Comments for Stately McDaniel Manor

Comment on Testing Time… by Roderick Random

Roderick Random — Sat, 25 May 2013 01:33:57 +0000

High stakes tests inevitably reveal their bottom line–profits for those who have positioned themselves at the trough (having helped construct it) and mediocrity as academic standards and goals. Unless the test occupies more than one day for each subject, it would not be possible to test over all topics and skills teachers are supposed to teach. Testing companies, such as Pearson, would absolutely love to do this, but reality does assert itself–little Johnny and Jenny would be brain dead after lunch the first day. Mediocrity asserts itself because politicians and educrats haven’t the political gumption to permit a significant number of students fail. Too many problems associated with that, so high stakes tests are dumbed down. High stakes tests, as a result, indicate how many students are capable of attaining mediocrity. High stakes tests have an embarrassing feature, as well: scores can be accurately predicted based on demographics. As a consequence, two things occur: the test is further dumbed down–under the pretext of removing cultural biases–or hold test correction parties.

To be brief, this mess will end only when American education adopts a two-track system: trade and academic. Colleges will lose out because they need a whole mess of hopeless kids to take out government-guaranteed loans and give them to some college, so you would have to fight off that interest group to pass that policy. Then, you would have to tackle ethnic/racial interest groups, with their own complexes to deal with. Sigh. Impossible, Impossible!!

Comment on Testing Time… by unitron

unitron — Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 +0000

“Give public schools the ability to pick and choose their students, and you would be quite amazed at how fast the student body would get better.”

Of course that would mean that we’d adopted the UK definition of “public school”.

Comment on The Power To Tax… by Alan Reasin

Alan Reasin — Fri, 24 May 2013 21:51:46 +0000

Want to get people to speak in the IRS, use this to start.
From Dr. Renolds, Instapundit, “I’m quite surprised that no one has mentioned Section 1203 of the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which mandates terminations of IRS employees who commit any of what are known in the Service as the 10 Deadly Sins.’ . . . At any rate, you’ll notice that several of these provisions could be applicable in the present instance, notably (b) (2), (b) (3) (A), and (b) (7). If I were Ms. Lerner, Mr. Miller (who relied heavily on 6103 in his testimony), or anyone in that chain, 1203 would be a huge concern. It is for every Service employee, which is why I and others were always very cautious about taking unapproved initiative in areas that skated close to 1203.”
Plus, why the delays should have been noticed by higher-ups: “To have a statutory or Internal Revenue Manual deadline like 270 days to process something and to blow past without consequences is inconceivable to me. The day that thing went overage, the manager gets a report, and the employee gets asked why. The manager would keep getting reports until it was fixed, and if it wasn’t fixed soon, the SAC would be on the phone, because he or she is getting the same report, and his or her performance report (and bonuses) is on the line.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/on-irc-section-1203.php

Comment on Testing Time… by Joel

Joel — Fri, 24 May 2013 19:04:27 +0000

Admission boards for kindergarten?

Comment on Testing Time… by Joel

Joel — Fri, 24 May 2013 18:47:59 +0000

labrat,

It is called high stakes testing. Here in Tennessee, a full 1/5 of the grade is apportioned to the test results. The reason is to give the students incentive to pass the test. The reason TEACAPS (Which will soon be out in favor of Common Core..) was created to test if the teachers had taught the material. Some type of testing or another across the nation has been accepted by each and every school district. The kids have to pass this test or sanctions (punishments) are meted out to the teachers as well as the students.

Because of the high stakes, teachers have to structure their classes around it or face some sort of punishment. This is teaching to the test. Not teaching the material.

It used to be, teachers could rate their students and test their students independently according to their own lesson plans. Lesson plans that were already approved by the principal of each school. The teachers intimately knew what was on the test and could structure their classes around it. They could teach the material. As long as lesson plans matched the goals assigned for the classes, everyone was happy.

Well, some teachers didn’t teach the materials yet passed students any way. Why should they make the effort when they were not checked on it. Tenure made it impossible to fire these drones. High stakes testing was created. Ah, now we can control what happens. Test those kids and fire the teachers whose kids failed the tests. Objections to that are the kids might not even take the tests. The answer, make the test part of the kids’ grade. Now, were cooking. Or are we?

Unintended consequences, in self-preservation, teachers teach to the test. The student gets a lot of answers but not much more. No concept of why one answer is better than another. They are just taught savvy ways to pass tests.

Comment on Testing Time… by labrat

labrat — Fri, 24 May 2013 13:55:55 +0000

I was looking forward to your “test” post, but I’m a bit disappointed. You usually make a very clear argument. In this case, I’m not sure what your argument is. Why do teachers feel compelled to “teach to the test”? It seems to me a test should be designed to measure a student’s mastery of a certain curiculum. Are you arguing that these tests do not acheive this? Are teachers not given a set of goals a class is supposed to meet and a teaching plan developed to reach those goals? So is your argument against the metrics these tests are measuring or against using a test to measure whether your teaching plan acheives the goals of the class?

If teachers didn’t “teach to the test”, but actually taught the material the children should master, then would these children fails these tests? Why would that be?

Comment on Testing Time… by RuleofOrder

RuleofOrder — Fri, 24 May 2013 11:48:18 +0000

“go with vouchers which creates competition.” — admissions boards creates a better competition. Give public schools the ability to pick and choose their students, and you would be quite amazed at how fast the student body would get better.

Comment on Testing Time… by David Baker

David Baker — Thu, 23 May 2013 19:06:41 +0000

So, have you already scheduled your “test correction pizza party,” during which everyone busts out the erasers and #2 pencils in order to artificially inflate your school’s test scores? I hear those are really popular in some states…

Comment on Testing Time… by unitron

unitron — Thu, 23 May 2013 13:27:09 +0000

“Don’t think for moment, gentle readers, that my experience in Texas is substantially different than where you live.”

Yes, but is it substantially different *from* where I live?

: – )

You do seem to be trapped in an externally imposed nightmare.

Comment on Testing Time… by Joel

Joel — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:30:20 +0000

You sound like Inago Montoya explaining to his father’s friend how he trained to become the world’s greatest swordsman. “The Princess Bride” (Book) BTW that is a good comparison.

This mandatory high stakes testing is a liberal sop to conservatives and like minded parents for the failures of public education. That it severely hampers education is a good reason to go with vouchers which creates competition. Also do away with high stakes testing.