Scholarship table
No the whole world isn't a standardized test. That's the point! At very few points in ones life, if ever, does a person have to sit down and fill out a test to determine their proficiency in a subject. You succeed in the real world by linking concepts together...by solving problems...by working with other people. Life isn't filling out bubbles with your #2 pencil.Furthermore, the irony in your statement is that the focus on testing has left society with students who lack "basic real world skills." Ask higher education administrators and they will tell you that the number of students lacking proficiency in math and reading INCREASED since the time of NCLB. I am not necessarily blaming NCLB for that, but I know a TON of teachers who will tell you that the way they taught fundamentally changed over the last 15 years, and it was certainly NOT for the benefit of the student.And finally, American education, despite spending pretty much more than any other country, has declined when compared to the rest of the world when it comes to basic proficiency. And IMO that is because we no longer teach to how children actually learn. We teach to how they will perform on a test - and that's shameful.
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
I don't think anyone is arguing that there shouldn't be standards. Just that standardized tests aren't the best way to measure if those standards have been met
Brother Bilsu:I understand part of what you say. One can only look at the Chicago Public Schools to see what happened when you warehouse and ship out students who have no discernable skills.But as the father of two children who had learning disabilities, I find the absolutism is your statement disturbing. First of all, schools don't want to educate special needs children, whatever their needs. It makes teachers work for a living and it can be frustrating. Crappie teachers who don't care or don't know how to reach children with special needs lead to students who do not care.In our case, both my wife and I are MU grads. Her grade point put her near the top of her class and I have a master's degree. Both of us are accomplished professionals. We adopted two wonderful children from orphanages in Eastern Europe. The IEP meetings we had at our supposedly very good public elementary school district became combative when I called out their BS and told them to stop reading off a script and set meaningful, attainable goals for our children. The teachers, in turn, accused us of expecting too much from our children. I can't tell you how many times I've heard teachers complain because they're "stuck" with children who have learning disabilities. One of the LD teachers in our grade school district up north said she wanted the class "because it has fewer children..." Wow!The bloodiest public argument I ever had with anyone was when an LD teacher told my daughter, my wife and I that my daughter should lower her expectations and we should expect less from her. Really, it happened! I was nose to nose with the woman who spoke as my wife and daughter slipped under the table. On the way out, my daughter looked at me and all she said was, "Thank you Dad!"The result is my wife (and there is a special place in heaven waiting for her someday) re-taught our children their lessons every day. It was grueling but she did it because that's what good parents do. We made sure our children had everything they needed. In doing this, we often wondered what other parents did, especially those were not able or not capable of standing up to the lazy and incompetent educratsOur learning disabled children both have college degrees from an accredited, respected university in Illinois. Both are at the front end of their careers and are competing straight up against colleagues and competitors who do not have learning disabilities.I'll leave you with two thoughts. First, one of the most compelling ever pieces of education legislation was No Child left Behind, signed into law by President George W. Bush. Teachers and School Districts hated it to no end because it held them accountable in areas many just swept under the rug. They claimed the federal government didn't send money the same way George Wallace claimed the federal government didn't send money when he was told to protect the Selma to Montgomery marchers.Second, if we don't do all we can to educate everyone, we'll end up paying more to deal with the after-effects of our educational incompetence. Where do you think gangbangers come from? Or, the chronically unemployed? Letting these kids slide through school leads to far greater incarceration, substance abuse, social service cost and other societal problems. Educate them and we give them a fighting chance to compete.Remember: Love thy neighbor as thyself.
What is? I am not trying to be snarky, but is there currently a superior, realistic alternative?
Well, first I don't think anyone has said that there is no room for standardized testing at all.But for decades we relied on teachers to teach and evaluate. And they by and large did a pretty good job at that. There are objective measurements at play as well as the subjective.
Standardized testing is not the problem, the problem is the incentives tied to those tests. OK, having so many tests that all you're ever doing is testing... that's a problem too. But my main point is that once you start putting certain incentives around scores, it's human nature for the school to want to do things like have scores that are as high as possible. They'll probably do that by teaching to the tests and instructing how to take tests instead of properly educating kids so they understand the material. As Warriorchick said, how else are you going to measure proficiency? We just need to mitigate the motivations behind the result.
But aren't teachers held at least partially accountable for their students' academic progress? How are they going to evaluate themselves?
As an old timer who graduated from MUHS before most of you were born, Many changes have occurred since my sojourn there. I was distracted from the football subject by the discussion of he merits of various schools and school systems. When I attende the school had 7 classes of 35 students each. they were determined by the results of tests given at all Catholic schools in the Milwaukee Archdiocise. Those 250 accepted were divided into 7 classes of 35 each on the basis of the test results. the classes were identified by letters with those scoring highest on the test into Class "A" the next into Class "B". etc.I Sports we competed in the Catholic Conference along with the other schools Catholic Schools listed, except for More and Dominican and Memorial which did not exist. Inaddition was Don Bosco and Notre Dame and St Johns which also don't exist. I am not sure as I have not lived in WI for over 25 years MUHS dominated in sports. Of course girls sports did not exist then. "Sports were not for girls" at that time. Particularily in football . During m,y 4 years we lost only 1 game, to St Catherine, score 12 - 6.Also 1 tie wih St Ignatius of Chicago. 0-0 . At the time my cousin was the football coach. He told me that every year he wrote to all of the City and Suburban Schools and asked to schedule each, but none were were willing to do so.As to scholastics, we were as arrogant as today. The division into A B etc would not happen today, but my class produced 6 physicians, 2 lawyers, and 1 Jesuit out of 35 students. A good reord, but some of those in Classes F and G turned out to be bankers (one CEO of one of the largest bank holding companies in the State} Others from the "lower classes" turned to also be lawyers,doctors and successful entrepeneurs. In fairness, MUHS selected the cream of the crop from all of the catholic (private) schools. I wished at the time and do now that the WIAA and WCIAA were merged. All off my children, on the other hand, went to a milw city HS (Riverside) one is a physician, one an engineer, one a courtroom advocate for the Hispanic women in abusive relationshops, another an electrical engineer and one a buyer for a large Corporation. So that doesn't confirm separation based on mental performance. My father also graduated from MUHS -- in 1915! Finally, I certainly detect a strong "bias" against public education in these comments. Surely as MUHS grads we had a arrogance similar to those who graduated from the U of Notre Dame, of whom Al Mcguire once said "a ND graduate will pick his nose at the table to show off his class ring".
100%. People who don't understand education think that everyone needs to fit into a square hole... even if they are a round or triangle peg. This is where we've been wrong for the last 50-60 years.
Interesting thread but let's move the conversation back to how all of this affects MU and not pontificate about standardized tests, etc. Not being a professional educator, Porky has no expertise in this area and any comment Porky makes regarding standardized tests, no child left behind, etc. will not be based on any professional or academic experience, only Porky's personal opinion, which may as well come from Porky's Butthole.Now that's out of the way, Porky is 100% with KC Warrior and Drewm88 on this. These numbers are ugly and MU has a lot to worry about. No doubt the numbers were likely going to be down no matter what due to Covid but this is still 150 students short of where they should be.Porky isn't religious but understands that MU is a Jesuit School and that social justice is part of the Jesuit Ethos. That said, Porky doesn't understand MU's relentless obsession with recruiting as many students as possible who are the first in their family to go to college. It's great that MU has more of these types of students than ever, but it seems like the MU administration wants 100% of all undergrads to be in that category if possible and that Porky doesn't understand. What MU should care about is getting the best students they can period end of story. The socio-economic status from which they come shouldn't matter. If 2/3 of MU's Frosh class are first gen, Porky couldn't be happier. Conversely, if 75% of the incoming class came from families with Household income of $500K a year or more, Porky wouldn't lose any sleep either. NC MU Fan mentioned MU's 83% acceptance rate earlier and as a Northeasterner both native and post-graduation, there's no question in Porky's mind that the 83% acceptance figure is a turnoff to a lot of high caliber students and discourages smarter students from applying to MU who otherwise might. Porky is anything but an academic elitist and generally agrees with the midwestern contingent on this issue that acceptance rates are not reflective of quality but rightly or wrongly a lot of people in other parts of the country (wrongly in Porky's view) still think it does, and as long as that continues to be the case, it will have a negative impact on MU's enrollment because that 100 student shortfall might all be students from the east and west coasts who say you know what.....I can do better. Porky is 100% certain of this and suspects most other folks on this board who live outside of the Midwest will agree. It's not a coincidence that NC MUFan raised this issue, which Porky knows has been debated on here ad nauseam. If MU continues not to care so be it.
But the test requires that kids be properly educated to understand the material in order to achieve a high score. I don't understand the complaints about teaching to the test, when the test is of the material that you're supposed to be teaching anyway.
I suspect that the real issue here is that it takes time to properly educate kids so they understand the material--time that teachers would rather spend pontificating on social justice causes. But instead, they have to spend their time on math or science or grammar--you know, teach to the test.
Because teaching to the test only teaches a student how to regurgitate the narrow range of material - usually in multiple choice format - that some state bureaucrat has decided is necessary for a given grade level. Because teaching to the test doesn't recognize the reality that children learn and express their knowledge in different ways ... and it's those differences that often make the difference in whether a person succeeds or not in life.Because standardized tests have been provento be a poor measure of child's intelligence or academic achievement. Because teaching to the tests limits the focus of curricula to what's on the test.And most of all, because teaching to the test disincetivizes classroom activities that encourage students to figure sh*t out on their own, develop critical thinking skills, foster creativity, and learn how to learn. It's the kids who can do those things are going to grow up to be the most successful, not the automaton who can best fill out ovals with a No. 2 pencil.Have you actually spent any time in a classroom? Read a lesson plan? Reviewed a school district's curriculum. What you've written here is so asinine it hurts my brain.
Do you do model trains too? Nuclear physics? Finding the G spot?
Finally, I certainly detect a strong "bias" against public education in these comments. Surely as MUHS grads we had a arrogance similar to those who graduated from the U of Notre Dame, of whom Al McGuire once said "a ND graduate will pick his nose at the table to show off his class ring".
I always totally sucked at standardized tests. Elementary school teacher doesn't believe in them, gets lots of students that can barely read or write who did good on standardized tests. Some teachers do "cheat" so they look good for evaluation. Sad story but true.
Standardized tests are basically IQ tests, aina?