<p>I disagree with noimagination and his cynical take on the majority of students…who s/he seems to feel superior to (implicit, maybe you don’t). </p>
<p>I think we have placed too much value on standardized tests that test isolated skills that don’t really show if a kid has learned…I mean, obviously some evaluative measure is needed, but NCLB-mandated tests are clearly not the answer. And english and math are not the only subjects.</p>
<p>^ Yes, I do feel superior. And I’m not really all that arrogant. The problem is that most people do not try to the extent of their abilities and this will not change anytime soon.</p>
<p>How do you warrant the claim that standardized examinations “don’t really show if a kid has learned”? I’m referring to standardized tests in general, not specifically the NCLB-mandated ones.</p>
<p>^Where are you getting this information on all students in the US?</p>
<p>Well, the NCLB-mandated ones are important right now…what I mean is that teachers will teach specifically for the test and not for learning…and when it tests just certain types of skills, it really makes you think of how we value intelligence. I don’t think there is or will ever be a perfect standardized test.</p>
<p>America spends more money on Military then on Education.</p>
<p>We need to fund more schools, and have a standardized grading system. The NCLB needs to be over with. Teachers need to teach, and not teach us how to past state tests. They also need to be more payed. Students need to be offered incentives so they want to learn something, not because they have to. America also needs to do something about colleges and their tuition, its raising faster then the rate of inflation. In fact the whole system needs to be overhauled.</p>
<p>
You can examine a diverse variety of studies showing less-wealthy countries outperforming the US in fundamental subjects.
Why is teaching to a test mutually exclusive from learning? There are plenty of rigorous examinations in the world. I would look to the AMC or STEP (in the UK) as examples in mathematics.</p>
<p>Heck, the ACT wouldn’t be a bad choice.</p>
<p>Oh don’t get me wrong, the AMC is a great test (turns your head to mush). What we’re complaining about are absolutely ridiculous assessments that dumb down the curriculum just so every one can pass it.</p>
<p>^ Multiple posters in this thread have criticized the very concept of standardized testing. I argue that a good test can work and present the AMC as an example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It isn’t inherently, but it’s often just used as rote memorization, TELLING the students the answer, blatantly giving out responses…I think you can use your imagination to figure out why it’s a problem. It has the ability to kill creativity and real learning.</p>
<p>And it’s not that I’m saying standardized testing should never be used, but that it’s an imperfect system and that it can be much much better than it is now.</p>
<p>I don’t know the AMC.</p>
<p>And to the thing earlier, I wasn’t talking about Americans vs. other countries…why do you think all Americans are lazy learners, as you seem to put it (generally!)? How do you wish to solve this.</p>
<p>And agree with more funding. Especially equal funding for schools, instead of the unequal system we have now.</p>
<p>
Other countries (including some that are not as wealthy as we are) manage to produce more educated students. There is a long history of studies indicating that many countries (especially those in east Asia) have strong familial dedication to academic study.</p>
<p>By the way, I’m not necessarily saying that slacking students are bad people. They may be underperforming because they have very real concerns in their lives (poverty, crime, etc.) that by necessity overshadow academics. Or perhaps they have found nirvana and decided that they don’t need to worry about learning to read properly. I really don’t know. But that isn’t relevant to this thread either.</p>
<p>Lurking variables, from poverty to spoiledness, must be addressed before we can fully reform schools.</p>
<p>One plan that I think would work well in the short-term is to replace all standardized high school exams in the country with the ACT (or a government-created equivalent). Then we would at least be able to see a range of performance on examinations.</p>
<p>EDIT: Here’s the AMC: <a href=“http://www.unl.edu/amc/a-activities/a7-problems/problem81012archive.shtml[/url]”>http://www.unl.edu/amc/a-activities/a7-problems/problem81012archive.shtml</a></p>
<p>^You can’t say it’s not relevant and then say these issues “must be addressed.”</p>
<p>All the things you mention (well maybe not so much the nirvana thing!) is VERY important.</p>
<p>Can you just tell me what that is…? Is it only for people who are extremely good?</p>
<p>
Read it again. My point is that reform of the educational system will not be wholly effective until we can solve the root problems that affect students, such as poverty and crime.
Well, most people who take the AMC do have fairly high levels of mathematical proficiency. The Canadian equivalent has easier levels meant for younger students that might work well in a normal high school setting. Look into that at [CEMC</a> - Gauss - Mathematics Contests - University of Waterloo](<a href=“http://www.cemc.uwaterloo.ca/contests/gauss.html]CEMC”>CEMC - Gauss - Mathematics Contests - University of Waterloo) This isn’t necessarily a formal plan for high schools but rather an example of a test that works well at evaluating skills. I think even an optimal high school exam would need to be at a slightly lower level.</p>
<p>The problem with our current exams is that they are based on the notion that everyone needs to perform well. Learning how badly students fail is ultimately more useful than learning that they all do well. A more rigorous test would force teachers to increase their educational standards.</p>
<p>^Okay…so you still proved my points that these issues are important despite you saying
Maybe this is just semantics. But it does matter, obviously.</p>
<p>^^So the problem is our expectations…which aren’t being met…?</p>
<p>So…make the tests harder? How would that solve anything? And harder in what way? How would students on the lower end keep up and stop from getting discouraged and other such issues?</p>
<p>^^ Relevant != important. And it isn’t just semantics. This thread is about the education system’s flaws and how it can be improved. Pulling a significant number of people out of poverty would help the education system, but that does not make it educational reform.</p>
<p>There is also the issue of well-off students who are simply too lazy to perform up to their potential. I don’t have any hard numbers on this one, but the overall dedication and effort devoted to schoolwork has been studied and was found to be higher in many other countries. Fixing this problem would require a societal attitude shift that once again is outside the scope of educational reform.</p>
<p>The advantage of harder tests is simple: teachers who only teach to the test will teach more demanding material. The harms you ascribe to such a plan (increased failure) don’t make sense. Students who would fail a reasonably rigorous course (which is what I propose) would fail because of inadequate teaching or personal issues, both of which are equally significant problems in the status quo.</p>
<p>Increased score differentiation also makes tracking of advanced students easier.</p>
<p>^Teachers could be forced to teach harder material to the students instead of babying them until the state test comes out. I mean the student will be either forced to try or forced to fail, it seems fool-proof to me. I would prefer that because I know there are lots of kids out there who would try harder knowing that education is stepping up their game. I know I would if I knew what was ahead of me was going to be harder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but what if you funded their schools better? That would be educational reform.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So the kids who fail…just fail? And that’s that? We just give up? When there are students going into grade 6 with grade 3 levels in reading and then you will teach harder material, how will that work? I’m not sure increasing the difficulty of tests is really the answer. </p>
<p><em>In what ways exactly would you make it more difficult?</em></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tracking is another hotly debated issue. When do you think it should begin? How aggressively should it be pursued?</p>
<p>What about the psychological implications of these practices on students? It matters more than one would think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but I find this naive. I don’t think this would make kids care.</p>
<p>^^I’d rather have the kids stay back and learn until they’re efficient.
It would make me care, especially if the AMC is mandatory, I like a challenge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They can still implement the same practices, just with harder material. How will we know that this will “force them to teach?” I’m not convinced–what are some more concrete suggestions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But this doesn’t happen. Kids still move up grades, and there is social promotion. And if they do stay back, you just do the same thing over, and hope they get efficient? And then the next year? They might be screwed again.</p>