# What Do Y'all Think Of Standardized Testing?



## 74893H (Dec 27, 2017)

It's pointless. I'm gonna be parroting things people across the internet already say but it doesn't make it any less true, when you study to a test you're testing your ability to memorise, not your intelligence. I don't remember a single thing I learned in my last few years of Maths at school, but my B grade in my GCSE implies I do. And if you didn't manage to memorise the information you needed, you got below a C, which by no means is a measure of your ability today. There's not a single question in my GCSE exam I've applied to my life in any way since finishing school. _NONE_.

Not to mention, you're taking kids whose brains haven't even fully formed yet and who know absolutely nothing about the world, and telling them that the rest of their life depends on getting high scores in these exams, and therefore they need to spend their lives up until that vague date years and years into their future dedicating themselves to things they're being told in a place they don't want to go to but are forced to go to every day full of rude adults who make them feel like lesser people. Of course they're not going to do that, they're going to rebel against the system that forces them into that lifestyle however they can, and when it comes time for the final exams they still have no idea what's even banking on their results. And even though they have at least 40-50 years ahead of them after those exams are completed, in which they go out into the real world and actually develop real skills and see why they needed to do well in those exams, those results will be held against them for the rest of their lives as a measure of their intelligence. It's ridiculous. Shit needs to be reformed.


----------



## advotpetal (Jul 8, 2019)

I have mixed feelings for standardized testing. It's an okay idea, but seeing how people can easily manipulate it (cheating for example) makes things inaccurate. Also, a test will test the students some questions but it doesn't test everything ( I mean, it would be weird to have a 100+ page test on every single question to make sure we do know everything). I don't like how schools and teachers focus on it too. 

I don't like comprehension tests in particular. I'm fine with Science and Math, but comprehension just seems too subjective to have a test on...


----------



## Inis Mona (Sep 22, 2016)

I don’t mind it. As a future teacher, I believe that it’s just one part of the job. How you teach the material would be up to you. Yes, there are guidelines, but as long as you utilize the worksheets and prep accordingly, testing isn’t a big deal. Standardized Testing is mainly used to evaluate a teacher’s capability as an effective instructor.

I think people who criticize Standardized Testing fall into two categories. The first group are former teachers who hate structure of any kind. They went into teaching thinking it was going to be sunshine and rainbows, that you’d play and sing with the kids all day, and that there would be full freedom to navigate the classroom as a teacher with little adherence to the curriculum. When they are met with criticism from admin, they get defensive, and unsurprisingly, they tend to quit within 2-5 years. Unless you’re teaching at a T-K level, there will be a lot of work and prep, and not as much time devoted to free play as it once used to be, prior to Common Core standards. Of course, this also depends upon each district and how they choose to structure their time. Some districts are more lenient and allow for more creativity and arts/crafts. Others are more rigid. So really, the teachers who end up leaving the profession hate that there are rules and structure, just like any other job. 

The second group are likely people who know very little about what goes on into curriculum development. With Common Core standards, students are able to learn increasingly advanced material at younger grade levels. I can tell you that as writers, kids who have grown up within the era of CC standards are extremely skilled far beyond how we ever were as kids. (Common Core was developed after an increasingly number of people in college were simply not prepared and stuck with remedial classes.) It’s not as simple as teachers wanting to “teach to the test”.


----------



## 30812 (Dec 22, 2011)

Inis Mona said:


> I don’t mind it. As a future teacher, I believe that it’s just one part of the job. How you teach the material would be up to you. Yes, there are guidelines, but as long as you utilize the worksheets and prep accordingly, testing isn’t a big deal. Standardized Testing is mainly used to evaluate a teacher’s capability as an effective instructor.
> 
> I think people who criticize Standardized Testing fall into two categories. The first group are former teachers who hate structure of any kind. They went into teaching thinking it was going to be sunshine and rainbows, that you’d play and sing with the kids all day, and that there would be full freedom to navigate the classroom as a teacher with little adherence to the curriculum. When they are met with criticism from admin, they get defensive, and unsurprisingly, they tend to quit within 2-5 years. Unless you’re teaching at a T-K level, there will be a lot of work and prep, and not as much time devoted to free play as it once used to be, prior to Common Core standards. Of course, this also depends upon each district and how they choose to structure their time. Some districts are more lenient and allow for more creativity and arts/crafts. Others are more rigid. So really, the teachers who end up leaving the profession hate that there are rules and structure, just like any other job.
> 
> The second group are likely people who know very little about what goes on into curriculum development. With Common Core standards, students are able to learn increasingly advanced material at younger grade levels. I can tell you that as writers, kids who have grown up within the era of CC standards are extremely skilled far beyond how we ever were as kids. (Common Core was developed after an increasingly number of people in college were simply not prepared and stuck with remedial classes.) It’s not as simple as teachers wanting to “teach to the test”.


What do you mean? So you are saying all my suffering as a kid at school with all those tests is nothing but a mirror evaluating your teaching ability? So your students suffer the consequences and be bound by those test scores because you suck for instance? No offence.

I don't get the logic of this basically your view is students' performance in tests is as a result of teaching ability, if the student gets a good score it's not because he/she is good at exam or smart or anything it's because you are good at teaching, and vice versa. If that's the case, why should the students do the test when it sounds like in fact it is the teacher's ability that is being tested.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

t4u6 said:


> What do you mean? So you are saying all my suffering as a kid at school with all those tests is nothing but a mirror evaluating your teaching ability? So your students suffer the consequences and be bound by those test scores because you suck for instance? No offence.
> 
> I don't get the logic of this basically your view is students' performance in tests is as a result of teaching ability, if the student gets a good score it's not because he/she is good at exam or smart or anything it's because you are good at teaching, and vice versa. If that's the case, why should the students do the test when it sounds like in fact it is the teacher's ability that is being tested.


Teaching without testing is about as logical as driving with your eyes closed. Testing is like opening your eyes. Standardized testing is putting up road signs and creating rules for that driving. 

Can you drive a car without this stuff and your eyes closed? sure you can. Will it be a good result? probably depends on what and how you measure success. 

Good teaching uses test results to steer further teaching. If everyone misses a question on a test, it's pretty useful for a teacher to know that, they can re-teach it, or incorporate that skill in another way for future leassons. How ill any of that happen without tests?


----------



## 30812 (Dec 22, 2011)

chad86tsi said:


> Teaching without testing is about as logical as driving with your eyes closed. Testing is like opening your eyes. Standardized testing is putting up road signs and creating rules for that driving.
> 
> Can you drive a car without this stuff and your eyes closed? sure you can. Will it be a good result? probably depends on what and how you measure success.
> 
> Good teaching uses test results to steer further teaching. If everyone misses a question on a test, it's pretty useful for a teacher to know that, they can re-teach it, or incorporate that skill in another way for future leassons. How ill any of that happen without tests?


Yes of course it is very true from the teacher's point of view or when you look at the bigger picture. However, my main issue with this standardized test thing is that students only have one chance at it while it is a repeating exercise for the teachers. So how fair is it for the students when they are being taught by someone who has no idea of what he is doing ? 

If I were the students and hear my teacher telling me this my first impression would be I am nothing but a disposable test dummy for someone's career, something akin to the bamboos cut by the samurais to test their blades, which leads to my previous question: are these tests in fact testing me as a student or you as a teacher in essence? If ultimately it is not the students who are being assessed here, then why should they take the tests for their teachers?


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

t4u6 said:


> Yes of course it is very true from the teacher's point of view or when you look at the bigger picture. However, my main issue with this standardized test thing is that students only have one chance at it while it is a repeating exercise for the teachers. So how fair is it for the students when they are being taught by someone who has no idea of what he is doing ?
> 
> If I were the students and hear my teacher telling me this my first impression would be I am nothing but a disposable test dummy for someone's career, something akin to the bamboos cut by the samurais to test their blades, which leads to my previous question: are these tests in fact testing me as a student or you as a teacher in essence? If ultimately it is not the students who are being assessed here, then why should they take the tests for their teachers?


Teaching is a fluid process, it requires feedback to ensure it's working because there is much that can go wrong. No feedback=bad results. If it isn't working, adjustment can be made. It tests the process (teacher) and the result (student). It gives information on both, to both. You got your test scores don't you? do you use that feedback to change anything about your self? How you utilize the lectures, class materials, and manage your time? Without the test results, how would you know what to do with any of that?


----------



## 30812 (Dec 22, 2011)

What you are saying is in theory teaching is a fluid process where both sides can see what's wrong and adjust over time. What I am trying to say is in reality there is no opportunity allowing the students to make things right even if they receive feedback from their scores. As Inis Mona has rightly said in her post there are guidelines and materials (homework, prep sheets etc) both teachers and students have to complete in the curriculum under time constraints. My only confusion about her reply is the logic behind her view towards standardized tests. 

These standardized tests are typically done at the end of semester or academic year and personally I did learn from my mistakes but I wasn't allowed to take the test on the same materials again and so my shitty score stays on my record (my first and only attempt allowed). Everyone has already moved on so what's there for me as a student to adjust anyway? They are recurring loops with the same problems happening over and over again until either you drop school or you graduate. Luckily, I managed to graduate not because of the outstanding teaching ability of my teachers or the feedback I received from my scores but because I memorized the whole fucking thing and recited it on papers.

I used to ask a lot of questions in class to my classmates and teachers alike. Why the equation has to be formalized in this particular way? Why light has to travel in straight line? Who said so? etc etc. The answer I was told: "That's the way it is you just have to accept it and memorise it." Is that learning? Not for me personally and I still don't understand why light has to travel in a straight line, not until I read about quantum physics in recent years what I was taught in class about light and atom are simply wrong among many other things.


----------



## Azure Dreamer (May 26, 2016)

Standardized test are neither inherently good or bad, to describe a morality to them such as evil or bad is very short sighted. A properly designed standardized test will be able to apply to over 90% of the intended audience. (roughly 2 standard deviations or more).

You have to also realize just how much society and the world functions as a whole on standardized tests. Such examples would be drivers licences, airplane pilots, medical entrance exams and procedures. In any of those cases it is argued that such standardized testing is good and ensures the quality and safety for those effected by them (better drivers, pilots and medical professionals and practices).

But when education is brought up people will suddenly think it should not the same. 
Standardized tests provide objective feedback and allow improvement to happen. As someone entering the educational profession but being around it all my life with parents and relatives in the education profession I've seen a lot of what happens with these test (and personally been negatively effected by one being handled poorly almost causing me to not graduate but another story for another time).

Standardized tests allow us to find out where students may be struggling but also areas the are doing well in. With standardized tests we can check if goals that we set are able to be achieved and other processes better or worse (example one school district uses process A and other used process B which would be hard to judge if not for using standardized testing).
The results are not a end all be all but just say at this point in time for what this test was testing for these are the results. It's not a absolute judgement on someone, a test can't do that, that's societal pressure and absolutely should be addressed but stopping standardized testing won't help. In the field of education it would hurt far more students then help to stop standardized testing.
How are we suppose to know that students understand material? That teachers can use a objective feedback to improve their classes and lesson plans? What about special education programs to get students proper diagnoses and assistance?

If you've had bad teaching experiences with teachers or the education system or think it's used unfairly i'm sorry if that's coloring you away from them. But as a whole the test themselves aren't detracting from a person, that's other people placing too much succeeding at one thing at a certain point in time instead of saying OK we are here but because we have this information we can better plan on how to get to this point by this time. (growth vs fixed mindset). Yes standardized testing has been misused in the past (using for something they aren't designed to test for or misinterpreted or over emphasized) but there has been far more good done with standardized testing as a whole, and in the case of education, then problems it has caused. If anything for education they are good places to begin conversations about how to improve education. We have been told by standardized tests our educational practices are not as well as they used to be and not where we want to. Great that means the conversation is started and we have areas we can focus on to try and improve the system.


----------



## Azure Dreamer (May 26, 2016)

OK i see a few comments like standardized testing leads to standardized thinking. 

That could not be further then the truth. Like any skill you will learn in life you need a solid foundation of the basics in order to do the really fancy and creative stuff. 

An example is dancing. Every type of dance has it's basic steps. The people considered very creative or professionals are people who went and mastered those basics as everything is based off them.

Much like that the education process for subjects is the same. How can I expect someone to do well in physics without a proper understanding of algebra? How can I expect a book to be in fluently in (insert language) without the foundation of basic grammar, vocabulary and spelling in (insert language)? People just don't jump to the top or skip the foundation level of learning to intermediate (or better). Some people may be quicker at grasping that quicker then others but they didn't skip that level.

Now i know what your thinking, how is this relating to not leading to standardized thinking? Ok I'm getting there but hopefully your catching the analogy by now. The basic, fundamental level of learning and competency never stop anyone from being creative or different or thinking differently but the opposite. It allows them to be more creative, more critical learners and practitioners of what they learned. Standardized tests won't stop people from being less creative, it helps to make sure those that are creative will have the tools to show us what they want to and amaze us all.
I went and majored in essential 4 areas (math, finance, business, economics) I took all the same standardized tests as all my other fellow students and we still all have various different approaches on the same problems but could easily justify why to everyone else because had the same skill set. 

Two people who tested with the same skills on a standardized set are not the same two people and will not have the same standardized answers to the same problems.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

t4u6 said:


> What you are saying is in theory teaching is a fluid process where both sides can see what's wrong and adjust over time. What I am trying to say is in reality there is no opportunity allowing the students to make things right even if they receive feedback from their scores.


I disagree. getting a quiz/test through the course that shows you really suck at a step in a process is your cue to study or get help. When the final comes, you have a good chance at passing that skill if you chose to act on that. If you chose not to, you can expect to demonstrate the same deficit. I supose it matters more what the gradign policies are, and how much weight does a quiz and chapter test have, vs the final. Many advanced courses give little or no credit for a quiz or chapter test, it's all about the final, which demonstrates you learned and retained the material. Those quiz's and chapter tests are for you, to steer your focus, to give you feedback. Failing one is information, just as passing one is also information.



> I used to ask a lot of questions in class to my classmates and teachers alike. Why the equation has to be formalized in this particular way? Why light has to travel in straight line? Who said so? etc etc. The answer I was told: "That's the way it is you just have to accept it and memorise it." Is that learning? Not for me personally and I still don't understand why light has to travel in a straight line, not until I read about quantum physics in recent years what I was taught in class about light and atom are simply wrong among many other things.


Some course work doesn't have the time or capacity to answer all questions, some learning has to be "accept the following fact". Learning about gravity in 1st grade shouldn't involve a discussion about quantum mechanics. Within that lesson, some fact must be presented as "just accept this for now..." I remember having to accept may constants in engineering lectures, several times the instructor was asked how the constant was developed. Usually we didn't have time to discuss it, we were just told to accept and move on. Once we explored one, it was futile. Most of us didn't have the educational background at that point to understand the correct answer to "why?". We learned that stuff later in the course, then it made sense.




> These standardized tests are typically done at the end of semester or academic year and personally I did learn from my mistakes but I wasn't allowed to take the test on the same materials again and so my shitty score stays on my record (my first and only attempt allowed).


The test was measuring your ability to use what you learned, not recite verbatim on problems you have already seen and had chance to memorize. It wouldn't make much sense to measure comprehension by giving the same prep test 5 times through the course, and then giving the same one as a final. That only measures your ability to memorize correct answers, it doesn't' demonstrate comprehension.




> Everyone has already moved on so what's there for me as a student to adjust anyway? They are recurring loops with the same problems happening over and over again until either you drop school or you graduate. Luckily, I managed to graduate not because of the outstanding teaching ability of my teachers or the feedback I received from my scores but because *I memorized the whole fucking thing and recited it on papers.*


Isn't the bolded the goal of learning anyway?


----------



## WraithOfNightmare (Jun 20, 2019)

By no means a measure of intelligence, negates the truth that different students have different sets of talents, likes and preferences. Boxes students into a one-size-fits-all that places immense pressure on both students and teachers. I'm against standardized testing as a matter of principle, I have long walked my own journey when it comes to learning and I will never let a standardized test (in the academic sense) have the verdict on whether I am smart or not. If anyone believes that you've got to be a good student and good at studying to be considered "smart", then I'm sure they're not the kind of person I'd get along really well with anyway. So yeah, standardized tests to me are an insult to the potential of humanity and a liability for all sides concerned. It becomes even darker when you see that some of the countries with the highest suicide rates in the world (Korea, Japan) have extremely rigid education systems where standardized tests very much determine your fate in life. Singapore and mainland China also have lots of deeply unhappy youth due to the immense pressure placed on them under the highly conformist education systems. In the US there's the SAT and ACT, sucks but many people choose not to go to college and end up fine. In Canada there isn't really any standardized testing so Canadians are lucky in this regard.


----------



## 30812 (Dec 22, 2011)

chad86tsi said:


> I disagree. getting a quiz/test through the course that shows you really suck at a step in a process is your cue to study or get help. When the final comes, you have a good chance at passing that skill if you chose to act on that. If you chose not to, you can expect to demonstrate the same deficit. I supose it matters more what the gradign policies are, and how much weight does a quiz and chapter test have, vs the final. Many advanced courses give little or no credit for a quiz or chapter test, it's all about the final, which demonstrates you learned and retained the material. Those quiz's and chapter tests are for you, to steer your focus, to give you feedback. Failing one is information, just as passing one is also information.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Standardised testing is only a tool I don't really have a view on something neutral like when you ask me what do I think about a knife it's pointless, it depends when and how you use it. It's always about the people who use their authority to apply this tool on others and the circumstances under which it was applied.

Anyway I see your point now and now I see where we differ. Since for you successfully memorizing materials without understanding them (as I did) is the "goal" of learning whereas for me this is an unacceptable standard. The goal should be striving for true understanding of what you learn (including how this knowledge being taught came about) and its application. If the teacher doesn't know everything it's OK to say so, but please don't tell / demand / expect the students to just accept and memorize what you teach on face value and ask them to take a leap of faith for you.

I played reasonably well in this education game since my childhood until I got my master's degree but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the logic behind this game. I did it just because the society with people similar to your view believe in this kind of things and that's the only way to get ahead in most jobs.

I'm totally fine with your view and I do not expect we have to agree with each other. After all these posts I just want to get to the bottom and know what your view is about this topic.


----------



## chad86tsi (Dec 27, 2016)

t4u6 said:


> I'm totally fine with your view and I do not expect we have to agree with each other. After all these posts I just want to get to the bottom and know what your view is about this topic.


Your assessment of my view is rather narrow, and subsequently rather incomplete.

If you were able to recite it on papers, I'm going to take a leap here and presume it wasn't verbatim, that you took a comprehensive set of memorized data/facts/wherever (memorizing the fucking thing) and were able to articulate on paper a recitation those data/facts/whatever in a manor that demonstrated comprehension, by way of reciting them in proper context and in proper order. Had you elected to focus on the concepts alone rather than memorization, you might not do so well with the recitation portion or articulation of your subject understanding. Concepts need data/proof in most cases to back the concept.

A person can study internal combustion engine theory and become a master at the general physics and engineering considerations, but without memorizing the details of actual engine assembly, they would likely fail at assembling an engine where memorizing where all the parts go, in what order, and using which assembly methods really matters more than just understanding the physics behind them. Theory leads to better conceptual understanding of how things work, but if you can't or won't memorize all the details of a subject, you probably don't have mastery of it. 

Standardized testing can measure memorization rather easily. This testing method will be leaned on a lot more with some subjects (concretes ones) and less on others (pure theory or subjective matters). Academia aims for mastery, not conceptual proficiency, hence testing standards rely a lot on being able to recite data in proper context and in proper order, rather than just reciting how a system functions in more generic terms.

If you memorized all the information and were able to recite it properly, you met the ultimate goal of your education.

For what it's worth, my learning style sounds similar to yours. I didn't do well with advanced math till I started to learn physics and theory that used that same math. When I could see how it was actually working (conceptualy), it became much easier to understand. I did not do well with just memorizing a set of formulas and rules that had no conceptual framework to use them with. My wife teaches college math, she cares nothing of what the math is used for, to her it's just a huge library or formulas and rules. Conceptually she doesn't care about what any of it is used for, and wish's students like myself didn't exist.


----------



## 30812 (Dec 22, 2011)

Whatever man. We each have our own experiences I expect nothing more.

For me personally I thank you for taking the time to talk about this topic with me. It's good to know what's behind our different perspectives and I think our discussion makes things clearer than it first started. That's all I ever want. Good talking to you guys.


----------



## Rugrat (Oct 1, 2018)

It's a good way of measure aptitude at the school curriculum. If we remove standardised testing, how else are we supposed to compare? If you do poorly, it's because either your effort, intelligence or the standard of teaching are not good enough for the exam. I also believe standardised testing helps you find where your strengths lie. It's very easy to criticise it, but I believe fundamentally it's the best method.

I wouldn't say it's "no measure of intelligence" as you need a certain level of intelligence to do well on these exams. Obviously not all those who do poorly are destined to split rocks and whatnot


----------

