think some school board in PA do a fine job. The majority of these boards, however, are located in larger, wealthier school districts in suburban Pittsburgh. These districts have a larger pool of qualified people who are interest in serving. Small rural districts have a hard time finding qualified people and these people often have some hidden agenda and/or want a feeling of power.

[tnff]

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

But if Teacher A gives makeup exams if students are sick or have to go to a funeral, and Teacher B gives a 0 for any exam missed for any reason, then obviously Teacher A’s students will get higher grades. So it just comes down to a random lottery of who gets which teacher. That is why I feel that, especially if standardized tests are eliminated, that there will need to be more uniformity as far as policies that affect grades. Ideally, it would not be a zero tolerance mentality.

As a way of speaking your language: you always complain, rightly so, that teachers favor athletes. Aren’t standardized tests the one check and balance against that power, since the test doesn’t know if a student is an athlete or not?

I believe the type of standardized test you are referring to are the SAT/ACT. How do you consider they would be a check & balance since they have no ability to challenge /change a grade? Please correct me where I'm wrong, but I believe what you've written so far is that you were not accepted or didn't get a scholarship to a college due to not being in the top 5% of your graduating class because of the one teacher. If not for this one teacher you would have had a 4.0 GPA.

Since the scholarship award was based strictly on class rank, how would your SAT/ACT scores been a check & balance on that since they couldn't change the outcome of a class rank decision? I understand your frustration at the outcome, but think you may be looking at a solution that doesn't address the problem.

In many ways your problem mirrors that of Fisher v Univ of Texas. The Univ of Texas has (had?) a similar automatic admission to the top 10% of any high school in the state. This student sued claiming that was unfair because she attended a high performing school which was harder to be top 10% in than low performing schools meaning that even though she wasn't in the top 10%, she was still academically more qualified than students that were admitted. The case went to the Supreme Court if I recall.

[quote=mitsguy2001;60792222][quote=tnff;60791400]

Originally Posted by mingna

I would agree that a 4.0 is better than a 3.0 is better than a 2.0. But I’m unconvinced that a 3.98 is better than a 3.96 or that a 4.0 is better than a 3.96, esp when you look at the distribution curve.

The problem as I see it, colleges make enormous admissions and scholarship decisions on those single points between 3.96 and 3.98 or 3.98 and 4.0 when there really is no performance difference between them.

Colleges in general aren't making major decisions on such small difference in GPA. In fact the other, non academic "extras" seem to carry far more weight than small GPA differences.

[quote=phetaroi;60792552][quote=tnff;60788825]

Originally Posted by mingna

One of the things that I've learned over a long life is a general principle that small "systems" fail, and bigger "systems" step in and try to fix the failure.
...

What's my point with all this. The more local a school system is, the more it is at the mercy of ignorant voters. And I'm sorry, but a lot of voters are awfully ignorant.

One year I went on a trip to Thailand and was the guest of the Thai Ministry Of Education at several schools. At one school they asked me to explain the American education system. They actually laughed when I told them there was virtually no national policy or governing board for the most important nation in the world. And I don't blame them. Because it smacks of no real standards.

And yet many would argue that the more we try to force centralized control, big "systems" solutions, and a one size fits all standard, the worse our actual performance has become. We might also consider that a decentralized system allows more flexibility to meet the needs of a nation that is as geographically and culturally diverse as the US as compared to the much smaller, and near monoculture of the systems we are often compared to. And finally, in terms of creativity, inventions, and world changing knowledge, consider the supposedly inferior, locally controlled process, did in fact change the world and that as we try to force a centrally controlled system onto it, the outcomes have worsened?

[mingna]

[quote=tnff;60793499]I believe the type of standardized test you are referring to are the SAT/ACT. How do you consider they would be a check & balance since they have no ability to challenge /change a grade? Please correct me where I'm wrong, but I believe what you've written so far is that you were not accepted or didn't get a scholarship to a college due to not being in the top 5% of your graduating class because of the one teacher. If not for this one teacher you would have had a 4.0 GPA.

Since the scholarship award was based strictly on class rank, how would your SAT/ACT scores been a check & balance on that since they couldn't change the outcome of a class rank decision? I understand your frustration at the outcome, but think you may be looking at a solution that doesn't address the problem.

In many ways your problem mirrors that of Fisher v Univ of Texas. The Univ of Texas has (had?) a similar automatic admission to the top 10% of any high school in the state. This student sued claiming that was unfair because she attended a high performing school which was harder to be top 10% in than low performing schools meaning that even though she wasn't in the top 10%, she was still academically more qualified than students that were admitted. The case went to the Supreme Court if I recall.

[quote=mitsguy2001;60792222][quote=tnff;60791400]

Colleges in general aren't making major decisions on such small difference in GPA. In fact the other, non academic "extras" seem to carry far more weight than small GPA differences.

[quote=phetaroi;60792552]

Originally Posted by tnff

And yet many would argue that the more we try to force centralized control, big "systems" solutions, and a one size fits all standard, the worse our actual performance has become. We might also consider that a decentralized system allows more flexibility to meet the needs of a nation that is as geographically and culturally diverse as the US as compared to the much smaller, and near monoculture of the systems we are often compared to. And finally, in terms of creativity, inventions, and world changing knowledge, consider the supposedly inferior, locally controlled process, did in fact change the world and that as we try to force a centrally controlled system onto it, the outcomes have worsened?

Right, I did not post the message you were responding to, in fact, I hold the opposite view to that post. Not sure what’s going on with the quote function.

[mingna]

[quote=tnff;60791400][quote=mingna;60789529]

Originally Posted by tnff

I agree with much of what you're saying. I think the biggest point where I don't support standardized testing is whether they actually test aptitude. Or at least to any level of granularity between low, middle, and high. I would agree that a 30 is better than a 20 is better than a 10 on the ACT. But I'm unconvinced that a 32 is better than a 30 or that a 36 is better than a 32, esp when you look at the distribution curve. It's presented to the public, and generally used as, a linear 1 to 36. But it's only linear in the middle section. The tails are essentially flat.

The problem as I see it, colleges make enormous admission and scholarship decisions on those single points between 32 and 33 or 33 and 34 when there really is no performance difference between them. And this isn't even beginning to discuss the misuse of standardized test data in school funding distributions.

Yes, I believe the SAT, as I remember it, measured aptitude as correlated to college program completion. I have never taken the ACT so can not comment.

Re:scholarships based on test score

That is a separate matter. That is a function of how the test is applied (here, by scholarship committees), and not by whether the test is a good measure of student aptitude.

[Slater]

According to the media in the last few years, the SAT/ACT are essentially racist and need to be gradually phased out. Then a more fair/equitable system can be implemented.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by tnff

I believe the type of standardized test you are referring to are the SAT/ACT. How do you consider they would be a check & balance since they have no ability to challenge /change a grade?

Because they give colleges something objective to evaluate students that is not determined by their teacher.

Please correct me where I'm wrong, but I believe what you've written so far is that you were not accepted or didn't get a scholarship to a college due to not being in the top 5% of your graduating class because of the one teacher. If not for this one teacher you would have had a 4.0 GPA.

That is correct.

Since the scholarship award was based strictly on class rank, how would your SAT/ACT scores been a check & balance on that since they couldn't change the outcome of a class rank decision? I understand your frustration at the outcome, but think you may be looking at a solution that doesn't address the problem.

My point is that I feel colleges should focus more on standardized test scores and less on class rank. But it seems you and others want standardized tests completely eliminated.

In many ways your problem mirrors that of Fisher v Univ of Texas. The Univ of Texas has (had?) a similar automatic admission to the top 10% of any high school in the state. This student sued claiming that was unfair because she attended a high performing school which was harder to be top 10% in than low performing schools meaning that even though she wasn't in the top 10%, she was still academically more qualified than students that were admitted. The case went to the Supreme Court if I recall.

The difference is that the University of Texas openly admitted that their policy was a form of affirmative action for students from poorer school districts. The college that I am referring to considered it to be an entirely academic scholarship.

Originally Posted by tnff

Colleges in general aren't making major decisions on such small difference in GPA.

Again, we have to agree to disagree. Why was it that many students who had Mr. G got into Ivy League schools, and nobody from Mr. E’s class got into Ivy League schools? The only difference was that Mr. G gave everybody an A and Mr. E gave everybody a B.

In fact the other, non academic "extras" seem to carry far more weight than small GPA differences.

In general I would agree, but most of the students in Mr. G’s class who got into Ivy League schools did not have any non-academic “extras”.