15 Reasons Why Standardized Tests Are Worthless

It seems that everybody is talking about test results these days.  The No Child Left Behind Law (NCLB) requires schools to make "adequate yearly progress" on standardized tests in reading and math (next year in science as well).  Local newspapers regularly post the standardized test scores of area schools.  Property values are sometimes tied to these test results.  Parents are doubtful of any innovations in schooling that do not in some way boost test scores.  But folks, the truth of the matter is that standardized tests are worthless, utterly worthless!   Here are 15 reasons why:

1. Because students know that test scores may affect their future lives, they do whatever they can to pass them, including cheating and taking performance drugs (e.g. psychostimulants like Ritalin "borrowed" from their friends).

2. Because teachers know that test scores may affect their salaries and job security, they also cheat (see the best-seller Freakonomics for some interesting statistics on this).

3. Standardized tests don't provide any feedback on how to perform better.  The results aren't even given back to the teachers and students until months later, and there are no instructions provided  by test companies on how to improve these test scores.

4. Standardized tests don't value creativity.  A student who writes a more creative answer in the margins of such a test, doesn't realize that a human being won't even see this creative response; that machines grade these tests, and a creative response that doesn't follow the format is a wrong response.

5. Standardized tests don't value diversity.  There are a wide range of differences in the people who take standardized tests:  they have different cultural backgrounds, different levels of proficiency in the English language, different learning and thinking styles, different family backgrounds, different past experiences.  And yet the standardized test treats them as if they were all identical; identical to the group that took the test several years ago, and to which the test has been "normed" (e.g. this original group is the "norm group" against which any future test-takers are to be compared). 

6. Standardized tests favor those who have socio-economic advantages.  Test companies (a multi-billion dollar a year industry) not only manufacture the tests, they also manufacture the courses and programs that can be taken to "prepare for the test."  If you have the money, you can even get special tutors that will help you do well on a test.  If you don't have the money, and your school is in a low socio-economic area that gets less funding than rich suburban schools, then you're not getting the same preparation for the test as those at the higher socio-economic levels do.

7. Because so much emphasis is placed on standardized test results these days, teachers are spending more and more time "teaching to the test."  If there is something that is interesting, compelling, useful, or otherwise favorable to the development of a student's understanding of the world, but it is not going to be on the standardized test, then there really isn't any incentive to cover this material.  Instead, most of classroom time consists of either taking the tests or preparing for the tests, and this shuts out the possibility of learning anything new or important.  For example, because the No Child Left Behind Law (NCLB) only tests reading and math (and next year science), that means that art, social studies, physical education, history, and other subjects are given far less attention than used to be the case.

8.  Standardized tests occur in an artificial learning environment:  they're timed, you can't talk to a fellow student, you can't ask questions, you can't use references or learning devices, you can't get up and move around.  How often does the real world look like this?  Prisons come to mind.  And yet, even the most hard-headed conservative will say that education must prepare students for "the real world." Clearly standardized testing doesn't do this.

9.  Standardized tests create stress.  Some kids do well with a certain level of stress.  Other students fold.  So, again, there isn't a level playing field.  Brain research suggests that too much stress is psychologically and physically harmful.  And when stress becomes overwhelming, the brain shifts into a "fight or flight" response, where it is impossible to engage in the higher-order thinking processes that are necessary to respond correctly to the standardized test questions.

10.  Standardized tests reduce the richness of human experience and human learning to a number or set of numbers.  This is dehumanizing.  A student may have a deep knowledge of a particular subject, but receive no acknowledgement for it because his or her test score may have been low.  If the student were able to draw a picture, lead a group discussion, or create a hands-on project, he/she could show that knowledge.  But not in a standardized testing room.  Tough luck.

11. Standardized tests weren't developed by geniuses. They were developed by mediocre minds.  One of the pioneers of standardized testing in this country, Lewis Terman, was a racist (the book to read is The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould).  Another pioneer, Edward Thorndike, was a specialist in rats and mazes.  Just the kind of mind you want your kid to have, right?  Albert Einstein never created a standardized test (although he failed a number of them), and neither did any of the great thinkers of our age or any age.  Standardized tests are usually developed by pedantic researchers with Ph.Ds in educational testing or educational psychology.  If that's the kind of mind you want your child to have, then go for it!

12. Standardized tests provide parents and teachers with a false sense of security.  If a student scores well on a test, then it is assumed that they know the material.  However, this may not be true at all.  The student may have simply memorized the fact or formula or trick necessary to do well on the test (some students are naturally gifted in taking standardized tests, others are not).  A group of Harvard graduates were asked why it is colder in the winter and warmer in the summer.  Most of them got the question wrong.  They were good test-takers but didn't understand fundamental principles that required a deeper comprehension (the book to read is The Disciplined Mind: Beyond Facts and Standardized Tests; the K-12 Education that Every Child Deserves by Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner, named in a recent poll one of the 100 greatest intellectuals in the world).

13. Standardized tests exist for administrative, political, and financial purposes, not for educational ones.  Test companies make billions.  Politicians get elected by promising better test results.  Administrators get funding and avoid harsh penalties by boosting test scores.  Everyone benefits except the children.  For them, standardized testing is worthless and worse.

14. Standardized testing creates "winners" and losers."  The losers are those who get labeled as "my low students" "my learning disabled kids," "my reluctant learners."  Even the winners are trapped by being caught up on a tread mill of achievement that they must stay on at all costs through at least sixteen years of schooling, and more often twenty years.  The losers suffer loss of self-esteem, and the damage of "low expectations" (which research shows actually negatively influences performance - the book to read is Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils' Intellectual Development by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson).  The winners suffer loss of soul, since most of them are performing penguins for fast-track parents and may reach midlife on a pinnacle of power and achievement, yet lack any connection to their deeper selves, to ethical principles, to aesthetic feelings, to spiritual aspirations, to compassion, creativity, and/or commitment to life.

15.  Finally, my most important reason that standardized tests are worthless:  During the time that a child is taking a test, he/she could be doing something far more valuable:  actually learning something new and interesting!

So, folks, the next time you have that conversation about testing at your child's school, or pick up the newspaper to read where your district ranks on the latest state-wide tests, or plan your child's future around a program that has the highest test results, think on these things.

Also posted at:  Free Agent U  and The Karl Frank Jr. Communicator 

1

Comments

[Maya Frost]

Fantastic! I couldn't agree more.

Thanks for providing this list and including suggested books.

Cheers!
Maya

www.FreeAgentU.wordpress.com
Free Agent U: Skip the SAT, Save Thousands On Tuition, and Get An Outrageously Relevant College Education

[Karl Frank]

Good article. I posted it on my web site on education issues at http://karlfrankjr.wordpress.com

[concerned citizen]

Are you serious, or trying to be funny? I'll
assume the former.

First of all, a standardized test is no more than
a test administered under uniform conditions and
yielding a score.

Medical diagnostic tests, ranging from blood
pressure measurements to Apgar scorse, are all
"standardized" tests.

A coach having prospective running backs run the
50 yard dash during tryouts is administering a
standardized test.

When you read an eye chart at the DMV you are
taking a standardized test.

The military places recruits in various
specialties depending upon the outcome of a
standardized test. How would you select nuclear
reactor operators from thousands of recruits from
all over the continent?

Medical schools select students based upon the
MCAT. Prior to its existence the dropout rate
was much higher, implying that the wrong people
were being selected (and the wrong people
rejected).

Would you have us get rid of all these test?

>>1. Because students know that test scores may
>>affect their future lives, they do whatever they
>>can to pass them, including cheating and taking
>>performance drugs (e.g. psychostimulants like
>>Ritalin "borrowed" from their friends).

Of course, if there are no STANDARDIZED tests no
one will cheat. If there are no STANDARDIZED
tests then Harvard will accept everyone who
applies and no one will need to cheat. Riiiiight.

>>2. Because teachers know that test scores may
>>affect their salaries and job security, they
>>also cheat (see the best-seller Freakonomics for
>>some interesting statistics on this).

I suppose if we hide the bathroom scales (another
STANDARDIZED test, if it's escaped you) foreigners
will no longer think that Americans are fat,
right?

If there were no standardized tests people will
still notice that recent high school graduates are
idiots and blame teachers anyway.

>>3. Standardized tests don't provide any feedback
>>on how to perform better. The results aren't
>>even given back to the teachers and students
>>until months later, and there are no
>>instructions provided by test companies on how
>>to improve these test scores.

Here you're confusing the way tests are currently
used by some parties with the utility of the tests
themselves. It's like condeming doctors because
of the ways Nazis used them.

>>4. Standardized tests don't value creativity. A

So what? An eye chart doesn't measure how
"creatively" you drive either. It identifies
those too blind to drive.

>>student who writes a more creative answer in the

How do you know it's a more creative answer? Is
this an objective fact?

>>margins of such a test, doesn't realize that a
>>human being won't even see this creative
>>response; that machines grade these tests, and a
>>creative response that doesn't follow the format
>>is a wrong response.

If a group of construction workers is examining
the same set of blue prints do you expect each
hardhat to lend a different, "creative",
interpretation? Accuracy, precision, and
consistency are more important traits than
unfettered "creativity". Even those who need to
be creative need to be accurate and precise first.

>>5. Standardized tests don't value diversity.
>>There are a wide range of differences in the
>>people who take standardized tests: they have
>>different cultural backgrounds, different levels
>>of proficiency in the English language,
>>different learning and thinking styles,
>>different family backgrounds, different past
>>experiences. And yet the standardized test
>>treats them as if they were all identical;
>>identical to the group that took the test
>>several years ago, and to which the test has
>>been "normed" (e.g. this original group is the
>>"norm group" against which any future
>>test-takers are to be compared).

So, the Indian radiologist should interpret the
spot on your scan as a "Gift of Vishnu" while the
American calls it "cancer" and the Mongolian
radiologist finds some other culturally relevant
interpretation. God forbid that they should
agree.

>>6. Standardized tests favor those who have
>>socio-economic advantages. Test companies (a
>>multi-billion dollar a year industry) not only
>>manufacture the tests, they also manufacture the

Opponents of standardized testing also
"manufacture" what they call alternatives to
standardized testing. One of my very favorites is
"portfolio assessment". The thought that the
wealthy won't have a very dramatic advantage here
never crossess the minds of the standardized test
haters. How likely is it that Papa Bush would
have ensured that Georgie would have had an
outstanding portfolio if Yale demanded it?

Also, the manpower involved in portfolio
assessment is incredible and any kind of
consistency is impossible.

>>courses and programs that can be taken to
>>"prepare for the test." If you have the money,
>>you can even get special tutors that will help
>>you do well on a test. If you don't have the

If you have the money you can get someone to
polish your portfolio as well. With an SAT you
still have to show up and perform for 6 hours.

>>money, and your school is in a low
>>socio-economic area that gets less funding than
>>rich suburban schools, then you're not getting
>>the same preparation for the test as those at
>>the higher socio-economic levels do.

>>7. Because so much emphasis is placed on
>>standardized test results these days, teachers
>>are spending more and more time "teaching to the
>>test." If there is something that is

If it's a well-designed test, then what's wrong
with it?

>>interesting, compelling, useful, or otherwise
>>favorable to the development of a student's
>>understanding of the world, but it is not going
>>to be on the standardized test, then there

So put it on the damn test. Are YOU so lacking in
creativity that you can't entertain this
possibility?

>>really isn't any incentive to cover this
>>material. Instead, most of classroom time
>>consists of either taking the tests or preparing
>>for the tests, and this shuts out the
>>possibility of learning anything new or
>>important. For example, because the No Child
>>Left Behind Law (NCLB) only tests reading and
>>math (and next year science), that means that
>>art, social studies, physical education,
>>history, and other subjects are given far less
>>attention than used to be the case.

Again, this is confusing all standardized testing
with the agenda of the Bush administration.

>>8. Standardized tests occur in an artificial
>>learning environment: they're timed, you can't

Of course, there are no deadlines in real life.
The folks at NASA during the Apollo 13 crisis had
all year to perform numerous calculations on slide
rules. No, wait, they didn't.

>>talk to a fellow student, you can't ask
>>questions, you can't use references or learning

Nope. Never does a physician handle a code on a
holiday with no one to help. Never is an
engineer alone at midnight working on a project
that needs to work the next day. Never....

>>devices, you can't get up and move around. How
>>often does the real world look like this?

Tell me, how does it feel to spend your entire
life in kindergarten?

>>Prisons come to mind. And yet, even the most
>>hard-headed conservative will say that education
>>must prepare students for "the real world."
>>Clearly standardized testing doesn't do this.

Clearly you're clueless.

>>9. Standardized tests create stress.

Why is that?

>>10. Standardized tests reduce the richness of
>>human experience and human learning to a number
>>or set of numbers. This is dehumanizing.

I think I'll start humming Kumbaya.

>>student may have a deep knowledge of a
>>particular subject, but receive no
>>acknowledgement for it because his or her test
>>score may have been low. If the student were
>>able to draw a picture, lead a group discussion,
>>or create a hands-on project, he/she could show
>>that knowledge. But not in a standardized
>>testing room. Tough luck.

I suppose there's a really strong guy out there
who's just really bad at those STANDARDIZED ways
of measuring strength, like bench presses, squats,
rope-climbing. Really sucks to be him.

>>11. Standardized tests weren't developed by
>>geniuses. They were developed by mediocre minds.

My, what hubris.

>>One of the pioneers of standardized testing in
>>this country, Lewis Terman, was a racist (the

Hitler had a major hand in the existence of the
Volkswagen bug. Quick, if you own a VW, get rid
of it. it's bad.

>>book to read is the mismeasure of man by stephen
>>jay gould). another pioneer, edward thorndike,
>>was a specialist in rats and mazes. just the
>>kind of mind you want your kid to have, right?

So is a proctologist a butt-head?

>>albert einstein never created a standardized
>>test (although he failed a number of them), and

He passed the test to get into the ETH.

>>neither did any of the great thinkers of our age
>>or any age.

Really? they all flunked? riigght.

>> standardized tests are usually
>>developed by pedantic researchers with ph.ds in
>>educational testing or educational psychology.
>>if that's the kind of mind you want your child
>>to have, then go for it!

And what exactly are you?

>>12. standardized tests provide parents and
>>teachers with a false sense of security. if a
>>student scores well on a test, then it is
>>assumed that they know the material. however,

Of course, if there were no standardized tests, we
could THEN assume they know the material.

Only if we remove all the blood pressure cuffs can
we be sure that our hypertension is under control.

>>this may not be true at all. the student may
>>have simply memorized the fact or formula or

Of course this can never happen with "alternative
assessments". Never.

>>trick necessary to do well on the test (some
>>students are naturally gifted in taking
>>standardized tests, others are not). a group of

Some people are naturally good at bench pressing
jaw-dropping weights. They're weaklings, of
course.

>>harvard graduates were asked why it is colder in
>>the winter and warmer in the summer. most of
>>them got the question wrong. they were good

As if a few well-written multiple choice questions
wouldn't identify these people.

So what you're telling me is that all these kids
did at Harvard was take standardized tests and
this is why they're so stupid?

>>test-takers but didn't understand fundamental
>>principles that required a deeper comprehension
>>(the book to read is the disciplined mind:
>>beyond facts and standardized tests; the k-12
>>education that every child deserves by harvard
>>psychologist howard gardner, named in a recent
>>poll one of the 100 greatest intellectuals in
>>the world).

>>13. Standardized tests exist for administrative,
>>political, and financial purposes, not for
>>educational ones. Test companies make billions.

You and guys like Alfie Kohn apparently make a
living spouting what you spout.

>>Politicians get elected by promising better test
>>results. Administrators get funding and avoid
>>harsh penalties by boosting test scores.
>>Everyone benefits except the children. For
>>them, standardized testing is worthless and
>>worse.

So what's your alternative?

>>14. Standardized testing creates "winners" and
>>losers." The losers are those who get labeled

So when you choose a surgeon, don't you choose the
"best"?

>>as "my low students" "my learning disabled
>>kids," "my reluctant learners." Even the
>>winners are trapped by being caught up on a
>>tread mill of achievement that they must stay on
>>at all costs through at least sixteen years of
>>schooling, and more often twenty years. The
>>losers suffer loss of self-esteem, and the
>>damage of "low expectations" (which research
>>shows actually negatively influences performance
>>- the book to read is Pygmalion in the
>>Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils'
>>Intellectual Development by Robert Rosenthal and
>>Lenore Jacobson). The winners suffer loss of
>>soul, since most of them are performing penguins
>>for fast-track parents and may reach midlife on
>>a pinnacle of power and achievement, yet lack
>>any connection to their deeper selves, to
>>ethical principles, to aesthetic feelings, to
>>spiritual aspirations, to compassion,
>>creativity, and/or commitment to life.

Yeah, yeah, yeah....

>>15. Finally, my most important reason that
>>standardized tests are worthless: During the
>>time that a child is taking a test, he/she could
>>be doing something far more valuable: actually
>>learning something new and interesting!

Like the lyrics to the new 50-cent single?

[Thomas Armstrong]

Thanks "concerned citizen" for such a complete refutation to my views. I'd like to respond to them. a. yes I am serious; b. standardized tests (ST) are not administered under uniform conditions - it may have been raining that day, the test-administrator may have been a Soup Nazi, the test-takers most certainly were not identical to the person taking the test today; c. I don't have a problem with ST in medical school, for air traffic control, or other adult roles; I do have a problem with using ST with third-graders who need to work with real situations, and not fake ones like ST; 1. people will still cheat, they'll get other people to do their portfolios or whatever other standard of assessment is used; but it will be harder to cheat; it's easier to change a number from 29 to 92 than it is to fake a lab summary, or book report, or short story, or painting, or student-run history seminar, especially if it's performance-based (e.g. the teacher is watching while the student explains a historical, mathematical, literary principle etc.; 2. if you use portfolios instead of ST, people will recognize whether high school students know their stuff better than with STs; kids can get high STs and still not know their stuff; it's harder to fake a good portfolio of work accomplished; 3. show me a widely used (national/international) ST that comes with full instructions on how to get a better score, and I will grant you this point; 4. all of your counter-examples are positivist (e.g. where exactitude reigns supreme); for a third grader, it's more important that we develop their creativity; forget eye charts, schools aren't asking students for the one REAL answer, but to generate thoughtful replies that can respond to life's complexity; also, I'm not talking about "unfettered" creativity, whatever that is; I'm talking about creativity, you know, that thing that gave us the theory of relativity, the Brooklyln Bridge, the alarm clock, and just about every other new thing in the world. 5. again you're using positivist examples, most of the world is not structured this way; Picasso's Guerenica and Duccio's Maesta are both works of genius, but reflect worlds of difference in terms of individual styles; methinks you need a seminar on the subject of creativity and individual differences; 6. there have been very careful worked out protocols for inter-rater reliability for portfolios, even those that reflect wide differences in style; yes, the rich will always win out, no matter what game, however, I suspect Bushie, unless he faked his portfolio like he did his urine tests in the military, would have a harder time producing real works of writing, art, science, in a portfolio format; at least we'd have a chance to look at his real work and compare it to the average sixth grader! 7. I'm not lacking in creativity, but creators of STs certainly are; show me some compelling, fascinating, interesting, items on an ST and you'll start going somewhere with this argument; 8. most of life is not timed (unless of course you're OCD); assessment in the schools should reflect what goes on in the real world; 9. tests create stress because a part of the brain called the "flight or fight" brain goes into action; it's the part of the brain that was designed to run away from tigers, not from STs, and it causes downshifting of the brain from the neocortex to the limbic system; when you're in your fight or flight brain you can't think straight so you're in no position to answer items on a ST 10. instead of humming Kumbaya, why don't you start thinking about what it means to be a human being? these days a lot of people think it means someone who makes a lot of money, who isn't a loser, and who has a lot of power; time to brush up on your Socrates, Thomas More, and Virginia Woolf; 11. Hitler didn't use the Volkswagon bus to slaughter innocent people; but Terman's test was used to keep intelligent people from access to education, and even to keep Jews out of this country who were escaping Nazi Germany (see Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man); 12. believe it or not, it IS possible to know if somebody can read, or do math, without giving them a ST; you ask them to read or do a math problem, and see if they can do it; 13. you use an ad hominem argument here; that is, if you don't have a real argument, you "attack the man"; my alternative is to observe and document the actual learning that is going on, and report that to teachers, parents, politicians, and children; 14. you've used a lot of medical examples here, yes I want a "winner" for a surgeon, I don't want someone who didn't want to be a surgeon, but his family pressured him into it, gave him test tutoring, which gave him high test scores, and now he's operating on me but wishes he was a forest ranger! by the way, yeah, yeah, yeah, is not an argument 15. the lyrics to the new 50-cent single is not something "new and interesting" - what's new and interesting is: string theory, new theories of the origin of life, genetic engineering, Thomas Pynchon's new novel, the latest Newberry Prize winner in children's literature, the U.S. presidential election, the latest biography of Werner von Braun etc. etc. etc.

P.S. I stand corrected: Volkswagon plants during WWII DID use Jewish slavor labor; boycott Volkswagon!!

[concerned citizen]

>>Thanks "concerned citizen" for such a complete
>>refutation to my views. I'd like to respond to
>>them. a. yes I am serious; b. standardized tests
>>(ST) are not administered under uniform conditions

They are administered under far more uniform
conditions than any alternatives anybody has ever
suggested. Unless you don't want alternatives,
period.

>>- it may have been raining that day, the
>>test-administrator may have been a Soup Nazi, the

As someone who's administered SATs I can assure
you that my actions were scripted to the letter.

>>test-takers most certainly were not identical to
>>the person taking the test today; c. I don't have
>>a problem with ST in medical school, for air
>>traffic control, or other adult roles; I do have a
>>problem with using ST with third-graders who need

You weren't specific about this in your post. I
don't have much experience with 3rd graders, but
the anti-ST crowd seems hell bent on eliminating
all STs.

>>to work with real situations, and not fake ones

What are "real situations" vs "fake ones"? How
does multiplying two numbers in a "real
situation" differ from doing it in a "fake one?"

>>like ST; 1. people will still cheat, they'll get
>>other people to do their portfolios or whatever
>>other standard of assessment is used; but it will
>>be harder to cheat; it's easier to change a number

Huh? I happen to be a teacher, BTW, and
"projects" of all sorts are filled with
plaigarism, fluff, and parental help. It's
impossible to figure out how much of what is the
student's own work. Students who can't multiply
by ten when alone miraculously look like geniuses
on projects.

It's much harder for them to cheat when I give
them a Regents-question filled test with multiple
versions.

>>it is to fake a lab summary, or

Sure, if the student is alone in the laboratory
and must hand in the report prior to leaving.
Unless these are the conditions under which all
students perform labs, don't tell me that labs
can't be faked.

>>book report, or short story, or painting, or
>>student-run history seminar, especially if it's
>>performance-based (e.g. the teacher is watching
>>while the student explains a historical,

So we're all supposed to just settle for teachers'
subjective opinions of students' knowledge. Do
you really think that a "B" student in my class
may not be a "C" student in someone else's, and an
"A" student somewhere else still? And that these
completely subjective distinctions can have
consequences for students?

>>mathematical, literary principle etc.; 2. if you
>>use portfolios instead of ST, people will
>>recognize whether high school students know their
>>stuff better than with STs; kids can get high STs
>>and still not know their stuff; it's harder to

This would hold very true if the world was filled
with only ten students and you, and you had all
the time in the world to seriously peruse each and
every portfolio. But that's not how the world
is. Once your students leave your class other
parties -- teachers down the pipe, colleges,
employers, military, etc, need some way to sort
out potentially tens of thousands of participants.
Choosing the "best" ten out of 100 of anything
involves the process of sorting 100 items, and
this involves on the order of 10,000 comparisons.
Try it sometime.

Last year we had our active physics students do a
project where they were supposed to build a
cardboard house. Two other teachers and I were
to pick out the "best" two out of about 10.
There was not a shred of common ground between the
three of us and it was time consuming. Now
multiply that effort by thousands.

>>fake a good portfolio of work accomplished; 3.
>>show me a widely used (national/international) ST
>>that comes with full instructions on how to get a
>>better score, and I will grant you this point; 4.
>>all of your counter-examples are positivist (e.g.
>>where exactitude reigns supreme); for a third

As if exactitude doesn't count.

>>grader, it's more important that we develop their
>>creativity; forget eye charts, schools aren't
>>asking students for the one REAL answer, but to
>>generate thoughtful replies that can respond to

Ever hear of Project Follow Through?
Methodologies that stressed "higher order"
thinking instead of basic skills achieved neither.
I've seen schools trying to "teach" creativity.
It's little more than perpetual kindergarten.

>>life's complexity; also, I'm not talking about
>>"unfettered" creativity, whatever that is; I'mti

I have a friend who teaches in the South Bronx.
The kids there don't know who the President is
(but they're quite confident that the President
lives in the Bronx). Yet the school's focus is
on getting the kids to be "creative" writers to
the near exclusion of "mere facts and skills."
How many of them do you think will go on to be
published authors?

>>talking about creativity, you know, that thing
>>that gave us the theory of relativity, the
>>Brooklyln Bridge, the alarm clock, and just about
>>every other new thing in the world.

Of course. Everybody in the country does this.
All the time. All 300 million of us. But
nobody, nobody, reads a blueprint or dispenses
medication.

The only people involved in the building of a
skyscraper are the architects and the interior
decorators. Then -- POOF! -- it exists!

Speaking of relativity. Are you implying that
Einstein was the product of some "creative"
teaching methodology? So why don't the
creativity factories manufacture more?

The reality is that Einstein wasn't manufactured
by some teaching idealogy. All he needed was to
leave Germany and not to have someone coach him
to be creative.

Most people are not Einstein and they will never
be. We won't teach people to be creative geniuses
by avoiding teaching them how to add two fractions
together.

>>5. again
>>you're using positivist examples, most of the
>>world is not structured this way; Picasso's
>>Guerenica and Duccio's Maesta are both works of
>>genius, but reflect worlds of difference in terms

Not everybody needs to be a creative genius. I
don't write poetry, and I don't like reading it.
It hasn't diminished my quality of life one bit.
Also, my lack of creativity in poetry never
endangered anyone else's life, Neanderthals never
showed any interest in art yet survived in a harsh
climate for hundreds of thousands of years.

On the other hand if I couldn't read I couldn't be
able to find employment or read the instructions
on a medication bottle. I might be dead by now.
Plus, if I misread a written instruction I could
harm others.

Reading comprehension -- measurable by STs -- IS
fundamentally more important than how pretty my
Haikus are.

>>of individual styles; methinks you need a seminar
>>on the subject of creativity and individual

Been there, done that, got the Master's Degree in
education to prove it. If I ever invest in a
parrot I have just the thing to line his cage.

>>differences; 6. there have been very careful
>>worked out protocols for inter-rater reliability
>>for portfolios, even those that reflect wide
>>differences in style;

The ivory tower is filled with grand ideas.

Ask any IB science teacher how long it takes to
grade a single lab. And guess what? Labs sent
out for audit often have their grades changed.

>>yes, the rich will always
>>win out, no matter what game, however, I suspect
>>Bushie, unless he faked his portfolio like he did
>>his urine tests in the military, would have a
>>harder time producing real works of writing, art,
>>science, in a portfolio format;

Unless we locked him in a room he and Papa could
fake a lot.

You're overlooking the obvious fact that Yale
would never carefully examine hundreds of
thousands of portfolios. It would limit its
search to "good" schools with boys of "good
breeding", from the kind of prep school that
Georgie attended.

A high SAT score can be identfied from a pot of
millions in a fraction of a second, giving even
someone from the backwoods a shot.

>>7. I'm not lacking in creativity, but creators of
>>STs certainly are;

So create some interesting questions and submit
them.

>>show me some compelling, fascinating, interesting,
>>items on an ST and you'll start going somewhere

Not everything is, or needs to be, compelling,
fascinating, or interesting. As a physics
teacher, among the most important habits/skills
that I can teach them is to mind their units and
perform their conversions correctly. This is far
from "fascinating", but it's a necessary condition
for them to be able to do anything further in the
course. Plus, even those who never pursue
physics ever again may likely use this skill.
Eg, calculated doses in medicine. Someone of my
acuaintance took her 50 lb son to the emergency
room and watched as a nurse nearly administered a
dose appropriate for a linebacker. A refueling
crew in Canada screwed up a pounds to liters
conversion and an airliner (with passengers) ran
out of fuel over Calgary. You think these skills
aren't important because you don't find them
"compelling"? The world doesn't exist for your
amusement and entertainment.

>>8. most of life is not timed

So we all have an infinite time to do everything.
Check.

If it takes one prospective engineer 20 seconds to
comprehend a v-t diagram and it takes another 20
minutes to get a grip on the same, you don't think
the latter will have problems relative to the
first?

If it takes you 20 minutes to read a graph how
will you deal with a task that involves reading
and interpreting dozens of graphs?

>>(unless of course you're OCD);

So deadlines exist only for people with OCD?

>>9. tests create stress because a part of
>>the brain called the "flight or fight" brain goes

People get stressed because they think they won't
get into Harvard if they do badly. What they
don't realize is that whether ST are used or not,
there is a limit on how many students Harvard will
accept. You will have just as many people not
going to Harvard.

>>your fight or flight brain you can't think
>>straight so you're in no position to answer items
>>on a ST

So everyone's so stressed out they do badly on
them? Clearly, some people do very well. Has it
dawned on you that the ability to work under such
conditions and for that length of time is
valuable?

>>10. instead of humming Kumbaya, why don't
>>you start thinking about what it means to be a
>>human being? these days a lot of people think it
>>means someone who makes a lot of money, who isn't
>>a loser, and who has a lot of power; time to brush
>>up on your Socrates, Thomas More, and Virginia
>>Woolf;

I think it's time for you realize that each and
every day your life and safety depend upon
countless people doing some task that you
arrogantly consider uninteresting, and doing so
accurately and consistently. It is thanks to
them that people like have the leisure to
contemplate your Virginia Woolf.

>>11. Hitler didn't use the Volkswagon bus to
>>slaughter innocent people; but Terman's test was
>>used to keep intelligent people from access to
>>education,

The MCAT keeps certain people out of medical
school. But prior to the MCAT OTHER people were
rejected -- many of whom were probably
intelligent.

>>a ST; you ask them to read or do a math problem,
>>and see if they can do it;

So asking them to do it, and asking them to do it
on a ST are so radically different?

Some of the tests I give are straight out of old
Regents examinations -- standardized physics
tests. Yet the students who ace these are the
very students who answer correctly in class, do
problems correctly on the board, tutor classmates,
and ask intelligent questions. The correlation
is excellent.

Grading as it is is so time consuming that it
detracts from --- tada -- teaching. Yet were I
to try to implement your suggestions I would do
nothing but grade.

Do you really think I have the time to
individually "interview" each student to see what
each one knows, week by week, throughout the
course? And that other parties do the same after
they graduate?

>>13. you use an ad hominem argument here;

My apologies.

>>that is, if you don't have
>>a real argument, you "attack the man"; my

>>I know what ad hominem means.
>>alternative is to observe and document the actual
>>learning that is going on, and report that to
>>teachers, parents, politicians, and children;

The anti-ST crowd loves to pretend that where
there is no ST, there is "real" learning. I had
the opportunity to spend a few weeks observing at
a school dedicated to this philosopy. There was
a true believer there who told me that his
chemistry students knew more "real" chemistry
than kids studying for Regents examinations. All
I saw his kids ever do was some "project" where
they were dissolving the shells off M&Ms in water
-- the kind of thing you see kids do in the
cafeteria. Not once did I hear a single kid
utter the name of an element, compound, or
reaction, and all they talked about was their
personal lives and their friends. THis was a
high school. I've since seen 7th graders who
could do, and knew, far more.

>>14. you've used a lot of medical examples here, yes I
>>want a "winner" for a surgeon, I don't want

The reason I ask that is because the anti-ST
crowd object to ST on the grounds they are
norm-referenced, as though nothing in life is.

>>someone who didn't want to be a surgeon, but his
>>family pressured him into it, gave him test

And getting rid of ST will get rid of people like
this? I bet more people like this would get in.

I have a kid in one of my classes like this,
although I think he wants be a doctor because of
the prestige and money. He shows next to no
interest in physics, and told me he hated
chemistry. Other science teachers and I don't
think he deserves to be a doctor, but we're
confident that the MCAT will weed him out if he
doesn't change his tune over the next four years.
Without the MCAT, I think he might get in, because
he's very slick and would make a good politician.

>>15. the lyrics to the new 50-cent single
>>is not something "new and interesting" - what's

It is interesting to some people. At the school
where I observed -- the anti-ST one -- students
are supposed to do "senior projects" where they
can do what interests them. The school takes
great pride in these. "String theory, new
theories of the origin of life, genetic
engineering". Surely you jest. Try wrestling (the
Hulk hogan variety, the kid videotapted himself
being tossed around a ring), Poker (kid learned to
play poker), comic books (kid spread out his
Japanese comic books on a table), radicalism (some
kid joined a radical islamic - "death to Israel"
-- type of group and brought piles of their
literature in), belly dancing (some girl
videotaped her dance lesson), Some other girl
learned to do guys' haircuts with clippers. Some
kid took a motorcycle transmission apart and had
the pieces spread on a table. When I was a kid
that was called "shop", but here, suddenly, it's
intellectual achievement at its highest.

And I'm sure there are some who did their projects
on some rapper.

[Allison]

"Concerned citizen," may I have your name? I'm writing an essay against the abolishment of standardized tests, the SAT in particular. I'd like to quote you.

[Grey]

Where can I go to look at your sources? You make some good claims, but they're not even worth arguing if you don't have any quality sources to back them up.

[Katie]

Wow. I happened upon this argument by chance. I can't wait to show it to my department.