What would you think of this?

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2004-04-20 07:34pm

Right, in NYC our fine Mayor has recently started reforming the public education system here, which up too and including now trully sucks ass. One of the more controversial things he's done is to ban social promotions, that is he made it so that the reading test that students take in third grade (which they are supposed to pass) determines wether they pass on to fourth grade or not, with the justification being that if they didn't pass they should learn the material before they go up with the big boys.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-20 07:37pm

*gets out the castration utinsels* ahem. anyways, it's a good idea. the general american populace seem to keep getting dumber collectively each generation. mandatory tests to see if they understand enough knowledge to advance a grade would be a positive thing.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-04-20 07:51pm

Since the whole point of sending the kid to school is make sure he learns something, I have to say this seems a good idea.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-20 07:53pm

No. Banning social promotion is good, but adding yet more standardized tests is bad. It results in teachers teaching students how to pass the tests instead of actually teaching the subject.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-20 07:56pm

Howedar wrote:No. Banning social promotion is good, but adding yet more standardized tests is bad. It results in teachers teaching students how to pass the tests instead of actually teaching the subject.

The argument presumes that the teachers would actually teach the subject otherwise. Therefore, the wisdom of standardized tests would depend on just how good (or bad) of a job the teachers are currently doing. If the teaching is bad enough, then teaching kids to score well on a standardized test (provided they don't have copies of the test beforehand) is better than teaching "the subject".

BTW, training to meet specific goals and pass specific tests is not that unusual in the real world; why should it be considered such a horrible idea in school? The real problem is badly designed tests, not the whole idea of large-scale testing.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-04-20 07:59pm

mastery learning bullshit...

Here is a nice little attempt at a flowchart....

Objective-->Teach to objective-->test students-->students do well-->Contact newspaper

objective-->Reject objective-->Become bitter-->contact newspaper

This is where it branches off a few times..

objective-->Teach to objective>test students>Students to poorly-->reject objective-->Become bitter-->Contact Newspaper

Or...

objective-->Teach to objective>test students>Students to poorly--> Grade your own tests-->Students do well-->Contact newspaper

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-20 08:20pm

Darth Wong wrote:The argument presumes that the teachers would actually teach the subject otherwise. Therefore, the wisdom of standardized tests would depend on just how good (or bad) of a job the teachers are currently doing. If the teaching is bad enough, then teaching kids to score well on a standardized test (provided they don't have copies of the test beforehand) is better than teaching "the subject".

My personal experience says that teaching to the test ends up considerably worse.

BTW, training to meet specific goals and pass specific tests is not that unusual in the real world; why should it be considered such a horrible idea in school? The real problem is badly designed tests, not the whole idea of large-scale testing.

The idea that you can test a student's entire body of knowledge with a few multiple guess questions is laughable. If you go another route (away from multiple choice), then you have the problem that many of these subjects do not lend themselves to standardized testing.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-20 08:27pm

Howedar wrote:
BTW, training to meet specific goals and pass specific tests is not that unusual in the real world; why should it be considered such a horrible idea in school? The real problem is badly designed tests, not the whole idea of large-scale testing.
The idea that you can test a student's entire body of knowledge with a few multiple guess questions is laughable. If you go another route (away from multiple choice), then you have the problem that many of these subjects do not lend themselves to standardized testing.

As I said, the real problem is badly designed tests. The basic concept of broad-scale testing is still reasonable. Just make them vastly more difficult, and offer individual retesting if the person feels they were unfairly brutalized by the test and wants a personally administered second chance.

The biggest change between high school and university in my experience was the sudden realization that if you didn't get your shit together, you could actually fail. Any school environment without genuine fear of failure is coddling, and while it might be a good idea to coddle 7 year olds, there comes a point (well before the age of 18) that coddling is no longer acceptable.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-21 01:15pm

Oh, definately. But apparently we're talking about third graders here.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2004-04-21 11:20pm

Howedar wrote:Oh, definately. But apparently we're talking about third graders here.

But in which grade would you draw the line?

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-04-22 01:31am

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What would you think of this?

Would you support them?

What would you think of this?