Required Standardized State Testing of Students [Bongfu vs. Viking Prince]

**Viking Prince** · March 29, 2009, 02:45 PM

Viking Prince welcomes Bongfu to the Fight Club.

I will give my honorable opponant the chance to set the table with an introduction of the problem.

Topic: Standardized State Testing
Details: The United States has many states that require students to take a standardized test no matter what kind of school or mental capacity of the student.
Positions
Bongfu: Against standardized state testing
Viking Prince: Favors standardized state testing

Interested parties may post commentsnin the related commentary thread:
Required Standardized State Testing of Students [Bongfu vs. Viking Prince] Commentary Thread

**Bongfu** · March 29, 2009, 03:49 PM

Introduction Thanks Viking Prince, this will be my first fight here at the GC, and hopefully not my last!

First off I would like to start out with a bit of background that might help my validity in this debate.

I am a student in Texas. I came through the Texas Public School system since the last half of my third grade year. I never failed a state test, and my freshman year of highschool I took my SAT and scored a 1390 (at the time the new system had not been introduced).

I worked for the Denton Independant School District as a network technician for two and a half years. During which I saw a lot of the higher up way of thinking regarding state test and their proceedures for handling kids in the district.

My aunt is a school teacher in Illinois, who just recently got a state test.

Ready, Fight! *Mortal Kombat Theme*

Point I Standardized Testing as defined by wikipedia

A standardized test is a test administered and scored in a consistent manner. The tests are designed in such a way that the "questions, conditions for administering, scoring procedures, and interpretations are consistent" [1] and are "administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner."

I will start of on the point of standards. A standard in this case is referring to a general level that is set by a board of education for students to achieve in order to be deemed a "successful" student.

But how does one define success in school? Is it because he or she in on par with their fellow pupils? That is what the governments within the US want us to think apparently. For example, while I spent my time in the Texas State school system, I was tested every year, excluding my senior year with the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills Test (TAKS). I was compared to not only my fellow classmates, but to those in special education programs, recent immigrants, and students who more or less did not give a damn. Before that statement sounds bigot in nature, I will point out that all those listed above, save your average student, can get tutors during the test, go to their own separate rooms from everyone else, and the tutors will read the questions for you, help you understand the problems, and even set it up for you if you require, all they cant do is bubble in the answer for you. So if I was a student with none of those "special needs" then why is it fair that I receive no help? Is a Mexican immigrant that speaks little English and did not have the schooling I did any less developed as far as mental capacity than I am? They moved to this country, so it should be that students job to catch himself up accordingly, not our job to make him pass so the state test scores look good.

Texas refined it's state test from the TAAS to the TAKS a few years back. It was regarded as a milestone, for an increasingly challenging achievement for students. It has, despite that statement, become a joke among teachers and students. There is nothing challenging about it, unless you never paid attention in class, or you are brain dead. Yes people do struggle, but those who struggle get help. Those of us who want to get all we can get out school, those of us who pay attention in class, and those of us who regard education as a gift not a liability are rewarded with being compared on the same standard they rate the lowest in willpower among us. What I am say, in short, the standards are set low, so that anyone can pass the test. Again, its about image. Students pass the test, and the school, district and state look good.

Point II

"Standardized tests can't measure initiative, creativity, imagination, conceptual thinking, curiosity, effort, irony, judgment, commitment, nuance, good will, ethical reflection, or a host of other valuable dispositions and attributes. What they can measure and count are isolated skills, specific facts and function, content knowledge, the least interesting and least significant aspects of learning."

— Bill Ayers [13]

My next argument is the common method of "teaching to the test" exhibited by teachers across the country. When I first moved to Texas (1999) in the third grade, I had this elderly teacher who was very much against the current state test (TAAS). She was an "old fashioned" teacher who taught us to broaden our interest in not only school taught subject but those around us. This was third grade! I had just learned to read on a decent level a few years ago and I was fascinated by books(still am). My teacher had a small library of books in her classroom that we were allowed to take home and read on our own time. Other teachers did this during my time in the Texas school system, but they gave extra credit, or required it. Required books would often be part of the curriculum and they were usually short so there would be time to prepare for the TAKS. Anyways, my third grade teacher did not want us to read because it was required, but rather because we wanted to learn beyond what the classroom could teach us. I quickly became one of her favorite students, and she even purchased some new books in this series I loved to read(Wayside Series-Loius Sachar). Teachers like that are few and far between now. Most just teach what they school board says they must, and if there are renegades within that system the school board has a habit of making sure their curriculum is so full that they do not have time to teach "outside the box".

My aunt, who is a school teacher in Illinois, recently called me to complain about state testing and asked if it was just as bad as Texas. She teaches the fifth grade, and has done so for the better part of twelve years. A few years ago she got in touch with some of her old fifth graders who were in Harvard of all places, because they said she was the best teacher they ever had. Harvard is hardly a place one would think they would end up in her small town (population of 10,000). She had some bright kids come through her way. Now, unfortunately, she has told me nearly two-thirds of her old curriculum is thrown out the window because a third of that was relevant to the test. Her students the first year did poorly, and the school she was at lost funding for new projectors in every classroom. So instead of helping a school who is struggling with new teaching devices, they punish them by telling them to do better with what they have. Here in Texas it works the same way. If a school does good on its test scores, the state government will give it increased funding for the next school year, if it performs poorly, then the schools have funds withheld from projects to improve the quality of the school.

Point III I would next like to say a few words about testing procedures. Particularly those involving answer sheets. Most schools now use Scantrons for testing purposes.

Scantrons from Wiki

machine-readable papers on which students mark answers to academic test questions, the machines to analyze those answers, survey and test scoring systems, the taking of school attendance (with a mark denoting an absent student) and image-based data collection software and scanners.

They are easy to use, get results quick, but they have one fatal flaw. They are read by machines, not by people. Therefore if there is just one flaw, just a single innocent looking flaw left by a stray pencil mark, not fully erased answer change, or getting off by one question (which is so easy to do), you can jeopardize your entire test score. While I personally have never had my TAKS scores destroyed by this, I have seen some of our top 10% in my school fail the TAKS because they accidentally got off one answer, or something along those lines.

**Viking Prince** · March 30, 2009, 01:27 AM

Thank you for the great introduction. I am glad that you kept it short (just joking). This is merely an introduction of some issues you raised. We can return to points missed or needing clarification as we proceed.

I favor standardized testing for a wide variety of reasons. I hope the following comments will give you a sense and feel for my position as a response to your fine opening remarks.

You may be amazed at the number of people in college or older that have family and friends who are teachers, instructors, and faculty members. You should not be surprised though. One in twenty of our work force is a classroom teacher, academic staff, or in other ways classified as a teacher. The economy can only grow with greater output or more workers. Personally we all like to make more money each and every year and we can really only do this with greater output to justify the better wages. Teaching is not immune to this process. Nothing can replace the teacher in the classroom and individual participation.

To improve output, teachers must teach greater numbers of children or at least improve the output per child. Labor saving devices can be a part of this process, just as computers, remote learning, special tutors, etc. The standardized test is a labor saving device. A tool to be used with recognized limitations is still a useful tool. Just as I would never advocate using a hammer instead of a screwdriver as interchangeable, standardized testing is not a perfect replacement for a personal oral examination. Both are useful tools.

If you are attending an introductory French class, the teacher will give chapter tests. The purpose of the test is to assess understanding and maintain a standard of performance to indicate the class is ready to move forward to the next chapter. A custom prepared test with lots of writing and fill in the blank could be created by the teacher and then hand graded by the teacher. The textbook also has a test bank with tests that can be graded by machine. Both are good methods to determine basic knowledge of vocabulary, conjugations, use of prepositions, etc. The standardized test takes only a moment to put together by the teacher with some cut and past. This is much faster than preparing a new test and is similar to the old pro of a teacher that gives that same test for chapter 12 each and every year anyways. The machine grading is also quicker. Believe me, hand grading of exams is not the most productive use of a teacher’s time. Even a graduate student TA can utilize their time better than this. So clearly there is a place for standardized testing in the classroom.

You mentioned the SAT. I am glad that this was brought up. How do you hand grade thousands of tests? If they are hand graded, there is the human error element. If they are machine graded there is a risk of student input error resulting in a lower score. With the human element the test taker will suffer from events completely outside of the test taker’s control. With the machine grading, a stray mark is pretty much the responsibility of the test taker. There are other related issues with this, but the clear issue is the burden for accuracy being placed on the test taker is usually the better system.

You brought up the primary and secondary assessment tests. In Texas, this was referred to by you as TAAS and now as TAKS. Acronyms aside, the test has several uses. In some states a given score is required to move forward a grade. The score is technically a competition with other students to move forward. The cutoff is to identify only those students that are clearly deficient and should not move forward so we can throw out the competition argument.

Giving special help to student in special ed does not matter. The students move forward within special ed and not despite the classification. If English is a factor, you complaint is no longer with the test or the standardization process. Your complaint is with who is considered competent to move forward.

There is another purpose for such standardized tests: to assess the improvement in individual performance from period to period being tested. The standardized scoring does not matter in this case, but this is the reason unions oppose such testing.

Yet an additional reason for such standardized tests is criticized by Bill Moyers in your post. The fact is that the tests do test something and not everything. This is not really a criticism unless you are advocating rejecting the good for the sake of perfection.

Let’s return back to the SAT. There are usually minimum scores established at each college for admission. These scores are not the sole means of acceptance, but beating the minimum eases the admission process greatly. There were 3.3 million high school graduates in the USA last year. I am not going to quote, but I would suggest you read Report of the Commission on the Use of Standardized Tests in ... Test results are not nearly as important as you may assume. It is only one screen to attempt to determine applicants suited to the programs offered. There are other screens. No single screen that insures acceptance or denial.

You mentioned teaching to the test. This is an issue with all tests and not just standardized testing. I highly encourage teaching to the test. This does not mean teaching ought to be restricted to the test material. Teachers are professionals and can certainly use good judgment on material to be offered.

My concern in the classroom is to insure that the skills needed to move on to the next chapter are tested and students focus on these details. More information is offered and I hope the material is useful, but the mastery of any given test is to ensure success in the future. I heavily rely on standardized tests for this task that are textbook editor prepared. There is more to the classes. There are other aspects to a grade, but standardized testing gives a teacher more time to use other tools in the teaching process.

**Bongfu** · March 30, 2009, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Viking Prince

You may be amazed at the number of people in college or older that have family and friends who are teachers, instructors, and faculty members. You should not be surprised though. One in twenty of our work force is a classroom teacher, academic staff, or in other ways classified as a teacher. The economy can only grow with greater output or more workers. Personally we all like to make more money each and every year and we can really only do this with greater output to justify the better wages. Teaching is not immune to this process. Nothing can replace the teacher in the classroom and individual participation.

To improve output, teachers must teach greater numbers of children or at least improve the output per child. Labor saving devices can be a part of this process, just as computers, remote learning, special tutors, etc. The standardized test is a labor saving device. A tool to be used with recognized limitations is still a useful tool. Just as I would never advocate using a hammer instead of a screwdriver as interchangeable, standardized testing is not a perfect replacement for a personal oral examination. Both are useful tools.

This is the problem it has become. I understand that saving a teacher time and energy can result in better performance in the classroom, but it has become more of an issue of what can a teacher do to look better so she gets paid more. What is the price of a child's education? Right now it seems to be how good they can make him/her look to get the district money.

If you are attending an introductory French class, the teacher will give chapter tests. The purpose of the test is to assess understanding and maintain a standard of performance to indicate the class is ready to move forward to the next chapter. A custom prepared test with lots of writing and fill in the blank could be created by the teacher and then hand graded by the teacher. The textbook also has a test bank with tests that can be graded by machine. Both are good methods to determine basic knowledge of vocabulary, conjugations, use of prepositions, etc. The standardized test takes only a moment to put together by the teacher with some cut and past. This is much faster than preparing a new test and is similar to the old pro of a teacher that gives that same test for chapter 12 each and every year anyways. The machine grading is also quicker. Believe me, hand grading of exams is not the most productive use of a teacher’s time. Even a graduate student TA can utilize their time better than this. So clearly there is a place for standardized testing in the classroom.

I understand a standard for a subject like French. Obviously in a Foreign Language you want students whom have never spoken the language on the same level as those who do not. However, there is no standard testing (Save Advance Placement test) to my knowledge that test a foreign language. The only test I ever had while in German and Latin were those made by the teacher. Therefore the teacher taught to the test they made. So both the teacher and the students were given all the knowledge they needed in an efficient manner. This resulted in increased understanding for the language, as well as speedier lessons, so there was time to always add in extra things like history of the language and the people who spoke it.

I remember my German class we used to sing German Folk song while my teacher played guitar. We would do bake offs with German recipes and what not.

In Latin, our teacher would read Roman and Greek satires to us in Latin at the end of the day. We would do plays about the book we were reading or just write our own and make our own props.

Those kind of teaching strategies were not present in any other subject I ever took, particularly talking about the core subjects that the state test on.

You mentioned the SAT. I am glad that this was brought up. How do you hand grade thousands of tests? If they are hand graded, there is the human error element. If they are machine graded there is a risk of student input error resulting in a lower score. With the human element the test taker will suffer from events completely outside of the test taker’s control. With the machine grading, a stray mark is pretty much the responsibility of the test taker. There are other related issues with this, but the clear issue is the burden for accuracy being placed on the test taker is usually the better system.

Colleges already have entry exams, why not leave it up to each college to provide their own testing material? This way colleges won't be standardized. Do you think that Notre Dam wants to be compared to a lonely community college in the middle of Texas? With Standardized Test it does, because it says this is all the knowledge you need to get into a place of higher education.

If Notre Dam was in charge of their own test of admissions and scoring of knowledge, I would think it would be 10x harder than that of a community college.

Granted test are not the only thing that determines college placement, but the SAT plays a big part.

You brought up the primary and secondary assessment tests. In Texas, this was referred to by you as TAAS and now as TAKS. Acronyms aside, the test has several uses. In some states a given score is required to move forward a grade. The score is technically a competition with other students to move forward. The cutoff is to identify only those students that are clearly deficient and should not move forward so we can throw out the competition argument.

Giving special help to student in special ed does not matter. The students move forward within special ed and not despite the classification. If English is a factor, you complaint is no longer with the test or the standardization process. Your complaint is with who is considered competent to move forward.

So its competitive to say I am a retard give me help and basically fly through the test no problem? Thats whay a lot of kids do, and they get away with it. I saw people getting help that I know they just care, or they were just too lazy. While the rest of us have to sit in a room for four hours in total silence while the test is going on.

What if the number one student in my class accidently made a stray mark, or they do something to get the test dismiss, ie cell phone accidently going off up front, or a teacher's cell phone goes off. Yes, during the TAKS if a teacher's phone goes off then all the test could be in danger of being voided. That means no pass, no go on to the next grade for mister number one student.

There is another purpose for such standardized tests: to assess the improvement in individual performance from period to period being tested. The standardized scoring does not matter in this case, but this is the reason unions oppose such testing.

Yes, but the improvement of what? A standardized ciriculum. Of course a student's knowledge is going to improved from one year to another. That is all the test basically do.

Yet an additional reason for such standardized tests is criticized by Bill Moyers in your post. The fact is that the tests do test something and not everything. This is not really a criticism unless you are advocating rejecting the good for the sake of perfection.

It is true criticism because it states a simple fact. Standardized test are deaf to the human condition.

Let’s return back to the SAT. There are usually minimum scores established at each college for admission. These scores are not the sole means of acceptance, but beating the minimum eases the admission process greatly. There were 3.3 million high school graduates in the USA last year. I am not going to quote, but I would suggest you read Report of the Commission on the Use of Standardized Tests in ... Test results are not nearly as important as you may assume. It is only one screen to attempt to determine applicants suited to the programs offered. There are other screens. No single screen that insures acceptance or denial.

I already pointed out my feelings on the SAT

You mentioned teaching to the test. This is an issue with all tests and not just standardized testing. I highly encourage teaching to the test. This does not mean teaching ought to be restricted to the test material. Teachers are professionals and can certainly use good judgment on material to be offered.

It is not an issue with teacher made test, or a district control ciriculum. While a district will set standards, they are usually not as inhibiting as a state-wide or nation-wide standard. In this environment teachers are less likely to use out of the box teaching methods, like OMG pictures, or songs. Something that makes the child think, hey this is not boring book work. Too few teachers in my experience ever said, "I hate the textbook, its just a bunch of words you wont ever read even if I ask you to."

My concern in the classroom is to insure that the skills needed to move on to the next chapter are tested and students focus on these details. More information is offered and I hope the material is useful, but the mastery of any given test is to ensure success in the future. I heavily rely on standardized tests for this task that are textbook editor prepared. There is more to the classes. There are other aspects to a grade, but standardized testing gives a teacher more time to use other tools in the teaching process.

So you are saying all that matters is the child get out of your site and on to the next grade? I think teachers should teach kids based on a ciriculum that tries to out do other teachers. I think the competition should not only be in students, but teachers as well. Right now the only competition is who can pump out better test scores, so they can get a raise or bonus.

**Viking Prince** · March 31, 2009, 10:15 PM

Oh snap! I forgot to bring home my debate file for posting. I will do so on Wednesday. My humble apologies.

**Bongfu** · March 31, 2009, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by Viking Prince

Oh snap! I forgot to bring home my debate file for posting. I will do so on Wednesday. My humble apologies.

That's quite alright, I would not have had time to respond to it until after than anyway.

**Viking Prince** · April 03, 2009, 12:15 AM

Saving and better utilizing teacher time should never com at the expense of children’s performance. The standardizing test as well as machine graded testing is meant to serve specific purposes. Other forms of testing (and also grading methods) are also appropriate. Keeping the balance and maximizing the teacher as a resource is a challenge. I disagree with your statement:

Right now it seems to be how good they can make him/her look to get the district money.

There are constraints to the budget, but such constraints do not automatically default to get the cash and lose the kid.

My purpose of bringing up the testing in French was for the classroom. Your observation of teaching methods is important but not really a part of the testing debate. There are always opportunities for class participation in all fields. The creative use of time is important so that students do not tune out. I can give examples from sciences as well. Trust me that the methods exist for all subject materials. For example, a literature class can include learning the parts to a play and not simply discussing Death of a Salesman or the Tempest. There are a huge number of hands on experiments that can be performed in science and math classes to teach observation, note taking, control, variable selection, etc.

Your criticism seems to imply that the course of the debate should focus not on classroom testing, but be limited to grade transition testing, certificate testing, and admissions testing.

Colleges do indeed have individual standards for admission. There is no magic reason to require reporting an SAT score. The individual schools do set their own criteria. As to Notre Dame:

Incoming Class Academic Profile (mid 50% ranges)

Fifty percent of the admitted class scored or were ranked between the numbers below. 25% of the class admitted scored or were ranked above the numbers below, and 25% of the class admitted scored or were ranked below the numbers below.
1370 – 1490 on the SAT I (including Critical Reading and Math sections; excluding Writing section)
32 – 34 on the ACT
1% – 5% rank in class

Looks like class rank may be a driving factor here and the standardized test scores (ACT and/or SAT) have some flexibility.

Let’s go back to the Texas testing program. I am more familiar with the Colorado version, so I may need some corrections of assumptions. You seem to have an issue still with some students getting differing accommodations from the standard test taking rules.

There is no reason to suppose that you and the special accommodations student will be compared to each other. The test results are coded for who has taken the test with special accommodations. Yes the results are eventually aggregated for public reporting purposes, but the tests are also used on individual assessment basis as well.

As for the cell phone voiding the results, I sincerely doubt that this has ever happened. Teachers and administrators can be wound pretty tight and this does indeed affect student attitudes. It is appropriate to give the tests a level of importance though.

Let’s move on to some new material now.

Scientology is actually a leader in testing and training methods. Rather than a fixed period of time to complete a course of instruction, the focus is on complete mastery in a flexible period of time. The “teacher” does not lecture or even need to know the material. Each student is self paced and an independent study. No group participation and no human stand in the front of the class lectures. Individual modules may be quite simple or extensive. The testing demands an extremely high level of understanding before moving on. On module at a time is covered. No group of classes on varying subjects. The tests are usually computer driven and thus objective and machine graded. Click the wrong answer and it is back to the beginning of the module and covering everything again. Or perhaps the student may be dropped back to a simpler module if the instructor is suspicious of a lack of mastery of earlier material. So in effect, you can fall back a grade, so to speak.

This method of teaching is used for a wide variety of subjects and could be applied to the secondary school system as well as an alternative to current methods. The materials are expensive to produce as are all textbooks and exercise manuals whether computerized or in printed form. The obstacle is volume – a chicken and the egg type of problem. This is a much more standardized system than we have now and it is really focusing on low cost labor to implement the system. No need for teaching certificates or PhD’s with this system at the secondary education level or even lower division undergraduate college classes.

One advantage of standardized testing is the removal of variations due to different teachers and the infamous grading on the curve where the teacher is absolved of blame if the students do poorly. If a classroom of kids taking algebra in Waco is compared to another classroom of kids in Dallas using differing textbooks, schedules, classroom contact hours, etc. – then the test is really a test of capability in the subject matter tested. The real purpose of standardized tests is to hold students, teachers, administrators, and even parents to knowing the attained abilities of the students as tested.

It is for this reason that the absolute least capable may be required to take courses to bring capabilities up to a set standard of performance. Whether this means a repeat of classes, a special accelerated review and retest (summer school) or some other method is certainly optional for the student and institution. To suggest that we continue with the pass ‘em and let them “age” out of the system is truly unfair to the students that have not acquired the needed levels of understanding.

**Bongfu** · April 03, 2009, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by Viking Prince

There are constraints to the budget, but such constraints do not automatically default to get the cash and lose the kid.

But this is the attitude of teachers and staff. Whether you see it or not, teachers are hard pressed to get your scores better on the test. I hear so many teachers complain about reprimands they got because their kids did not do well on the test.

My sophomore year, I had an English teacher who got reprimanded the year before for not having enough students do well on the TAKS. We were suppose to read Julius Caesar and other classic Shakespeare, but she cut that out, and instead we did an entire six weeks of reading comprehension from the TAKS packets.

There is where I have big problems. When the test actually affects what kids are getting out of the class.

Your criticism seems to imply that the course of the debate should focus not on classroom testing, but be limited to grade transition testing, certificate testing, and admissions testing.

Well i am trying to stay on topic

The debate is over STATE testing. But I think we both got off topic a bit.

There is no reason to suppose that you and the special accommodations student will be compared to each other. The test results are coded for who has taken the test with special accommodations. Yes the results are eventually aggregated for public reporting purposes, but the tests are also used on individual assessment basis as well.

But there is a reason, because they do get compared to me. In the end if I score a 3700 on the TAKS, and Jose who got help because he does not speak very good English scores a 3800, he got a higher score than I did. It does not get thrown into some magical category of 'no habla englas'.

One advantage of standardized testing is the removal of variations due to different teachers and the infamous grading on the curve where the teacher is absolved of blame if the students do poorly. If a classroom of kids taking algebra in Waco is compared to another classroom of kids in Dallas using differing textbooks, schedules, classroom contact hours, etc. – then the test is really a test of capability in the subject matter tested. The real purpose of standardized tests is to hold students, teachers, administrators, and even parents to knowing the attained abilities of the students as tested.

Well there still is variation, and that is why some school continuely have bad scores because they cannot afford to open new programs or buy updated text books. There is no state wide ciriculum other than requirements for a student to graduate highschool with, and those requirements are quite vague.

I was fortunate enough to go to a good school that had a lot to offer, and many programs that smaller districts simply cannot offer. One big example is the division of physics and chemistry inito two seperate subjects. Some schools have it, but smaller rural schools have what is called IBC. Although I cannot remember what it stands for off the top of my head, it is essentially physics and chemistry thrown into one year.

The state responded to this by making sure the science portions of the test were very easy and contained only a little bit of both areas. While it is good for those schools who are not offering both as seperate course, those of us that had to sit through two years of it are left wondering why did we have to waste our time? If we are in the current system, where the TAKS test judges whether you pass or fail, why did we have to take two years when all we need was IBC?

And no, I am not contradicting myself, I am just stating fact. I support two years of science dedicated to chemistry and physics, both were subjects I greatly enjoyed. However if I would have been given the opportunity to take it all in one year instead of two, I might have jumped on it as it would open an extra course slot in the future for me to fill with a class I normally would not have been able to take.

It is for this reason that the absolute least capable may be required to take courses to bring capabilities up to a set standard of performance. Whether this means a repeat of classes, a special accelerated review and retest (summer school) or some other method is certainly optional for the student and institution. To suggest that we continue with the pass ‘em and let them “age” out of the system is truly unfair to the students that have not acquired the needed levels of understanding.

Again, this is getting in the way of a proper education. In Texas, or atleast my district, if you fail the TAKS you are required to fill up one block with a TAKS remidial course for EACH portion of the test you failed. I knew people in sports that lost a year to failing the TAKS. Or people enrolled in serious, career oriented electives like Health Science and Technology, Electronics, Computer class, welding, etc, all had to drop it for a year because they failed a test. One test.

One test to rule them all
One test that can fail them
One test to judge them all
and in the dullness bury them

**Viking Prince** · April 03, 2009, 03:41 AM

But this is the attitude of teachers and staff. Whether you see it or not, teachers are hard pressed to get your scores better on the test. I hear so many teachers complain about reprimands they got because their kids did not do well on the test.

My sophomore year, I had an English teacher who got reprimanded the year before for not having enough students do well on the TAKS. We were suppose to read Julius Caesar and other classic Shakespeare, but she cut that out, and instead we did an entire six weeks of reading comprehension from the TAKS packets.

There is where I have big problems. When the test actually affects what kids are getting out of the class.

This is a good example of what can be a system problem that is not being addressed by administrators. The teacher is faulted for weak performing students. The school puts all students of all abilities into a single class and expects the teacher to show progress with the weakest links. The testing revealed the weak links, but they continue to be with stronger students. The teacher naturally decided to protect her job. I would make the same decision. Bulk teaching of secondary education needs a finer separation of students so that the teacher can teach all students within a class. Rather than push for smaller class sizes, the teachers should be pushing for better grouping of students. A classroom with 75 students doing well on algebra need not be broken into 3 classes. A class of 5 students needing practice and testing to be able to perform simple math addition and multiplication tables mixed into the 75 would be a disaster.
This is a real problem for smaller schools. In the 1950’s most suburban elementary schools had a two track system. The students were divided into quartiles with the more capable students in one class and the less capable students in the other. The middle two quartiles were randomly mixed between the two classes. That system did not work any better than what your English teacher is dealing with, and for the very same reasons.
For all I know your English teacher had some functionally illiterate students, some with learning disabilities, some that simply did not want to learn and were thus disruptive, as well as students eager to learn and with the skills needed to perform well with the curriculum. How is a teacher to perform with a group of students like that? I think she did the right thing. The test was not the flaw. The test pointed out the flaw in the system. An administrator blaming the teacher neither solves the problem nor educates the student to be all that they can be.
My suggestion would be to correct the administration and retain the test.

**Bongfu** · April 12, 2009, 02:56 PM

However, they will not correct the system, but instead blame it on the lowest thing in the totem pole, the teacher or the student. This is where the test still fails, because it does point out a problem that consistently never gets fixed.

**Viking Prince** · April 12, 2009, 03:21 PM

How does the testing fail due to poor administrators misusing the results? How does the testing fail because some teachers are teaching exclusively to improve test rests of the poorest performing students and not helping the rest of the class progess? Testing has clear beneficial uses. Those who misuse the test or blame their own failings on the test should be retrained, given advisement as to their duties, or be terminated. Blaming the test is akin to blaming the messenger.

btw -- Happy Easter.

**Bongfu** · April 12, 2009, 09:13 PM

The test is the thing that caused these problems to spring up. With the test, teachers began teaching only to the test, and administration did not expect more. So when a teacher goes above and beyond she only gets her own satisfaction.

However, when a teacher "fails" at teaching to the test, she gets scolded by the administration. This kind of system only creates clone like repetition that teaches little or no value.

When I applied to school in Canada, the admissions consular told me that I would have to take a lot of remedial classes because Texas high schools were not up to par with their standards.

I found this interesting graph from rand.org

If you will note, Texas scores really high on their state test. Most likely due to them lowering the standards so much that everyone passes. However on a national test, they do significantly worse.

**Viking Prince** · April 13, 2009, 02:06 AM

We are beginning to repeat ourselves. I will approach this post a summation. If you wish to continue, that is fine also. Otherwise -- I will allow you a final word.

First, why are you surprised that given two differant tests, that the teachers will focus on test methods and material most likely to be found on the standards test to assess attainment? I actually find this encouraging. As to a particular college requiring you to take some remedial classes -- go for it. It is probably a good school that is going to hold you accountable.

I am not going to justify or explain poor behavior by professionals in administrative or teaching positions. They and the unions would rather drop the standards testing. You are simply falling into the trap of why the test is at fault. The test is a tool.

People need to hold the local schoold boards accountable for teaching all the students in their districts. These may be attending publicly funded schools such as the common local public school, a charter school, or even a private school. The accountability is also at the state level with the state boards of education. These supervisory boards need to demand that administrators and teachers use the tests to determine who needs special attention and which teachers and administrators are not effective. Yes, I would suggest kicking a few butts.

I would start with superintendants claiming that such standards testing is damaging to the education process or other rot. When the administators are on board, they should then demand that the teachers use the testing process appropriately in the classroom. None of this is complicated. Kids need to read, write, and perform mathematical processes. If they are tested and cannot perform the functions at grade level, programs need to be in place to help the students achieve the standards. If they are not making progress, then teachers and administrators need to be changed.

This is not differant from a baseball team bringing promising player up the lower leagues and sending down those who are not performing as needed. Personnel are valuable -- adjusting where and what they are doing to maximize production does not mean an automatic firing.

Again, I would quickly cashier the poor superintendants that have neither the vision nor the skills to lead distirct organizations. The remaining personnel should be trainned and managed. Move them around, shuffle the deck, get them all working -- to get each and every child the education they deserve the opportunity to receive.

If we cannot test and determine standards, the government should cease to tax and opereate schools. The purpose is to guarantee a publicly funded education system to produce a citizen population capable of the responsibilities of democratic representative government. If we fail at maintaining education standards, we may also fail at keeping the republic free as well.

**Bongfu** · April 14, 2009, 11:25 AM

The problem with relying on people to contribute to is that once they get what they want, they will no longer contribute. What I am saying is, if I go to the school board, and demand we hold our students to a higher standard, get enough support and pass it. Yes, we could justify a higher standard of testing to give students a challenge. After I am done, I accomplished my goal. I would have no further business and most likely leave. Well once me, as the main advocate had left, there is nothing to stop the school board from changing it back to the old low standard. Then we would have to start all over again.

The test is part of the problem we can undeniably deal with absolutely. If we abolish it, we would not have to rely on the imperfect human factor. So my argument stands. Standardized State testing is degrading our students and destroying imaginative and creative minds that would in another system blossom. With the current rate, in fifty years we will be no smarter than we are today, because they will just keep lowering the bar so Americans can learn at a young age to be what everyone stereotypes us as. Lazy.

**Viking Prince** · May 10, 2009, 03:30 AM

** Bongfu is seen walking off into a glorious springtime sunset as the class year comes to an end. **

This completes the debate at this time.

** Viking Prince now walks off the stage as well **

Applause for both contestants is heard. The lights dim. Another debate curtain drops on an empty stage.