Writer's Block: Connecting the dots

[Error: unknown template qotd]

I think that standardized tests have their uses, but only when the test is valid, unbiased, and interpreted and applied in the appropriate way. Unfortunately, they seldom are.

In principle I see the merits of standardized tests-- because I do see the merit in (some) educational standards. I'm cool with whatever free-form, radical, hippie-dippy method you want to use to achieve those standards (and I say that with utmost respect, being a little radical and hippie-dippy myself :-P) but I don't think it makes me some kind of Nazi to believe that all students should leave their years of compulsory education literate, competent in basic arithmetic, and with some basic understanding of natural laws and human history.

The easiest, most convenient way for an overseeing organization like the government or a school board to determine whether standard goals have been met is to use a standard assessment. That's where the usefuless of standardized tests come in, because the government and school districts do not have the time, money, or staffing to perform longitudinal studies or individual interviews for every student in the country to check up on their progress. And if you want to measure something in a consistent way amongst large groups of different people at different times, in different test environments, and with different proctors, you need a test that is both standard and valid, with as little bias as possible.

( Standardization, Validity, and Bias-- and How Current Tests Fail To Fulfill Them )

Considering how flawed our tests are, it should come as no surprise that I have a huge problem with these scores used as the hard-and-fast rule for whether a student matriculates or enters college, or whether a teacher is given tenure or fired.* And I don't believe that a standardized test should ever be the sole determiner of whether a student is given special education supports, either-- even if the test were perfectly standard, valid, and biased, because there is always more to it than that. I am concerned about this as I enter the field of education and possibly school psychology, because I worry about how much the law will tie my hands regarding how rigidly I must interpret test results. If left to my own devices I would look to a variety of factors to make evaluations of student progress or needs. Currently teachers and administrators have a certain level of autonomy and leeway, but I worry that's on its way out /-:

*This issue is particularly complex, since the bias in the tests towards white, middle-class, American-born populations means that not only are disadvantaged students poorly represented by their test scores, but teachers serving them come off looking like inferior teachers as well. This sometimes results in otherwise competent educators being scapegoated for what is ultimately the sum disadvantage of the entire district. Especially if the students have had sub-par educators all along and the test is administered early in the year with little time for the teacher to fill gaps-- and especially if the teacher is given a particularly difficult class roster because of their reputation for good management or fast academic progress, as often happens-- it seems ridiculous to me to judge someone solely on the merits of overall class test scores when by all other counts the teacher is competent and professional.

But I don't think standardized tests are completely useless or the root of all evil or anything like that. I think everyone-- the government, the educational institution, the public-- just needs to step back and determine what can be measured by a standardized test, what should be, how a test can measure it accurately (does it always need to be those damn bubble sheets?), and how what is measured can be applied. A standard, valid, unbiased test could save schools a lot of time and assure educational institutions across the country are adequately fulfilling some of the needs of students in a democratic and economically competitive nation. But we are wasting time-- and, much worse, student potential and ability-- if we deliver biased, invalid tests and take them as the only true measure of student ability. And we are cheating our students if we believe the only thing worth knowing is that which can be conveniently measured on a scantron sheet.

A couple more thoughts on education in my 30-Day Meme.

Writer's Block: Connecting the dots

[Error: unknown template qotd]

I think that standardized tests have their uses, but only when the test is valid, unbiased, and interpreted and applied in the appropriate way. Unfortunately, they seldom are.

In principle I see the merits of standardized tests-- because I do see the merit in (some) educational standards. I'm cool with whatever free-form, radical, hippie-dippy method you want to use to achieve those standards (and I say that with utmost respect, being a little radical and hippie-dippy myself :-P) but I don't think it makes me some kind of Nazi to believe that all students should leave their years of compulsory education literate, competent in basic arithmetic, and with some basic understanding of natural laws and human history.

The easiest, most convenient way for an overseeing organization like the government or a school board to determine whether standard goals have been met is to use a standard assessment. That's where the usefuless of standardized tests come in, because the government and school districts do not have the time, money, or staffing to perform longitudinal studies or individual interviews for every student in the country to check up on their progress. And if you want to measure something in a consistent way amongst large groups of different people at different times, in different test environments, and with different proctors, you need a test that is both standard and valid, with as little bias as possible.

( Standardization, Validity, and Bias-- and How Current Tests Fail To Fulfill Them )

Considering how flawed our tests are, it should come as no surprise that I have a huge problem with these scores used as the hard-and-fast rule for whether a student matriculates or enters college, or whether a teacher is given tenure or fired.* And I don't believe that a standardized test should ever be the sole determiner of whether a student is given special education supports, either-- even if the test were perfectly standard, valid, and biased, because there is always more to it than that. I am concerned about this as I enter the field of education and possibly school psychology, because I worry about how much the law will tie my hands regarding how rigidly I must interpret test results. If left to my own devices I would look to a variety of factors to make evaluations of student progress or needs. Currently teachers and administrators have a certain level of autonomy and leeway, but I worry that's on its way out /-:

*This issue is particularly complex, since the bias in the tests towards white, middle-class, American-born populations means that not only are disadvantaged students poorly represented by their test scores, but teachers serving them come off looking like inferior teachers as well. This sometimes results in otherwise competent educators being scapegoated for what is ultimately the sum disadvantage of the entire district. Especially if the students have had sub-par educators all along and the test is administered early in the year with little time for the teacher to fill gaps-- and especially if the teacher is given a particularly difficult class roster because of their reputation for good management or fast academic progress, as often happens-- it seems ridiculous to me to judge someone solely on the merits of overall class test scores when by all other counts the teacher is competent and professional.

But I don't think standardized tests are completely useless or the root of all evil or anything like that. I think everyone-- the government, the educational institution, the public-- just needs to step back and determine what can be measured by a standardized test, what should be, how a test can measure it accurately (does it always need to be those damn bubble sheets?), and how what is measured can be applied. A standard, valid, unbiased test could save schools a lot of time and assure educational institutions across the country are adequately fulfilling some of the needs of students in a democratic and economically competitive nation. But we are wasting time-- and, much worse, student potential and ability-- if we deliver biased, invalid tests and take them as the only true measure of student ability. And we are cheating our students if we believe the only thing worth knowing is that which can be conveniently measured on a scantron sheet.

A couple more thoughts on education in my 30-Day Meme.