Are Standardized Tests good for education as a whole
Yes
Side Score: 25
|
 |
No
Side Score: 26
|
|
|
|
|
Even though they aren't by any means the most effective way possible to measure learning ability/knowledge for an individual student, they are the most effective method we have. They are easy to distribute to an ever-increasing student population, they encourage competition, and they do provide a degree of information about student's ability. Education would undoubtedly be better if more attention could be given to each individual student, but that would be too inefficient. Side: Yes
5
points
I think Standardized tests are useful for statistics etc. and for knowing where improvement is needed in what subjects. It may be true that scores in large part represent how well people test, but the difference would indicate what was lacking. My elementary school did a language arts test and because we were below average they reformed some of the curriculum and now grades have improved. Side: Yes
Standardized tests are helpful to the administration and instructors. They let them know how they're doing or how much trouble their students are in. They do not indicate intelligence, ability, creativity, or wisdom of the students. However, the worst thing an educational system can do is "teach to the test." All that does is mask any real problems the system might have. I think that standardized tests should continue, but not be a prerequisite for a student to move on to the next grade or graduate. One of the basic problems of the educational system (and there are numerous) is the assumption that grade level and academic achievement are synonymous. Grade level is merely an age-related developmental creche. The actual intellectual and academic levels will naturally vary based on the bell curve in any subject or measurable element. Rather than punishing a child who learns slower/faster by forcing him/her into a different age group, the system should adapt and provide the appropriate learning materials appropriate for whatever educational level the student is at. Think of a group of college Sophomores all around 19 or 20 who are each learning different parts of mathematics: one is in algebra; one is in advanced calculus; one is in trigonometry; and one is in business math. They learn at the level they are at, not some age-specific test that does not meet their capabilities. Side: Yes
1
point
|
6
points
To sum up what FairTest http://tinyurl.com/5d9vqk says about this issue is that they are not Objective because they are written by Subjective human beings. They don't encourage the teaching of thinking as much as the teaching of facts to memorize, and they don't take into account special needs children. Side: No
6
points
The raw test scores speak for themselves. The interpretations are what count -- I am dyslexic, and I have "ADHD" [something I don't consider to be a true affliction, and I like myself the way I am]. I got a 2200 on the SATs. I don't do well in school, my GPA is a 2.8. I'm glad that I have the SATs to prove that there is something wrong with the memorization-based education system I am part of. I constantly get great marks on class participation, and I'm very knowledgeable about the class materials I learn at school. However, when it comes to the written testing sections, I grossly under perform, occasionally falling but usually getting around a 75% on important chapter or semester tests. This is even on subjects I am completely at ease with, and for tests I feel ready for. If there is a "special needs" student who bombs the SATs, why not just mention to the college or employer that the kid is less likely to do well on the SATs than someone who doesn't have dyslexia / asperger's / down syndrome? "Standardized Tests" means that they are a standard; a baseline. If someone has specific needs, and the needs mean the child gets an easier test, it's no longer a Standard. It's like data exploration -- while the statistics remain the same, the outcomes and how the data is analyzed is what really makes the case. Getting a 1600 on the SATs if you have a serious psychological problem isn't bad -- and it in fact shows that you can perform as well as many kids who are "normal". Side: Yes
2
points
Standardized tests do nothing more than score a student's test-taking abilities and their luck. Very intelligent people often do poorly on these tests not for lack of competence but for merely not knowing how to take the test and happening to not remember certain facts. Why do you think that SAT preparation classes are so popular? This is why I believe that tools such as CreateDebate are so important for the rising generation. It teaches you how to think, articulate a point, and deal with criticism all the while having time to thoroughly research and organize your thoughts, all of which the public school system and standardized testing dearly lacks. Side: No
1
point
You say that they rank nothing but test-taking abilities, but I don't really think this is the case. I am not at all good at taking tests [as shown by my grades], but the reasoning section of the Standardized Tests [SAT I] DO test logic and ability to reason. The vocabulary section is a great test of words you'd pick up in an intelligent conversation. A friend of mine paid good money and took SAT classes for a two month time period. She went from a 1800 score to a 2300. However, the school didn't teach her "how to take the SATs", it taught her the material that MIGHT be on the SATs - a very broad education infused with diverse vocabulary. Within the two month time period, she started working more and more vocabulary into her vernacular, her reasoning skills got better, and she had an air of intellectualism about her. Sure, she took "SAT class" for the SATs, but it really taught her some great things about language and speaking. So, come SATs, she definitely got a better grade, but it still represented what the SATs are meant to represent -- the level of understanding in the areas of reasoning and the English language. The things you're arguing aren't against the SAT as a method of taking tests, but an argument against the interpretation of SAT scores. SATs are a great way for getting a pretty specific idea of how a student takes a test and how well he or she uses logic and reasoning. It SHOULDN'T be the basis of how smart a student is, but there is definitely a pretty close correlation between intelligence and SAT scores. Sure, there are few kids who get lucky and get an extra hundred points, and there are the smart kids who don't take the SATs seriously and don't do well. However, the question is "are SATs good for education as a whole", and I don't think that the tests themselves do any harm. They are a cheap and efficient [not a long test] way to rank and assess whatever subject it attempts to assess. For the underfunded American public school system, it's a good system -- computerized, well administered, quick and easy. People shouldn't base intelligence off of SATs, but they do give a pretty good idea. Side: Yes
Standardized tests are ineffective because they don't gauge the proper indicator of intellect. School is not a place where knowledge is taught, but where skills are learned. For instance, there is a skill in programming, a skill in reading, a skill in skimming. If there was a concentration on skills rather than knowledge, there would unquestionably a growth in the intellectual capacity in the student body today. Who here remembers what their teachers taught them in the 6th grade? Yeah. Now, who remembers what grade they learned to read? College is really the environment where people learn knowledge, and by knowledge I mean subjects that the common citizen does not access on a regular basis (like differential calculus). If schools instead concentrated on creating the most competent learners rather than the most knowledgeable students, the students would be far better prepared to take advantage of the higher learning offered in college. I have done very well in mathematics classes, and I am always amazed by the simple things people don't see when they look at an equation merely because they haven't been taught that skill. I only know how to take apart an equation because I had to learn that skill in order to be successful in math, but the inherent skill wasn't hard to learn in the least, and it didn't involve advanced mathematics knowledge at all. Standardized tests concentrate not on the skills learned, but on the knowledge gained. That knowledge, too often, is forgotten over the summer or forsaken when cramming for the next test. A skill is like riding a bike: you can't forget how to do it. P.S. for those of you who say some people don't go to college, that is true. They, however, still have the skills that can help them in any environment, business or academic. Its not like you read only in college. Side: No
While standardized tests are useful for some purposes, experience shows that more and more often teachers neglect to teach anything beyond the tests. In Florida for example, scarcely a day goes by without some mention of the FCAT (Florida's standardized test). Teachers don't bother to teach anything that won't be on the FCAT, despite the fact that the test is designed to be relatively easy to pass by the majority of students. This emphasis on "passing the test" is not a good thing for education systems. The purpose of schools is not, as most people seem to think, to pass the SAT, or the ACT or any other test. Or even to simply get a piece of paper. It's to learn. A diploma should be proof that a student has learned something not that they managed to get through courses that have been tailored to fit very narrow testing criteria. Side: No
This is true, but with the education system set up the way it is now, it would be quite impossible to analyze every single student in a way that would accurately measure their learning ability and knowledge. This is done partially in free response questions, such as on the SAT and AP exams, but a free response question covering material for an entire high school career or even a single course would be too lengthy to be accurately scored in a reasonable amount of time. Side: No
This is true, but with the education system set up the way it is now, it would be quite impossible to analyze every single student in a way that would accurately measure their learning ability and knowledge. This is done partially in free response questions, such as on the SAT and AP exams, but a free response question covering material for an entire high school career or even a single course would be too lengthy to be accurately scored in a reasonable amount of time. Side: No
1
point
Standardized tests really prove NOTHING. In Texas you have to pass TAKS in each grade and when you get to your junior year of high school you have to pass Exit Level TAKS if you don't then you take it your senior year. Once you fail again then you don't graduate. Year it's a test to test where you are as a student but think about the student that get nervous when they see a huge test. Another big thing they don't split them up. They give the test day after day for a whole week. Some kids minds don't work like that. Exactly why some school scores are low. We take end of semester exams shouldn't that be enough for us to graduate if you pass those instead of TAKS. 1 More thesis in my class i have had multiple straight "A" & "B" students that have failed these test just because of the pressure of them saying "If you don't pass these tests your graduation will be delayed." Just saying stop with these test. Side: No
i am in the 7th grade and i think satndarized tests are stupid .schools rely to hevily on them,they stress kids out, and not all kids are good tests takers.When i take the fcat , they take 2 hours 2 awnser like 5 questions and they re soooo plain .in my school the district requires us to have a coversions worksheet that has formulas for area n stuff theyre just lower the standards .we should be able 2 memorize lenght times width=area .its not that hard.and it makes us feel stupid. Side: No
|
