Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Study: Standardized Tests Overwhelming Public Schools (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the standard-square-peg-in-standard-round-hole dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A new study examined the amount of time U.S. public schools spend on government-mandated standardized tests, and found that the requirements are detrimental to both students and teachers. On average, students will take 112 standardized tests during their K-12 education. From grades 3-11, students spend over 20 hours per year on standardized tests alone. "It portrays a chock-a-block jumble, where tests have been layered upon tests under mandates from Congress, the U.S. Department of Education and state and local governments, many of which the study argues have questionable value to teachers and students. Testing companies that aggressively market new exams also share the blame, the study said."

The U.S. Department of Education has issued an action plan to school districts outlining ways to reduce useless tests and eliminate redundant ones. President Obama even posted a video pledging to reduce the test load of American students. "Standardized testing has caused intense debate on Capitol Hill as lawmakers work to craft a replacement for No Child Left Behind. Testing critics tried unsuccessfully to erase the federal requirement that schools test in math and reading. Civil rights advocates pushed back, arguing that tests are an important safeguard for struggling students because publicly reported test scores illuminate the achievement gap between historically underserved students and their more affluent peers."

20 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. Did they learn anything?? by laurencetux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the biggest problem with No Child Left Behind is it turns out to be No Child Allowed to Excel.

    So we need to fix Teach The Test first.

    1. Re:Did they learn anything?? by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That was the whole point of NCLB. To sabotage the schools to help push vouchers to subsidize the school of the 1%. The sabotage is great, and the public can't figure out how to object to "help" that hurts. After all, the pro-school voters can't even comprehend someone deliberately harm school children to push a political agenda fr more welfare for the rich. Until the voters understand the evil nature of some in politics, we'll get the evil, sold as "help".

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    2. Re:Did they learn anything?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Schools, by their very nature, don't teach kids to think. But rather, to conform.

      There is a myriad of learning that occurs with that, though. Humans are social animals, afterall. But people mistakenly think that children can flower to excellence under such a system. No. Stupid kids are passed along, the somewhat (/.) smart are made fun of until they don't stick out, and the truly genius are put into a wholly different system altogether.

      It's McDonalds with Hamburger Patties. They strive towards mediocrity and uniformity, just like McDonalds does with it's franchise restaurants. When you go to McDonalds, you know exactly what to expect, and in most situations you get it. It's not a premium steakhouse, but neither is it a shithole with dirtfloor basement and flies buzzing around.

      Any buzzwords your school flings around like "innovation" or "path to excellence" is just fodder for average parents to feel good about dropping their kids off in this 12 year daycare. The excellent parents don't take it seriously and take an active (proactive) role in their kids education and the piss poor ones, if around, drink a beer and watch TV.

      Anyway, the perpetual "crisis" in American schools does not exist. The white population would be roughly on par with Belgium. The asian population would be, well, trending towards asian schools. And the rest... well, we as a nation swallowed that human biodiversity doesn't exist past exterior color and that's that.

    3. Re:Did they learn anything?? by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Insightful

      first step is first. get the feds out of schooling

      not everyone needs the same stuff. a kid growing up in chicago has different needs than a kid growing up in east tenn. Give the schools back to the states (even better back to the individual school systems) and stop getting involved. it has not worked, it doesnt work.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Did they learn anything?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. Plus, if the "small government" conservatives allow teachers to actually, you know, teach, that causes them problems. First off, it inherently recognizes teachers as actual professionals and flies in the face of the whole "incompetent teachers protected by the big nasty teachers union" narrative the like to push. Also, and the primary reason for the teachers union meme in the first place, educators have a nasty habit of teaching things they believe to be true as opposed to what is good for corporations or religion and that does not suit the right wingers well either.

      Hence the push for for-profit charter schools and other such corporate entities that are designed first and foremost to indoctrinate and control, and where that doesn't work we have these bundles of for-profit standardized tests to make sure that there's no time in the classroom day for things like critical thinking skills or anything subversive like that.

    5. Re:Did they learn anything?? by ClaraBow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I wish I had some points to mod you up. You are spot on. The NCLB law has created a new kind of legal and subsided segregation. The one's with the means to leave so called "failing schools" have already left. These schools are left with the struggling lower - socioeconomic kids .

    6. Re: Did they learn anything?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think that you understand how teaching and learning actually works. What's good for the teacher is good for the student. When a teacher is overworked, underpaid, has low moral, and has the media and the entire right wing of American politics telling them that they are stupid, overpaid, part time employees and they don't deserve unions, bathroom breaks, being able to work one job and still support their family, etc., do you really think they can still do a good job? Is that what's best for students? Nope. A well rested, happy, motivated teacher with fewer worries is going to do the best job in the classroom. That's why there are teacher unions. And because there are too many people who think like you.

    7. Re:Did they learn anything?? by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What maked you think its about the '1%'? do you think they even care?

      Have a look at the teachers, the administrators, the associated unions, the 'think of the children' reactionary crowd, and you soon see that education is pretty much doomed before it begins.

      The majority working in education, especially younger grades, now just see it as a meal ticket, and the kids as an annoyance to be avoided as much as possible.
      Standardised testing is a threat to their ability to do as little as possible for this paychecks.

      The truly sad part of all of this is the teachers (and administrators) who do really care, are being pushed out by this - they get drowned in a system where there is more and more administrative overhead designed to 'measure' everything (and do nothing), which makes is close to impossible to both do a good job and to meet 'requirements'. They tend to either burn out or give up.

      What we desperately need is:
      A return of a path for good teachers to become administrators - and a removal of 'career' administrators who are just collecting a paycheck.
      A strong message to the unions that our childrens schools do NOT exist to give their members a chushy ride, and 'think of the children' cries mixed with 'we can hold them to ransom' threats of action are not acceptible.
      A return of GENDER BALANCE in teachers - it is not healthy that 90% of lower school teachers are now female, and male teachers are being actively removed.
      A removal of teachers 'tenure', which is just an attcak on the kids, combined with:
      Active performance measurement of teachers RESULTS (not self assessed). A teacher who is not performing for her students must not be allowed to continue damaging childrens education!, and note:
      THIS is why teachers cannot self-assess their students! The good teachers judge students harshly, to motivate them, but therefore they look bad - poor teachers however are free to judge their students very easily (this is very very widely documented), making the bad teacher look good...
      And finally, school costs not DIRECTLY related to education need to be taken to, harshly. Large fancy off-site administration buildings do NOT help kids learn better.

      Teachers need respect, and teachers need to EARN respect. Teaching children is a critical role - however we seem to be doing everything possible to damage the profession in return for making teachers lives more comfortable. Imagine if we did the same for pilots or surgeons..

      Is it really that difficult?

    8. Re: Did they learn anything?? by KGIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you're willing to waste a few generations of children to wait for the free hand to take its effect?

      Tell me that you don't identify as a Libertarian, please?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re: Did they learn anything?? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You also can't do it with tests.

      For many decades, we had schools in which the teachers gave tests that they created it. They used them to grade the students. Failed students would be held back. Passing students would continue their academic career. That's how practically every education American was raised, even in the private schools. Ask yourself what happened that a complete change was required. Why is it suddenly necessary for standardized tests to be created by biased third-parties? Why is it so important that every single child advance at the same rate as every other?

    10. Re: Did they learn anything?? by ender- · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you're willing to waste a few generations of children to wait for the free hand to take its effect?

      Tell me that you don't identify as a Libertarian, please?

      It doesn't take generations. My child was going to a charter school. When she started in 1st grade, it was wonderful. The school was fantastic. By 3rd grade, the school had changed and it was no longer a good fit for her. We took her out of that school and put her in another school. We had the immediate choice and ability to move her to another school.

      With regular public schools, you have no choice. You go to the school that the government tells you to go to based on your address. If that school is terrible and/or can't properly serve your child [whether it be because the child is gifted or because the child has learning disabilities], you have no recourse. Most people don't have the ability to move into whatever school district/zone they want to.

      That's not to say that the charter school concept doesn't have issues, but I think it would make more sense to work to mitigate those issues rather than just saying that charter schools are no good and getting rid of them completely.

      --
      Nothing to see here
  2. I know people will go crazy over this idea.... by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe education should be back in the hands of the states, like it used to be. Yes, I know that'll result in ignorant morons who will be taught to scorn evolution, or consider Pi to be 3 (that's a myth, though, but funny), but then people can choose which states to live in... which was the whole point of allowing states to operate largely independently to begin with.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
    1. Re:I know people will go crazy over this idea.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The lack of standardization of tests is actually an issue. If a student moves from one state to another, how do you know how they match up to your education system? What about states with grade inflation that harms students? I deal with this kind of stuff all the time.

      A lot of what we've found are the administrations have too many competing tools of varying quality for monitoring student progress. Many states make their own tests with arbitrary goals for where a student should be with no data to back them up. Common core is the first such attempt to have a nationally unified set of goals of what a student should be able to do by a certain grade. Common core is not a curriculum, but there are many newly created curriculum that teach to the test, so now you see curriculum.

      I've seen grade inversions where an upper grade standardized test was easier than a lower grade's test. I'm not talking about a 1 grade difference either. Think 3+ grade differences. This is the kind of crap that happens when a state is left to making its own tests. They don't have the resources. Yes, it is a resource issue. I work with these people from all over the country.

      The state DOEs have all be very receptive to learning about flaws in their assessments and have made strides to fix them, but they don't have the technical skills to find out what's wrong with their tests in the first place.

      I don't think the federal government should make hard rules about anything, but they should work with the states to work together.

    2. Re:I know people will go crazy over this idea.... by frnic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "but then people can choose which states to live in",

      Yeah, because no one is locked into a bad mortgage, or a bad job, or a healthcare issue that precludes moving from where they are being treated or, well, it doesn't matter. As long as YOU can move when and where you want to.

      Standards are NOT the problem, the problem is the money to be made managing education, selling tests, and books. Like everything we allow "business" to run, it runs wild putting profits above all else.

  3. 20 hours? That's nothing. by Nikkos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    9 months school x 20 days/mo x 8 hrs/day = 1440 hours.

    1.3% of their time is spent on test. So what? They spend more time than that at lunch, at recess, or even in the toilet (10min/day = 30 hours/year)

    If they're going to attack standardized tests, at least have an argument that withstands even basic contextual comparisons.

    1. Re: 20 hours? That's nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How much Fox News do you watch to think like that?

      Teachers can't stand standardized tests, precisely because they are forced to spend what they believe to be unnecessary amounts of time teaching students to pass the tests as opposed to teaching students. They have to do this because if a teacher has a group of students who perform badly on the tests, then they get their resources cut, which leads to worse performance, etc. Of course, teachers have no control over which students get assigned to their classes anyway, so the only thing they can do to combat this is to go work elsewhere, which makes bad schools worse. This is all as designed, to eviscerate public education in favor of a for profit model which of course teaches compliance and repetition instead of critical thinking because critical thinking does not make good consumers or corporate drones.

      Of course, what teachers really can't stand is being evaluated by dumbasses. Doctors are evaluated by other doctors, pilots by other pilots, etc. That is because they are professionals who have professional training that people not in those professions lack. Only when something egregious happens (as in leads to a court case) do outsiders get to judge the performance of someone in those professions. Teachers resist the imposition of outside evaluations because they are almost always politically motivated, designed to get rid of teachers who have unpopular views or who go against the party line. They believe, correctly, that the only way to stop this stuff is to not let it start. Hence the standardized tests which technically evaluate the students but which are in fact used as a backdoor evaluation of teachers.

      Now, let's real-world this: your job performance depends on the performance of people who are not your peers nor really your subordinates, who may or may not be motivated to even show up, who you can neither select nor replace, and over whom your have very limited disciplinary options. Sound like a job you'd like to have? That's why teachers hate standardized testing.

    2. Re: 20 hours? That's nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, what teachers really can't stand is being evaluated by dumbasses.

      Indeed, teachers consider parents "dumbasses" and hate being evaluated by them.

      Doctors are evaluated by other doctors, pilots by other pilots, etc. That is because they are professionals who have professional training that people not in those professions lack

      More importantly, these professionals can then screw over their customers and the tax payer because nobody else can question them.

      Teachers resist the imposition of outside evaluations because they are almost always politically motivated,

      What teachers resist even more is giving parents and students a choice, because if they did, they would be in deep trouble.

  4. Brought to you by the Teacher's Unions by mveloso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This report, by the Council of the Great City Schools, is brought to you by the Teacher's Unions, who oppose any attempt to evaluate teacher performance.

  5. No federal constitutional mandate for this by zerofoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Show me where the federal government is given the authority to regulate education in our constitution.

    You can't because control over education was not granted to the federal government in our constitution.

    Schools are staffed, managed and financed locally. Local control over education means that you have a say in how your kids are educated. If you are unhappy with your schools, you can elect a new school board. If that fails, you can always move to another school district.

    Federal control over education standards will be politicized like everything else in Washington. Do you really want the dysfunction that is Washington DC ending up in your kid's classroom?

    Ron Paul is right. The federal government needs to be out of the education business entirely.

  6. OMG! (Not) by kenh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On average, students will take 112 standardized tests during their K-12 education. From grades 3-11, students spend over 20 hours per year on standardized tests alone.

    30 hours a year! Why, if spread out over the 32 weeks of school (185 days = one school year, if there are 5 school days per week, then 185 / 5 = about 32 weeks) that comes out to less than 45 minutes a week, or put another way, about three full school days out of 185, or about 2% of school time per year...

    Something that occupies 2% of student class time per school year is overwhelming students?

    No, it isn't. The teachers unions have made standardized testing the only metric allowed to measure their performance, and now they want to remove even that metric.

    --
    Ken