AFF's Doublethink

Trumwill — May 6, 2009 at 10:32 pm

Question of the Day:

What argument against standardized testing does not also apply to grading students? Grades often do not accurately portray a student’s intelligence or effort. Grading kids assures that they will study not to learn but to pass the test.

Will — May 7, 2009 at 9:22 am

I fondly remember taking the Virginia SOL to this day. I think they gave us unlimited time to actually complete the test, so I was able to get out of two days worth of classes. Good times . . .

Sonny Bunch — May 7, 2009 at 9:32 am

Trumwill, you hit on a point that’s kind of important and I forgot to emphasize: Standardized tests are by far and away the most objective measure of knowledge that we have. You can get a multiple choice question/fill in the blank question right or wrong. Essays, meanwhile, fill any number of different gray areas.

Will, I mean, right? I appreciate the fact that my friends and I were probably above average in terms of cognitive ability (not braggin’, just statin’ the facts) but still. The one I remember most clearly is the US History SOL, during which a friend and I raced to see who could finish it first. It took me 15 minutes. I missed one question. Give me a break. These aren’t difficult tests.

E.D. Kain — May 7, 2009 at 2:15 pm

The point is not whether or not the tests are “easy.” It is about whether they are good metrics of knowledge, as you assert (and to which I would say you are absolutely incorrect) and also whether we ought to be measuring knowledge in the first place. Are they similar to grades? Perhaps. I would advocate doing away with grades also. I’ve attended a school (a Catholic school in fact) where we did not use grades. Nobody did any worse for it.

The other problem is that regardless of whether the test is easy or hard, a teacher will still naturally focus as much of their efforts as possible to teach to that specific test – guessing what will be on it, and how the best ways for their students to memorize those general facts (regardless of actual long-term retention)….

This is not the proper model for education. It may be the proper model to tell how well kids retain abstract information on a short term basis – but to measure real knowledge? Not at all.

Trumwill — May 8, 2009 at 6:44 pm

I’ll give you points for consistency, ED. In a high-trust environment, I would be hip to doing away with both. I wouldn’t have a problem sending my kid to a school that opted out of standardized tests and didn’t grade my kid if I had good reason to trust the school.

Unfortunately, as things currently are at public schools, the underlying trust does not exist. I don’t trust kids to pay attention without a grade on the line and I don’t trust educators without a similar sort of accountability. And I would be bouncing off the walls in anger if my public school system forced me to either send my kid to such a school or shell out for a private school.

Trumwill — May 8, 2009 at 8:21 pm

The other thing I want to mention about grading and standardized tests is this: For some people, scoring is the only way that you can get them to care.

I was and am like that for chemistry. I’m a relatively intelligent and intellectually curious individual. I made good grades. Particularly in the subjects where grades mattered the least. I had the most trouble and the least enjoyment in subjects where grades mattered the most. Grades weren’t the reason that I didn’t enjoy those class. They were the only reason I cared.

That, more than anything, is the threat behind taking those off the table. Then kids that don’t care simply won’t care. There has to be a threat-and-reward system. If participation in my science class were simply a pass/fail thing, then I would only have done enough to pass and nothing more. Instead, I worked and I studied because I wanted an A or at least a B. Sure, I forgot a lot of the stuff after the test was taken and the score tallied, but it’s stuff I wouldn’t have bothered learning otherwise and the stuff I do remember is more than I would have in the alternative.

There are, of course, a lot of classes where I did care about the subject-matter. The scoring and grades didn’t really matter there. Maybe they were a bit of a drag because I had to worry about making sure I got an A instead of a B and I was forced to confront the material on the school’s timetable, but it wasn’t nearly as much a drag as the grading scheme was a boon for me in science and math, which I may never have found out that I have an aptitude for had it not need for schools forcing me to apply myself to get a good grade.

Ben A — May 9, 2009 at 10:07 am

It is about whether they are good metrics of knowledge, as you assert (and to which I would say you are absolutely incorrect)

Is this a criticism of the specific tests, or is it some kind of impossibility theorem? Do you deny that there can be good tests? My sense is that the AP calculus exam, e.g., is a pretty good measure of whether a person knows calculus. It’s easy to believe many schools systems currently use bad tests. It’s hard to believe that one could not design a test that would serve as AP calc-like diagnostic of basic math and reading ability. Maybe we shouldn’t care about a mean score of 80% vs. an 85%. But don’t you worry if 40% of a class can’t pass a basic reading test. How are to learn these things without evaluation?

and also whether we ought to be measuring knowledge in the first place.

Treadwell nails this. For what purpose are we measuring? If the goal is basic accountability, a test seems a fine way to determine if a school is graduating kids who can’t read. As a more integrated aspect of education, there are pros and cons. I went to an ungraded school for K-8. The pro: it emphasized learning for its own sake and minimized competition and stress. The con: you didn’t get as direct a sense of where you were falling short, and didn’t have as much motivation to develop good study habits.