ADVERTISEMENT

Our messaging is wrong....

Not when used as a diagnostic tool to gather data to better target students' areas of need. But, when they are bastardized to grade schools and teachers, they are not being utilized in the way they were envisioned. The intrusion of business and politics into education through the use of tests has diminished the impact of the profession.
Do you have data to support that last sentence or is that just your read of the situation?

What objective measures do you think useful to evaluate teachers or schools?

Im very interested in this subject so hope you’ll discuss this.
 
Do you have data to support that last sentence or is that just your read of the situation?

What objective measures do you think useful to evaluate teachers or schools?

Im very interested in this subject so hope you’ll discuss this.
I'm just going on what my family/friends who are teachers say about the whole thing. In Indiana, ISTEP used to be given near the beginning of the year, with the idea that results could be used to address student deficiencies. The issue was that it took months to get the results back. When they moved it to the end of the year, a friend of mine predicted that its main purpose would be to grade schools, and the usage of it as a tool to target instruction would be lost, since the scores were not returned until over the summer, and sometimes into the next school year. In a high mobility area like Indianapolis, scores often did not follow students efficiently, so the results were pretty much useless.
Of course, politics entered the void, and declared these tests to be the most important, if not the exclusive means of judging school effectiveness. As that notion was debunked, more and more complex formulas were created to plug test scores into to come up with a "grade" for schools. These "grades" were unintelligible to the public, and served no purpose.
It seems to me that the art/profession of teaching is much too subjective to be measured objectively, especially with a one time a year test given all across the state.
 
I'm just going on what my family/friends who are teachers say about the whole thing. In Indiana, ISTEP used to be given near the beginning of the year, with the idea that results could be used to address student deficiencies. The issue was that it took months to get the results back. When they moved it to the end of the year, a friend of mine predicted that its main purpose would be to grade schools, and the usage of it as a tool to target instruction would be lost, since the scores were not returned until over the summer, and sometimes into the next school year. In a high mobility area like Indianapolis, scores often did not follow students efficiently, so the results were pretty much useless.
Of course, politics entered the void, and declared these tests to be the most important, if not the exclusive means of judging school effectiveness. As that notion was debunked, more and more complex formulas were created to plug test scores into to come up with a "grade" for schools. These "grades" were unintelligible to the public, and served no purpose.
It seems to me that the art/profession of teaching is much too subjective to be measured objectively, especially with a one time a year test given all across the state.
The problem with your last statement is that it gives way too much latitude to bad teachers and schools. And those do exist. But I agree, it’s a very tough thing to measure.

regarding the timing, here in Illinois we give MAPS twice a year (fall and spring) and they are designed to measure growth in ELA and math on a few different vectors for each. We also have what used to be a PARCC exam that was more about achievement level that was used to compare schools between years but they’ve changed it so many times it probably isn’t useful anymore.

regarding when the scores come back, it’s ridiculous. In today’s technological age, we should be able to get scores back in a week or two. I’m still shocked no one’s figured this out.
 
It seems to me that the art/profession of teaching is much too subjective to be measured objectively, especially with a one time a year test given all across the state.

My only thoughts on standardized testing are that back in the day when they only impacted students, they were fine and dandy as far as the "educational professionals" were concerned. But when they started impacting the "educational professionals" themselves, that's when they became tools of the devil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
The problem with your last statement is that it gives way too much latitude to bad teachers and schools. And those do exist. But I agree, it’s a very tough thing to measure.

regarding the timing, here in Illinois we give MAPS twice a year (fall and spring) and they are designed to measure growth in ELA and math on a few different vectors for each. We also have what used to be a PARCC exam that was more about achievement level that was used to compare schools between years but they’ve changed it so many times it probably isn’t useful anymore.

regarding when the scores come back, it’s ridiculous. In today’s technological age, we should be able to get scores back in a week or two. I’m still shocked no one’s figured this out.
I'm not saying that bad teachers/schools don't exists, but to use a statewide standardized test as the only measure (which was once the case) was a terrible use of the assessment. Heck, there are some colleges that don't require entrance exams anymore.
 
My only thoughts on standardized testing are that back in the day when they only impacted students, they were fine and dandy as far as the "educational professionals" were concerned. But when they started impacting the "educational professionals" themselves, that's when they became tools of the devil.
standardized tests were the greatest thing ever for me. the ultimate hail mary pass. a chance for a miracle after years of shitty grades to boost your standing
 
My only thoughts on standardized testing are that back in the day when they only impacted students, they were fine and dandy as far as the "educational professionals" were concerned. But when they started impacting the "educational professionals" themselves, that's when they became tools of the devil.
I'm not aware of standardized testing ever impacting students, except SAT/ACT? The crazy thing is that the ISTEP, and now the ILEARN has never had any affect on students pass/retention status, or grades. How much skin do they have in the game?
 
Last edited:
Anyone remember the Iowa Basics? Seems like those were used as diagnostic tests and the results came back within the same semester. That was late 70's early 80's. How was the damn ISTEP so hard to grade and turn around 30 years later?

The ISTEP was useless when it came time to talk to my kid's teachers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_6hv78pr714xta
I'm not aware of standardized testing ever impacting students, except SAT/ACT? The crazy thing is that the ISTEP, and now the ILEARN has never had any affect on students pass/retention status, or grades. How much skin do they have in the game?

I'm going back to the 60s, when everyone took "achievement tests" every 3-4 years (like maybe 4th/7th/10th grades). That's what determined who got sent to shop classes and who got shunted into freshman algebra.
 
Essay tests. Let the b/s flow. Just back up your argument and make it tangentially related to the question.
we had a law prof at iu that told us he "felt his way through" tax on the nc bar even tho he'd never taken a tax course in his life. i don't know why but i thought that was really funny
 
Yup. Kicked ass on the SAT too.
ha nice!! what do you get? satisfaction when moments like this come up? that for sure. but what else? cheaper insurance? do they have events you get notified about? an earned feeling of smugness?

that sure as shit should at least get you a mod gig
 
He's 21 now. He like to work with his hands, tinker with shit and will work hard if need be. But, he was never really exposed to anything but COLLEGE! in high school. He'd do really well in an old fashioned union job. But he's just drifting along.

Professional services (HVAC, Plumbing, Electricians). Get him there ASAP. The supply/demand imbalance is massive.
 
That article might be survivor bias. The percentage of males getting a college degree is going up, not down. It is just girls have gone up faster. We may not be failing boys. It might be more jobs that don't require college (military, construction, fire) are more attractive to males than females. There is a chart in the story below, as of 2020 the percentage of males getting a college degree is at an all-time high.


It seems this is true for enrollments as well:

Between 2000 and 2018, overall college enrollment rates increased for both 18- to 24-year-old males (from 33 to 38 percent) and females (from 38 to 44 percent). Among males, college enrollment rates were higher in 2018 than in 2000 for those who were White (39 vs. 36 percent), Black (33 vs. 25 percent), and Hispanic (32 vs. 18 percent). Among females, college enrollment rates were also higher in 2018 than in 2000 for those who were White (45 vs. 41 percent) and Hispanic (40 vs. 25 percent). The rate in 2018 was not measurably different from the rate in 2000 for females who were Black.​

If more males are enrolling in college every year, and more males are graduating every year, the questions might be different than if there were fewer.

That is setting up to translate into some massive cultural clashes, some of which we are already witnessing. Men tend to skew heavier towards conservatism and if all of the sudden, as colleges move uber liberal and less men (proportionally, maybe not in absolute) are getting that same exposure/experience (potentially purposefully), how does that shape society in 25 years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_6hv78pr714xta
Same here. 99th percentile on tests combined with 50th percentile in class work adds up to a decent resume for most state schools.

I was average on tests and in the classroom... probably explains my posting abilities and limitations quite well now that I think about it...
 
I was average on tests and in the classroom... probably explains my posting abilities and limitations quite well now that I think about it...
Truth is, test-taking is a skill pretty much anyone can learn and doesn't say much about intelligence. I mean, you need to be able to read clearly, and you need to have at least some knack for logical thinking, but after that, you just learn how the game works and it's a breeze.
 
Truth is, test-taking is a skill pretty much anyone can learn and doesn't say much about intelligence. I mean, you need to be able to read clearly, and you need to have at least some knack for logical thinking, but after that, you just learn how the game works and it's a breeze.
Spot on
 
Truth is, test-taking is a skill pretty much anyone can learn and doesn't say much about intelligence. I mean, you need to be able to read clearly, and you need to have at least some knack for logical thinking, but after that, you just learn how the game works and it's a breeze.
People think high scores on IQ tests means you're smart. No, it means you're good at taking IQ tests.
 
Truth is, test-taking is a skill pretty much anyone can learn and doesn't say much about intelligence. I mean, you need to be able to read clearly, and you need to have at least some knack for logical thinking, but after that, you just learn how the game works and it's a breeze.
I took the LSAT with a really bad hangover. I bought a book the weekend before and fiddled around with a couple of the sample tests.

Scored a 48 (out of 48).

I think the hangover was the key.
 
I took the LSAT with a really bad hangover. I bought a book the weekend before and fiddled around with a couple of the sample tests.

Scored a 48 (out of 48).

I think the hangover was the key.

giphy.gif
 
I took the LSAT with a really bad hangover. I bought a book the weekend before and fiddled around with a couple of the sample tests.

Scored a 48 (out of 48).

I think the hangover was the key.
I took it after they changed the scoring. Got a 175 out of 180. I don't recall for sure, but I was probably hungover, too.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT