Atlanta School Scandal

[bara]

Linky

35 so called educators fix test scores for funding and bonuses. If you read Fark some of the comments there are great.

[HYHYBT]

Glad to see this has gotten to that stage; I'd thought it was all over and done with.

[Kheldarson]

I wouldn't call them "so-called". They are educators. Just...making a stupid decision in a stupid system.

School funding should not be based on these life or death big tests at the end of the year that don't actually measure what a student has learned, just what a student can regurgitate and how well they can take big pressure tests. It's an unfair system and places a lot of pressure on lower socio-economic schools who already have their work cut out for them.

Oh and if you fail this high stakes test your funding gets cut which means it's even harder to get the things you need to teach effectively! Which means you're probably going to fail again.

Did the teachers here do right? No. But I can understand why they did it.

[bex1218]

My school made a huge loophole for our statewide tests.

If you were absent that day, you do the retake and its untimed. Its still putting pressure on the students, but the time isn't an issue there.

I just don't see the poin in these tests. It takes away from actual education. And half that stuff wasn't taught before the test was to be taken.

There should be a better way than to basically force people into cheating.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I'm not really getting how it takes away from education UNLESS the education hasn't been there previously. These aren't the SAT's. Unless they're trying to trick the students with the answers, these are standard grade level tests. These are the kind of tests at my school they didn't even bother talking about because it was a given if you were doing the work in your classes you would pass them. You shouldn't have to "teach the test."

The issue itself is juking the stats, and frankly this outcome isn't anything The Wire wouldn't have predicted for you. I don't disagree that funding cuts aren't necessarily a good answer. I'd just prefer that these tests exist with no strings at all. That way when a politician in Texas who represents a district whose schools are in the bottom quartile of the US goes for reelection, he can't make claims about education being a priority. The stats are the stats. Stats are great for evaluating performance. If you hinge the stick and carrot on them, people abuse, abuse, abuse. See: Wall Street.

[Kheldarson]

I'm not really getting how it takes away from education UNLESS the education hasn't been there previously. These aren't the SAT's. Unless they're trying to trick the students with the answers, these are standard grade level tests. These are the kind of tests at my school they didn't even bother talking about because it was a given if you were doing the work in your classes you would pass them. You shouldn't have to "teach the test."

The issue is that one) any educator will tell you that these high stakes test (HST) do not measure what politicians say they measure. They do not measure your education or learning. So we're applying extra pressure in the school year for it (considering the tests are usually down in late April/early May, it also means you have to scrunch up your calendar to try to cover everything and then have a wasted month).

Two) There's the socio-economic problem as well. These tests have been proven to discriminate against poorer regions and certain minority groups through word choice. It's not conscious, but it is there. There's also the problem of poorer socio-economic schools tend to do poorer on a scale like this simply because of lacking resources. So they tend to end up in a very poor cycle because they must focus on the tests instead of focus on learning.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

The issue is that one) any educator will tell you that these high stakes test (HST) do not measure what politicians say they measure. They do not measure your education or learning.

So what are they saying it measures then? If it is a poorly crafted test (I have no doubt that it could be), that's an argument to fix the test more than an argument to abandon baseline testing. Ostensibly, the point IS to know how a school looks nationally. We can claim its meant to benchmark the kids, but its about our ability to make judgements across cities, states, and regions with wildly dissimilar educational practices.

Two) There's the socio-economic problem as well. These tests have been proven to discriminate against poorer regions and certain minority groups through word choice. It's not conscious, but it is there.

That works great in theory but the counterargument (especially in regards to minority groups) is the language and dialect of most major tests is that of standard American (business) English. It won't get easier in college. And no job recruiter is going to forgive an inability to present well based on that status. In other words, those tests can't exist to forgive upbringing. If anything, perhaps certain schools should spend more time on certain subjects than others. I get what you're saying, but it's life that discriminates.

Again, what I'd say is that if anything these tests should not be used in a punitive manner towards the students. They should be used as a diagnostic tool. If a school graduates 85% of its students and 50% are below national standards, well the students have been punished already. They're going to have to enter an unforgiving workforce. It should be up to local school boards and electorates to decide what punishment or reorganization their schools require when they demonstrate a continued inability to pass their students.

Education reform is messy and it will tar and feather good teachers and administrators because these issues are systemic. But trying to avoid baseline testing isn't a good idea. That's the only thing that can give you an idea of the scope of the problem.

[bex1218]

Here in my city in Florida, you have to pass the test to go from 10th grade to 11th. Thats all the teachers would do from 9th till then. Talk about the FCATs. Not everyone was good at testing. Especially the reading part of the exam. Math was better, but not by much.

Now if it wasn't such a big deal like that and cutting funding, I could see how it shows the school's progress and see how they could improve. But its not how it works unfortunately.

[Kheldarson]

So what are they saying it measures then? If it is a poorly crafted test (I have no doubt that it could be), that's an argument to fix the test more than an argument to abandon baseline testing. Ostensibly, the point IS to know how a school looks nationally. We can claim its meant to benchmark the kids, but its about our ability to make judgements across cities, states, and regions with wildly dissimilar educational practices.

Like the SAT and ACT, they measure your ability to test. Which mostly means your ability to reason, logic, and make reasonable guesses. That's not learning. There's also the fact that many, many students do poorly on tests. Heck, the best school system in the world is in Finland and they don't use HSTs. Basically, the HSTs test your ability to guess, not what you've learned over the year(s).

That works great in theory but the counterargument (especially in regards to minority groups) is the language and dialect of most major tests is that of standard American (business) English. It won't get easier in college. And no job recruiter is going to forgive an inability to present well based on that status. In other words, those tests can't exist to forgive upbringing. If anything, perhaps certain schools should spend more time on certain subjects than others. I get what you're saying, but it's life that discriminates.

Again, what I'd say is that if anything these tests should not be used in a punitive manner towards the students. They should be used as a diagnostic tool. If a school graduates 85% of its students and 50% are below national standards, well the students have been punished already. They're going to have to enter an unforgiving workforce. It should be up to local school boards and electorates to decide what punishment or reorganization their schools require when they demonstrate a continued inability to pass their students.

Education reform is messy and it will tar and feather good teachers and administrators because these issues are systemic. But trying to avoid baseline testing isn't a good idea. That's the only thing that can give you an idea of the scope of the problem.

Nope. I can name a number of things that give us a better idea of the scope of the problem rather than an HST that automatically discriminates based of socio-economic status from which there is little to NO recovery. A lower class student will be about 10-20 thousand words behind a middle and upper class student for the entirety of their education. This is a disparity that no teacher can fix because the disparity comes from home.

Far better methods are "subjective". Portfolios, writing samples, growth charts. The unfortunate thing is that politicians hate the idea of "subjectivity", when, of course, education and learning is HIGHLY subjective. Heck, half of my education courses talk about how to properly differentiate the classroom to accommodate for student learning...and that's for regular students, not just special needs. Subjective methods like portfolios give us an ever increasing individual standard which shows the learner's growth over time as well as areas that they need the most work in without providing the stress levels and distractions of preparing for an HST. Schools which have been allowed to implement this form of measurement show greater response in learning. Again, look at Finland.

Life may discriminate, but learning NEVER should.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

There seems to be a bit of confusion as to whether or not I'm suggesting a test is a learning tool or a diagnostic. So we're not quite arguing with each other. We're arguing what we think the other person is talking about. We have completely different goals in this discussion. You're speaking about students and I'm speaking of the schools themselves.

Statistics tell us a lot of things. If the general scores of two schools in different regions look different with roughly the same socioeconomic demographics, what is the cause? It's why I have problems with NCLB but I find testing a good thing. Without any sort of unifying statistic, the best I can do is offer conjecture. Maybe one school isn't better, they just pass students while the other one is more stringent. And this is perhaps the source of our disagreement. You seem to be focused on these tests handicapping students which I agree is a misappropriation of their best use.

Their best use is as a governance tool to see how schools, teachers, and districts are performing. For their individual teaching methods, if subjectivity works best with different learning styles that's fine. I don't mind one set of students listening to a droning lecture and another playing a skill/knowledge based game IF that's how they work the best.

But that said, college and their eventual employers will expect them to meet a certain baseline and failing that, those students are handicapped in the job market. So as much as I can appreciate things like ESL, socioeconomic status, and learning disability it doesn't do a lot of good to pretend we get to ignore those aspects until the students are technically adults. That prepares them for a world that does not, and will not ever exist.

I would flatly disagree that an SAT demonstrates the ability to take a test exclusively and nothing about learning however. If you can't understand writing, good look with it. Years ago, if your vocabulary wasn't up to snuff, your odds of surviving the analogies section was quite low. And that section was removed from the test. Oddly, it was the biggest advantage avid readers had in the test to highlight a skill they had developed. It may not be learning everyone excels at, but those tests do demonstrate learned skills. The difference is, some kids take entire courses dedicated to gaming those tests. And to be fair, most of those skills could be taught for taking ANY multiple choice test. That's just when some kids get around to learning those tricks. And it doesn't make tests invalid, it simply shows human beings that are competitive will use every tool available to excel.

Not to mention, those tests often highlight a segment of students often left behind by their school in that they severely over-perform on these tests compared to what their grades should indicate. It's not even that amazing. Schools on their best days are systems and even the best systems fail many students. A person who has a problem with a HST but has good grades can always point to their grades. But person who may have iffy grades without HST has nothing to point to. And history has borne out that many of those students ARE capable and even excel in the rigors of college.

Which is why I will never get behind the idea of the abolition of the HST. I would simply agree its use needs to not be misappropriated to punish students. It should be additional diagnostic information that can be used in crafting better educational policies and decisions. We know that pressure can make very intelligent people make mistakes. It can also highlight kids with hidden faculties. So focussing someones entire future on a single test is myopic at best. It ignores the reality of what pressure does.

[Kheldarson]

There seems to be a bit of confusion as to whether or not I'm suggesting a test is a learning tool or a diagnostic. So we're not quite arguing with each other. We're arguing what we think the other person is talking about. We have completely different goals in this discussion. You're speaking about students and I'm speaking of the schools themselves.

It's the same thing. Schools exist for the sake of the children. We want our schools to do well in order to know that our students will do or are doing well. And the tests are used on the students, so again, the tests are about the students and then being applied to the schools. You can't say "Well, we just want to know how the schools are doing" and ignore the effect on the teachers and students.

Statistics tell us a lot of things. If the general scores of two schools in different regions look different with roughly the same socioeconomic demographics, what is the cause? It's why I have problems with NCLB but I find testing a good thing. Without any sort of unifying statistic, the best I can do is offer conjecture. Maybe one school isn't better, they just pass students while the other one is more stringent. And this is perhaps the source of our disagreement. You seem to be focused on these tests handicapping students which I agree is a misappropriation of their best use.

Their best use is as a governance tool to see how schools, teachers, and districts are performing. For their individual teaching methods, if subjectivity works best with different learning styles that's fine. I don't mind one set of students listening to a droning lecture and another playing a skill/knowledge based game IF that's how they work the best.

Remember how I mentioned Finland in my earlier post? They don't use HSTs
. They take a sample of the testing that the teachers themselves design for the students throughout the year and then have one major test at the end of high school. And high school itself is voluntary. Yet, they rank as the number one school for reading, math, and science!

So again, we have a battery of tests which we employ in the name of "gaining stats" which don't actually tell us why one school is failing over the other. Can these tests tell me why one student is struggling over math and another reading? No. And frankly, all it may be telling me is that that student struggled with taking the test because they were anxious.

But that said, college and their eventual employers will expect them to meet a certain baseline and failing that, those students are handicapped in the job market. So as much as I can appreciate things like ESL, socioeconomic status, and learning disability it doesn't do a lot of good to pretend we get to ignore those aspects until the students are technically adults. That prepares them for a world that does not, and will not ever exist.

Again, see Finland. And I'm not saying we ignore these stats, but honestly, there are better ways of handling these problems than saying "Here's a test, fix the problems in a year or lose funding." It just teaches students that we don't care about their true learning.

I would flatly disagree that an SAT demonstrates the ability to take a test exclusively and nothing about learning however. If you can't understand writing, good look with it. Years ago, if your vocabulary wasn't up to snuff, your odds of surviving the analogies section was quite low. And that section was removed from the test. Oddly, it was the biggest advantage avid readers had in the test to highlight a skill they had developed. It may not be learning everyone excels at, but those tests do demonstrate learned skills. The difference is, some kids take entire courses dedicated to gaming those tests. And to be fair, most of those skills could be taught for taking ANY multiple choice test. That's just when some kids get around to learning those tricks. And it doesn't make tests invalid, it simply shows human beings that are competitive will use every tool available to excel.

Not to mention, those tests often highlight a segment of students often left behind by their school in that they severely over-perform on these tests compared to what their grades should indicate. It's not even that amazing. Schools on their best days are systems and even the best systems fail many students. A person who has a problem with a HST but has good grades can always point to their grades. But person who may have iffy grades without HST has nothing to point to. And history has borne out that many of those students ARE capable and even excel in the rigors of college.

Not really. But honestly, given that the SAT and ACT are voluntary tests, I'm not too concerned with them. If colleges want to use them, great. Nobody has to go to college. They're a truly separate issue to HSTs as a whole. They're more included as part of the whole package for me, honestly.

Which is why I will never get behind the idea of the abolition of the HST. I would simply agree its use needs to not be misappropriated to punish students. It should be additional diagnostic information that can be used in crafting better educational policies and decisions. We know that pressure can make very intelligent people make mistakes. It can also highlight kids with hidden faculties. So focussing someones entire future on a single test is myopic at best. It ignores the reality of what pressure does.

But that's ignoring the reality. As long as we say to include HSTs, we're giving politicians the perfect easy fix. And honestly, the tests don't really help with giving an educator any detailed information about a child's or class's ability because it comes too late. We take these tests at the end of the year and the results arrive either just before or just after school ends. Oh, but I, as the educator, have to totally make up for their failings with the next class and hope that they don't necessarily have their own issues because that'll be what I'm supposed to focus on the next year. And depending on your subject area, frankly, the class your old class is now in may be on a totally different topic area than yours, so the student still misses out on the information.

So it's unneeded pressure, can't be used to tell us what we really want to know about students, gives politicians an easy out, and, frankly, is a backwards method to improving education and has been proven unnecessary entirely in other countries that are better than us in education.

[HYHYBT]

One problem with them is that they only cover very specific areas of learning. So long as that is true, and so long as schools are evaluated by how students do on those tests, those points will be overemphasized at the expense of everything else.

Also, if I understand rightly, they're multiple choice, which is not the best way to test most things anyway. A lot of the results wind up depending as much on being good at picking out which of the offered choices is best as on knowing the right answer (or how to find it) yourself.