Changing Standardized Testing

[mollybear]

In my home state, they are working on implementing a new type of standardized testing known as the "Keystone Exams." These exams are meant to take place of PSSAs (Pennsylvania Standard for Schools Assessments) and are to be used to measure if schools are making adequate yearly progress (AYP). The new tests are supposed to help students because they are taken in individual subjects like Math and English Literature right after the student completes that course, instead of waiting until 11th grade when some students will have gone years without interacting with the material. The students' exam scores will are be placed on their transcripts and passing the Keystones will become a graduation requirement.

Sure, it sounds great that students will be better placed to succeed on these exams than they were for the PSSAs. But I worry that these exams are not helping anything in the long run. They still encourage the "teach-to-the-test" phenomena that has become prevalent since the implementation of No Child Left Behind. And I fear that they will restrict teachers even more, preventing them from adapting and adjusting their curriculum to the needs of their students.

It's not that school accountability is a bad thing--but the current system is not going about it the right way.

 

[Mr. H.]

Obama allows Keystone exams but not a Keystone pipeline?

 

[jwoodie]

I think that instructional material and competency tests should be broken into basic education, life skills and advanced studies. Basic education should include the Three R's plus a basic understanding of our history and government. These subjects should be taught first, and students should not take other subjects until they have passed a basic competency test. Life skills should include reading comprehension, English language skills and basic knowledge of household finances. Once these these subjects have been completed, advances studies in literature, foreign languages and higher math and science may be undertaken. If some students need to spend all their time on basic subjects in order to achieve competency, so be it. That is what a diploma should certify, not some pie-in-the-sky belief that all students should be college bound.

 

[Unkotare]

I think that instructional material and competency tests should be broken into basic education, life skills and advanced studies. Basic education should include the Three R's plus a basic understanding of our history and government. These subjects should be taught first, and students should not take other subjects until they have passed a basic competency test. Life skills should include reading comprehension, English language skills and basic knowledge of household finances. Once these these subjects have been completed, advances studies in literature, foreign languages and higher math and science may be undertaken. If some students need to spend all their time on basic subjects in order to achieve competency, so be it. That is what a diploma should certify, not some pie-in-the-sky belief that all students should be college bound.

Your 'once this, then that' approach is untenable.

 

[RosieS]

In my home state, they are working on implementing a new type of standardized testing known as the "Keystone Exams." These exams are meant to take place of PSSAs (Pennsylvania Standard for Schools Assessments) and are to be used to measure if schools are making adequate yearly progress (AYP). The new tests are supposed to help students because they are taken in individual subjects like Math and English Literature right after the student completes that course, instead of waiting until 11th grade when some students will have gone years without interacting with the material. The students' exam scores will are be placed on their transcripts and passing the Keystones will become a graduation requirement.

Sure, it sounds great that students will be better placed to succeed on these exams than they were for the PSSAs. But I worry that these exams are not helping anything in the long run. They still encourage the "teach-to-the-test" phenomena that has become prevalent since the implementation of No Child Left Behind. And I fear that they will restrict teachers even more, preventing them from adapting and adjusting their curriculum to the needs of their students.

It's not that school accountability is a bad thing--but the current system is not going about it the right way.

It depends. If the new tests are based upon the former "No Children's Left Behind" then they are minimum standards and are unhelpful.

If they are rigorous subject matter tests like the New York Regents then they will favor richer families who can hire tutors for the test....because they are so difficult for the majority of students.

The ideal is somewhere in between. Written so that the typical student can do well, but those wanting an Ivy League admission must ace nearly all of it. A lower standard score for vocational students should be acceptable, too.

It is not so much school accountability.....it is what levels of student achievement do the tests test and what applications will result from the results? That is what tells the testing tale.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Unkotare]

In my home state, they are working on implementing a new type of standardized testing known as the "Keystone Exams." These exams are meant to take place of PSSAs (Pennsylvania Standard for Schools Assessments) and are to be used to measure if schools are making adequate yearly progress (AYP). The new tests are supposed to help students because they are taken in individual subjects like Math and English Literature right after the student completes that course, instead of waiting until 11th grade when some students will have gone years without interacting with the material. The students' exam scores will are be placed on their transcripts and passing the Keystones will become a graduation requirement.

Sure, it sounds great that students will be better placed to succeed on these exams than they were for the PSSAs. But I worry that these exams are not helping anything in the long run. They still encourage the "teach-to-the-test" phenomena that has become prevalent since the implementation of No Child Left Behind. And I fear that they will restrict teachers even more, preventing them from adapting and adjusting their curriculum to the needs of their students.

It's not that school accountability is a bad thing--but the current system is not going about it the right way.

It depends. If the new tests are based upon the former "No Children's Left Behind" then they are minimum standards and are unhelpful.

If they are rigorous subject matter tests like the New York Regents then they will favor richer families who can hire tutors for the test....because they are so difficult for the majority of students.

The ideal is somewhere in between. Written so that the typical student can do well, but those wanting an Ivy League admission must ace nearly all of it. A lower standard score for vocational students should be acceptable, too.

It is not so much school accountability.....it is what levels of student achievement do the tests test and what applications will result from the results? That is what tells the testing tale.

Regards from Rosie

Your "ideal" is lower standards? Yeah, great thinking.

 

[RosieS]

In my home state, they are working on implementing a new type of standardized testing known as the "Keystone Exams." These exams are meant to take place of PSSAs (Pennsylvania Standard for Schools Assessments) and are to be used to measure if schools are making adequate yearly progress (AYP). The new tests are supposed to help students because they are taken in individual subjects like Math and English Literature right after the student completes that course, instead of waiting until 11th grade when some students will have gone years without interacting with the material. The students' exam scores will are be placed on their transcripts and passing the Keystones will become a graduation requirement.

Sure, it sounds great that students will be better placed to succeed on these exams than they were for the PSSAs. But I worry that these exams are not helping anything in the long run. They still encourage the "teach-to-the-test" phenomena that has become prevalent since the implementation of No Child Left Behind. And I fear that they will restrict teachers even more, preventing them from adapting and adjusting their curriculum to the needs of their students.

It's not that school accountability is a bad thing--but the current system is not going about it the right way.

It depends. If the new tests are based upon the former "No Children's Left Behind" then they are minimum standards and are unhelpful.

If they are rigorous subject matter tests like the New York Regents then they will favor richer families who can hire tutors for the test....because they are so difficult for the majority of students.

The ideal is somewhere in between. Written so that the typical student can do well, but those wanting an Ivy League admission must ace nearly all of it. A lower standard score for vocational students should be acceptable, too.

It is not so much school accountability.....it is what levels of student achievement do the tests test and what applications will result from the results? That is what tells the testing tale.

Regards from Rosie

Your "ideal" is lower standards? Yeah, great thinking.

Reading comprehension is on every exam. Too bad for you, eh?

Regards from Rosie

 

[Unkotare]

It depends. If the new tests are based upon the former "No Children's Left Behind" then they are minimum standards and are unhelpful.

If they are rigorous subject matter tests like the New York Regents then they will favor richer families who can hire tutors for the test....because they are so difficult for the majority of students.

The ideal is somewhere in between. Written so that the typical student can do well, but those wanting an Ivy League admission must ace nearly all of it. A lower standard score for vocational students should be acceptable, too.

It is not so much school accountability.....it is what levels of student achievement do the tests test and what applications will result from the results? That is what tells the testing tale.

Regards from Rosie

Your "ideal" is lower standards? Yeah, great thinking.

Reading comprehension is on every exam. Too bad for you, eh?

Quite the contrary. Now, why do you think that lower standards are "ideal"?

 

[RosieS]

Your "ideal" is lower standards? Yeah, great thinking.

Reading comprehension is on every exam. Too bad for you, eh?

Quite the contrary. Now, why do you think that lower standards are "ideal"?

I think that standards well above ""No Child's" but not as vicious as New York's are ideal. That is what I wrote.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Unkotare]

Reading comprehension is on every exam. Too bad for you, eh?

Quite the contrary. Now, why do you think that lower standards are "ideal"?

I think that standards well above ""No Child's" but not as vicious as New York's are ideal. That is what I wrote.

Regards from Rosie

Why do you consider the higher standard of the Regents as "vicious"? Higher standards are "vicious"? Does that mean mediocrity is virtuous?

 

[RosieS]

Quite the contrary. Now, why do you think that lower standards are "ideal"?

I think that standards well above ""No Child's" but not as vicious as New York's are ideal. That is what I wrote.

Regards from Rosie

Why do you consider the higher standard of the Regents as "vicious"? Higher standards are "vicious"? Does that mean mediocrity is virtuous?

Read as to why I am against the Regent's standards. They are not legitimate standards. I will not repeat myself again.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Unkotare]

I think that standards well above ""No Child's" but not as vicious as New York's are ideal. That is what I wrote.

Regards from Rosie

Why do you consider the higher standard of the Regents as "vicious"? Higher standards are "vicious"? Does that mean mediocrity is virtuous?

Read as to why I am against the Regent's standards. They are not legitimate standards. I will not repeat myself again.

Regards from Rosie

You mean to say you don't want to have to support your own words. Why are higher standards illegitimate in your estimation? Do you really think that lower standards will result in improved American education?

 

[RosieS]

Why do you consider the higher standard of the Regents as "vicious"? Higher standards are "vicious"? Does that mean mediocrity is virtuous?

Read as to why I am against the Regent's standards. They are not legitimate standards. I will not repeat myself again.

Regards from Rosie

You mean to say you don't want to have to support your own words. Why are higher standards illegitimate in your estimation? Do you really think that lower standards will result in improved American education?

So-called "standards" that are not actual standards but lead to tutoring to the test and rampant cheating merit no support.

Merely testing minimum standards are meritless as well.

Reading comprehension is a basic skill.

Regards from Rosie

 

[gallantwarrior]

Quite the contrary. Now, why do you think that lower standards are "ideal"?

I think that standards well above ""No Child's" but not as vicious as New York's are ideal. That is what I wrote.

Regards from Rosie

Why do you consider the higher standard of the Regents as "vicious"? Higher standards are "vicious"? Does that mean mediocrity is virtuous?

Her comments made it pretty clear that she thought only rich white children are intelligent enough to pass those "vicious" tests. She's advocating lower standards in order to accommodate less intelligent children.

 

[RosieS]

I think that standards well above ""No Child's" but not as vicious as New York's are ideal. That is what I wrote.

Regards from Rosie

Why do you consider the higher standard of the Regents as "vicious"? Higher standards are "vicious"? Does that mean mediocrity is virtuous?

Her comments made it pretty clear that she thought only rich white children are intelligent enough to pass those "vicious" tests. She's advocating lower standards in order to accommodate less intelligent children.

Evidently someone never learned the elementary concept of a paid tutor. If rich kids cannot pass the test without one - I was paid for physics tutelage - then the "standard" itself is illegitimate. I was paid for knowing what was on the physics test and teaching it. None of it was in the physics class coursework....which was what was the actual prereq for college physics...not the end of year fake test.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Unkotare]

Read as to why I am against the Regent's standards. They are not legitimate standards. I will not repeat myself again.

Regards from Rosie

You mean to say you don't want to have to support your own words. Why are higher standards illegitimate in your estimation? Do you really think that lower standards will result in improved American education?

So-called "standards" that are not actual standards but lead to tutoring to the test and rampant cheating merit no support.

You're not making any sense. Higher standards are not standards because they are higher? Anything that students and their families put extra work into is not legitimate? What "lead(S) to" rampant cheating? Harder tests force students to cheat? Is that your claim? Does that really make sense to you? You are advocating mediocrity whether you want to accept that as the obvious conclusion to your comments or not.

 

[Unkotare]

I think that standards well above ""No Child's" but not as vicious as New York's are ideal. That is what I wrote.

Regards from Rosie

Why do you consider the higher standard of the Regents as "vicious"? Higher standards are "vicious"? Does that mean mediocrity is virtuous?

Her comments made it pretty clear that she thought only rich white children are intelligent enough to pass those "vicious" tests. She's advocating lower standards in order to accommodate less intelligent children.

I certainly hope that's not what she's saying, because that would be...

 

[RosieS]

Sat. nite game nite is done. TTFN

Regards from Rosie

 

[Unkotare]

If a student seeks out extra help in preparing for a test - that makes the test illegitimate? What the hell kind of sense is that?

So, if a student of somewhat less than average intelligence has trouble with a RosieMediocrity Test and seeks the help of a tutor (maybe even one paid for with tax dollars - the kind Rosie would 'approve' of) that means even the RosieMediocrity Test is illegitimate? How far down do these turtles go?

 

[Unkotare]

Sat. nite game nite is done. TTFN

Regards from Rosie

I don't blame you for admitting you aren't making a damn bit of sense. Retreat is your only option at this point.