Timeout for Opt-Outs?

[IIOY]

A new poll suggests that a majority of adults think annual standardized testing is a good thing. They’re not as fond of the opt-out movement.

Americans aren’t as pissed off about standardized testing as headlines often make it seem. In fact, it looks like most of the country’s adults support it. What the public isn’t so fond of are the people who are pissed off—the ones who are so pissed off they’re boycotting the assessments as part of a growing “opt-out movement.”



These are some of the conclusions of a new poll of roughly 4,100 adults, administered by Education Next, a journal out of Stanford’s Hoover Institution, and analyzed by researchers at Harvard’s Kennedy School and Louisiana State’s Public Policy Research Lab. The survey results contain important and often counterintuitive insight into what Americans really think about all the brouhaha surrounding education policy.



As indicated by the public-policy researchers—Louisiana State’s Michael Henderson and Harvard’s Paul Peterson and Martin West—these findings are likely to help shape forthcoming education debates on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. The Senate and House will soon come together to deliberate rewrites to the long-standing federal education law that was most recently rewritten as No Child Left Behind. Since its creation half a century ago, this law, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), has largely widened the gaps it was designed to “bridge.”





The national backlash against testing has been pervasive and hard to ignore. It’s even gotten teacher’s unions and Tea Party Republicans to join forces. In New York, which is said to be the boycott’s epicenter, 20 percent of students in tested grades opted out of the state’s Common Core-aligned exams this past school year. That’s more than 200,000 kids.



Only one in four Americans supports the opt-out movement.


Highly polarized debates over the use of test scores as part of school-reform efforts have stymied efforts to overhaul the ESEA, which was supposed to be reauthorized years ago. Now, Congress is closer than ever to finally doing away with George W. Bush’s version and replacing it with something that gives states more control. But the Senate’s leading proposal—the Every Child Achieves Act—doesn’t reduce the emphasis on testing. And that’s causing major consternation among some Republicans who reason that the federal government’s reliance on test scores for accountability is both counterproductive and universally unpopular. After all, isn’t overtesting a key reason why so many American people believe No Child Left Behind actually worsened education?



For many, exercising the parental right to opt out of testing isn’t only understandable—it’s respectable. The prominent education-policy analyst Diane Ravitch indicated in a blog post earlier this year that if Congress members—and the president and governors and legislators—were to support the opt-out movement, they would be “[hearing] the voice of the people.”





But based on the new poll results, it seems that’s the voice of a relatively small group of people. Only about 25 percent of the general public supports the opt-out movement, while roughly 60 percent opposes it.





The survey findings—which reflect a nationally representative cross-section of American adults—raise questions about the merits of the opt-out movement and its clout in policy talks. Some Senators and Representatives have insisted on rewriting the ESEA in a way that bolsters parents’ opt-out rights. (Under current regulations, schools need to test at least 95 percent of their students.) “The parents know what the system is doing and have a right to inquire,” stated the Republican Senator Johnny Isakson last month, touting the passage of his amendment—a relatively moderate provision that would require better access for parents to test-participation regulations and rights.



The House version of the law’s rewrite includes an amendment that explicitly allows parents nationwide to exempt their kids from testing. The Hill quoted the amendment’s author, the Republican Representative Matt Salmon, as saying, “parents are becoming increasingly fed up with such constant and onerous testing requirements, as well as the teachers.” And efforts to facilitate these exemptions are happening at the state level, too. Oregon, for example, recently passed a law similar to the Isakson amendment.





Nuances are evident once the data is broken down into subgroups. Unsurprisingly, the people who dislike opt-outs the most are Democrats, with 61 percent of them in opposition, versus just 22 percent in support. Parents and teachers in particular are more supportive of opt-outs, with about a third of each group endorsing them (though the objection to it is almost just as strong as that of the general public).



Meanwhile, African Americans and Hispanics (which, along with teachers, were oversampled in the survey) fall somewhere in the middle, and they appear to be the least opposed to the movement. Notably, civil-rights groups, many of them advocating on behalf of children of color, have been especially vocal in their opposition to testing exemptions on the grounds that the data is critical to improving the outcomes of disadvantaged students.





Also noteworthy is that a sizable chunk of Republican respondents actually say they oppose the movement: 57 percent, which puts them in second place (tied with teachers) if each subgroup were to be ranked on how much they object to opt outs. To be sure, as a Republican education summit earlier this week demonstrated, there’s hardly any consensus on testing within the GOP. The New York Times reported that Jeb Bush, for one, emphasized his support for annual testing, invoking one of his brother’s signature phrases when defending the mandate: the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”





The Education Next survey (whose results were published a day before the summit) found overwhelming support for the assessment requirement: About two-thirds of the general public supports the requirement, while only a fifth or so opposes it. That ratio is relatively consistent across the subgroups—except one: teachers.



But even teachers were just short of coming out with a majority opposition to the testing. In fact, they appear evenly split on the topic, with just under half of the group each supporting or opposing the federal requirement.





These survey results could suggest that Bush’s education platform is more representative of the American people than that of his contenders. After all, most of the Republicans candidates have vowed to get rid of the Common Core despite data from the survey suggesting that just over a third of the general public opposes it. Moreover, as the Education Next researchers write, although support for the standards has continued to decline, the rate of decline “slowed markedly … perhaps suggesting that opinion on the issue has begun to stabilize.”



But again, there are nuances. The survey found that, though only a minority of the general public opposes the Common Core, it continues to lose outright support. This year’s poll found that just about half—49 percent—of Americans overall support the standards, down from 53 percent last year. And even though Education Next varied the questions’ wording for some respondents—replacing the phrase “Common Core” with the more generic “standards in reading and math that are the same across the states”—opinion was relatively consistent.



“The broader public’s opposition to the Common Core appears to rest on a shallow factual foundation.”


That comparison is notable given numerous polls, including this one and a survey earlier this year, indicating widespread misperceptions about the standards. The Education Next researchers say these details are an encouraging sign for proponents because “the broader public’s opposition to the Common Core appears to rest on a shallow factual foundation.” A fourth of the respondents residing in the few states that don’t use Common Core believed their districts were using the standards. Another curious finding: The label “Common Core” played a significant role in shaping teachers’ opinion on it, with 48 percent of them supporting the generic idea of universal “standards” and only 40 percent of them supporting “Common Core.”



Ultimately, the findings as a whole suggest that education-reform policies face what the Washington Post might describe as a “public-relations challenge.” People tend to like (or at least not dislike) the building blocks of those policies: annual testing, universal standards, an emphasis on “core” academic subjects, and so on. But when those building blocks come with fraught political labels or, in the case of teachers, personal stakes, feelings start to change.





“School reform”—the improvement of schools—is starting to mean precisely the opposite in the eyes of the many American people. Public support for each of the seven categories outlined by Education Next as part of the “school-reform agenda” (from charter schools to ending tenure) has declined compared to last year.



“In retrospect it looks as if 2014, an election year that swept Republicans into power in Congress and many state capitals, propelled school reform to a high-water mark that has proven difficult to sustain,” the study’s researchers wrote, acknowledging some of the caveats to their findings. “School reformers might take the 2015 findings as a red light on the dashboard, a warning that efforts to alter the public’s thinking on education policy may be faltering.”


From The Atlantic

[rugbywife]

Americans or American parents of children in school? There is a difference.

[tres3]

Aug 22, 2015 14:26:16 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

Americans or American parents of children in school? There is a difference.

exactly... 

in theory they seem like a good idea but in actual application it is a cluster fvck

[IIOY]

Aug 22, 2015 14:26:16 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

Americans or American parents of children in school? There is a difference.

Even teachers were split, though. 

What I didn't get from the piece was how the questions were framed.  I can see people supporting *some* form of standardized testing while opposing excessive testing.  That distinction would seem to be pretty important given the nature of complaints about the current state of testing.

[rugbywife]

Aug 22, 2015 14:47:13 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Aug 22, 2015 14:26:16 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

Americans or American parents of children in school? There is a difference.

Even teachers were split, though. 

What I didn't get from the piece was how the questions were framed.  I can see people supporting *some* form of standardized testing while opposing excessive testing.  That distinction would seem to be pretty important given the nature of complaints about the current state of testing.

ITA. I don't have a problem with testing per se. There's just better ways of doing it. None of those ways involve the mass testing of students in kindergarten.

[rugbywife]

Also, people like the idea of standardized testing because it makes them feel like it justifies how money is spent. Or not spent.

Unfortunately, you can't really test for all the benefits of education and as a result important aspects of it go without recognition or are undervalued.

[irishbride2]

I'm very pro tearing but I'm anti how many places in the U.S. Are going about it.

So it would totally depend on wording.

[LadySusan]

Aug 22, 2015 15:04:40 GMT -5 irishbride2 said:

I'm very pro tearing but I'm anti how many places in the U.S. Are going about it.

So it would totally depend on wording.

Yes, I too support some testing but the hours posted on here are insane.

Is there a central website where I could find info?  I'd be interested in:

Cost per student per test
Hours per test
Hours of testing per year

[NewOrleans]

Aug 22, 2015 15:52:25 GMT -5 LadySusan said:

Aug 22, 2015 15:04:40 GMT -5 irishbride2 said:

I'm very pro tearing but I'm anti how many places in the U.S. Are going about it.

So it would totally depend on wording.

Yes, I too support some testing but the hours posted on here are insane.

Is there a central website where I could find info?  I'd be interested in:

Cost per student per test
Hours per test
Hours of testing per year

Find out if your state does PARCC or Smarter Balance.  Google cost of (test name) per student (state).

do the same for any state tests.

do the same if your local district does MAP or Compass.

and your district probably has district assessments, too.

but no matter how much or little the price tag, the most important resource drained is time.

I concur that many people oppose CC because of a shallow understanding.  I believe just as strongly that as many people support testing because of shallow understanding.  

[katfco]

Aug 22, 2015 15:52:25 GMT -5 LadySusan said:

Aug 22, 2015 15:04:40 GMT -5 irishbride2 said:

I'm very pro tearing but I'm anti how many places in the U.S. Are going about it.

So it would totally depend on wording.

Yes, I too support some testing but the hours posted on here are insane.

Is there a central website where I could find info?  I'd be interested in:

Cost per student per test
Hours per test
Hours of testing per year

As of 3 years ago, the estimate was states spend a combined total of $1.7 billion per year on their primary assessments  contracts. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/standardized-testing-costs_n_2213932.html 
However, I'm not sure how that number takes into account the fact that many districts have multiple tests. It said "primary." 

The overall cost per student is relatively insignificant, but the amount of time spent taking the tests, preparing for the tests, and training teachers for administering the tests adds up. 
This article says districts spend between 19 school days to up to 6 weeks on testing. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/07/25/how-much-time-do-school-districts-spend-on-standardized-testing-this-much/ 

The second link also shows schools spending considerably more per student on testing. It says a Midwestern district spent around $400-$500 per student. If my district spends that much, it would be enough for more than 400 new teachers. 

[NewOrleans]

Also, families are allowed with impunity to opt out of everything from the swimming unit in gym to health class to Greek mythology. So I see no reason testing should be sacrosanct.

[kirra]

I also wonder how the questions were worded.

I think the standardized testing I did as a kid was fine. I don't think the way standardized testing is being handled now is a good thing.

I know a lot of people who didn't realize how testing has changed until they had kids, so that might also be a factor.

[laurenpetro]

I have no problem with standardized testing. My issue is with how it is applied towards a teacher's evaluation. IIRC NY is using it was 50% of a teacher's evaluation. That is fucking crazy.

[Deleted]

We used to have standardized testing but it was more of a statistical analysis. The information was used as a general health status of all the students. I don't even know if it was broken down per school.
rugbywife how do they do it now in Canada? My friend said her daughter told her the test asks how well you learned things
Green means you learned more than they expected
Yellow means you learned what they expected
Red means you learned a little less than expected
Black means you didn't learn.
(My own colours. I don't recall the correct rainbow)
And none of the kids were stressed

[rugbywife]

Aug 23, 2015 8:10:03 GMT -5 @hannymaren said:

We used to have standardized testing but it was more of a statistical analysis. The information was used as a general health status of all the students. I don't even know if it was broken down per school.
rugbywife how do they do it now in Canada? My friend said her daughter told her the test asks how well you learned things
Green means you learned more than they expected
Yellow means you learned what they expected
Red means you learned a little less than expected
Black means you didn't learn.
(My own colours. I don't recall the correct rainbow)
And none of the kids were stressed

Um, that sounds something more like what a teacher would do within a class vs. standardized testing.  We have testing in grades 3, 6 and 9/10 for literacy and numeracy. That's it. It isn't high stakes - kids progress from one grade to the other regardless, teachers aren't evaluated on it, we use the data to identify concepts and strategies that kids are struggling with.

For example, the grade 6 numeracy test over the past few years has show us that students struggle most with multi-step questions and questions that involve more than one strand of math (we organize math into strands - so for example a question might involve both number sense/numeration (let's say multiplication) and measurement (let's say area and perimeter). 

We do have yearly surveys that we have to do that discuss how students feel about school, mental health, bullying, eating habits, etc...although in our board this is done only for grades 4-12 because it is done online and requires a lot of reading skills, which might make it invalid if completed with younger students. 

[cmeon]

The poll (only available in PDF to my knowledge). Also worth noting that Education Next appears to pretty biased towards the privatization of education.

The question referencing "opting out" is tied to question 16:

16. Do you support or oppose the federal government continuing to require that all students be tested in
math and reading each year in grades 3‐8 and once in high school?

Question 17 (the "opt out" question):
17. Some people say that ALL students should take state tests in math and reading. Others say that parents should decide whether or not their children take these tests. Do you support or oppose letting parents decide whether to have their children take state math and reading tests?


The general public doesn't know what testing entails. Which is fair, given that the state/districts don't know what they're doing most years. Last spring, there were counties in FL that thought they were required to administer standardized exit exams to every single class (even kindergarten art, music and P.E.)!

If we were only administering a single, simple, meaningful math/reading test to 3-8, +1 in high school- one that's not tied to teacher pay, 3rd grade promotion, or school funding- even I (someone who plans to "opt out" her DS this spring)- would agree that all* students should participate in testing. But, woah, that is not the current state of things.

*Not actually all as FL currently interprets it- I would give a break to kids dying in hospice care or who lack the ability to communicate in a meaningful way.

[asdfjkl]

Aug 22, 2015 16:03:57 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Aug 22, 2015 15:52:25 GMT -5 LadySusan said:

Yes, I too support some testing but the hours posted on here are insane.

Is there a central website where I could find info?  I'd be interested in:

Cost per student per test
Hours per test
Hours of testing per year

Find out if your state does PARCC or Smarter Balance.  Google cost of (test name) per student (state).

do the same for any state tests.

do the same if your local district does MAP or Compass.

and your district probably has district assessments, too.

but no matter how much or little the price tag, the most important resource drained is time.

I concur that many people oppose CC because of a shallow understanding.  I believe just as strongly that as many people support testing because of shallow understanding.  

I like CC in theory.  Though I think it would be difficult to have a national set of standards in the US because it (obviously) could become very easily politicized with the standards changing from year to year based on whose in office and whether they think Jesus rode a dinosaur.  But just as a concept, CC is good by me.  Standardized testing, by and large, and certainly in the way and for the purposes it has been used over the past two administrations is aw. ful.  

Also, I'm not sure the fact that only 25% support an opt-out movement is the same as saying that the majority of Americans support testing.  The majority of Americans aren't prone to activism of any kind at all.  They go along to get along.  Plus the op-out folks, who I support in mission, have done just a spectacularly poor job of presenting themselves as having credibility or even common sense.  I had to finally unfollow them on FB because every time I turned around, someone was complaining about some math or language worksheet that wasn't even common core.  It was just like, Yeah, sorry you didn't learn fractions in grade school and now you can't help your kid.

Anyway, I just skimmed the article, so maybe I missed something that specifically quantified support for, say, thrice yearly standardized testing for Kindergartners, or third-grade graduation exams, both of which are examples of the kind of funding-tied standardized testing we have in Indiana.  I think you might see something a little different if the question weren't phrased around "opt-outs".

[cmeon]

The poll doesn't even reference the opt out movement, let alone ask respondents to quantify their level of fondness for it. If you support standardized testing (in a magical realm where it's done right), you're pretty likely to support all* kids being tested. I don't see how that has anything to do with support for the opt out movement- a group that's made up of educators, parents (many who don't have a direct stake in the testing due to kids' ages and/or opting out of the public system completely), and other concerned citizens.

*All within reason, I'd hope.

[tres3]

The problem with standardized testing in its current state is it isn't about getting a snapshot of the child on that day, it is used for so many other purposes now. Let's judge teachers based on how her class of 26 kids does on 1 test, not on the entire year. Let's judge a school and the neighboring community's property values based on test scores. Let's tie funding of schools to how they perform on these tests too

I think testing is necessary, but only so we know how the child is doing and whether remediation or enrichment might be needed.

Personally, I'm about 75% there to taking my 4th grader out of school on testing days this year.

[Deleted]

Aug 23, 2015 8:41:12 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

Aug 23, 2015 8:10:03 GMT -5 @hannymaren said:

We used to have standardized testing but it was more of a statistical analysis. The information was used as a general health status of all the students. I don't even know if it was broken down per school.
rugbywife how do they do it now in Canada? My friend said her daughter told her the test asks how well you learned things
Green means you learned more than they expected
Yellow means you learned what they expected
Red means you learned a little less than expected
Black means you didn't learn.
(My own colours. I don't recall the correct rainbow)
And none of the kids were stressed

Um, that sounds something more like what a teacher would do within a class vs. standardized testing.  We have testing in grades 3, 6 and 9/10 for literacy and numeracy. That's it. It isn't high stakes - kids progress from one grade to the other regardless, teachers aren't evaluated on it, we use the data to identify concepts and strategies that kids are struggling with.

For example, the grade 6 numeracy test over the past few years has show us that students struggle most with multi-step questions and questions that involve more than one strand of math (we organize math into strands - so for example a question might involve both number sense/numeration (let's say multiplication) and measurement (let's say area and perimeter). 

We do have yearly surveys that we have to do that discuss how students feel about school, mental health, bullying, eating habits, etc...although in our board this is done only for grades 4-12 because it is done online and requires a lot of reading skills, which might make it invalid if completed with younger students. 

And does it matter for much? More of a planning took than an evaluation? Using the data to change things for everyone going forward. Not to fire teachers, rank schools?

[rugbywife]

Aug 23, 2015 12:43:59 GMT -5 @hannymaren said:

Aug 23, 2015 8:41:12 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

Um, that sounds something more like what a teacher would do within a class vs. standardized testing. We have testing in grades 3, 6 and 9/10 for literacy and numeracy. That's it. It isn't high stakes - kids progress from one grade to the other regardless, teachers aren't evaluated on it, we use the data to identify concepts and strategies that kids are struggling with.

For example, the grade 6 numeracy test over the past few years has show us that students struggle most with multi-step questions and questions that involve more than one strand of math (we organize math into strands - so for example a question might involve both number sense/numeration (let's say multiplication) and measurement (let's say area and perimeter).

We do have yearly surveys that we have to do that discuss how students feel about school, mental health, bullying, eating habits, etc...although in our board this is done only for grades 4-12 because it is done online and requires a lot of reading skills, which might make it invalid if completed with younger students.

And does it matter for much? More of a planning took than an evaluation? Using the data to change things for everyone going forward. Not to fire teachers, rank schools?

For planning, funding (struggling schools get MORE money) and yes, there are rankings...you can find out a school's results using either the gov't's school finder website or the Fraser report's rankings. I don't think that give an accurate picture of a school by any means.

[anastasia517]

Aug 23, 2015 12:58:11 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

Aug 23, 2015 12:43:59 GMT -5 @hannymaren said:

And does it matter for much? More of a planning took than an evaluation? Using the data to change things for everyone going forward. Not to fire teachers, rank schools?

For planning, funding (struggling schools get MORE money) and yes, there are rankings...you can find out a school's results using either the gov't's school finder website or the Fraser report's rankings. I don't think that give an accurate picture of a school by any means.

The thing that stood out to me most about EQAO when we learned about it in teacher's college was that the literacy test's requirements are a few grades lower than the grade you take it in.  I do think the methods of funding make much more sense than rewarding schools that are doing well and punishing schools that are doing poorly.  The fact that the struggling schools get more help seems like a much more effective method of bringing up grades and improving learning than the alternative.

I'm young enough that I did the testing in Grades 3, 6, 9, and 10.  One of the things I remember clearest is that we got Popsicles over recess and activity pages when we were done with the sections' work.  The other thing is that for the Grade 9 math test we were able to use the mark our teacher calculated for the test as our exam if we got an A and skip the actual exam.

[rugbywife]

Aug 23, 2015 13:12:25 GMT -5 anastasia517 said:

Aug 23, 2015 12:58:11 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

For planning, funding (struggling schools get MORE money) and yes, there are rankings...you can find out a school's results using either the gov't's school finder website or the Fraser report's rankings. I don't think that give an accurate picture of a school by any means.

The thing that stood out to me most about EQAO when we learned about it in teacher's college was that the literacy test's requirements are a few grades lower than the grade you take it in.  I do think the methods of funding make much more sense than rewarding schools that are doing well and punishing schools that are doing poorly.  The fact that the struggling schools get more help seems like a much more effective method of bringing up grades and improving learning than the alternative.

I'm young enough that I did the testing in Grades 3, 6, 9, and 10.  One of the things I remember clearest is that we got Popsicles over recess and activity pages when we were done with the sections' work.  The other thing is that for the Grade 9 math test we were able to use the mark our teacher calculated for the test as our exam if we got an A and skip the actual exam.

I think it would be inaccurate to say that it doesn't test the literacy of the grade in which it is taken. A few years ago they changed the names of the tests to be the Primary Junior and Secondary tests. This was because grade 3 and 6 teachers were often made to feel as though they were being tested, when really the test taken in grade 3 is testing the learning done in the primary grades (1-3) and the junior test is testing learning done in the junior grades.

[anastasia517]

Aug 23, 2015 13:26:20 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

Aug 23, 2015 13:12:25 GMT -5 anastasia517 said:

The thing that stood out to me most about EQAO when we learned about it in teacher's college was that the literacy test's requirements are a few grades lower than the grade you take it in.  I do think the methods of funding make much more sense than rewarding schools that are doing well and punishing schools that are doing poorly.  The fact that the struggling schools get more help seems like a much more effective method of bringing up grades and improving learning than the alternative.

I'm young enough that I did the testing in Grades 3, 6, 9, and 10.  One of the things I remember clearest is that we got Popsicles over recess and activity pages when we were done with the sections' work.  The other thing is that for the Grade 9 math test we were able to use the mark our teacher calculated for the test as our exam if we got an A and skip the actual exam.

I think it would be inaccurate to say that it doesn't test the literacy of the grade in which it is taken. A few years ago they changed the names of the tests to be the Primary Junior and Secondary tests. This was because grade 3 and 6 teachers were often made to feel as though they were being tested, when really the test taken in grade 3 is testing the learning done in the primary grades (1-3) and the junior test is testing learning done in the junior grades.

How did I not make the connection between the end of primary and end of junior grades?  I feel silly about that.

I was talking specifically about the one in Grade 10 that is a requirement to graduate high school with my comment.  The woman who came to talk to us said that the minimum to pass was a middle school level, which was what surprised me the most.

[rugbywife]

Aug 23, 2015 13:31:52 GMT -5 anastasia517 said:

Aug 23, 2015 13:26:20 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

I think it would be inaccurate to say that it doesn't test the literacy of the grade in which it is taken. A few years ago they changed the names of the tests to be the Primary Junior and Secondary tests. This was because grade 3 and 6 teachers were often made to feel as though they were being tested, when really the test taken in grade 3 is testing the learning done in the primary grades (1-3) and the junior test is testing learning done in the junior grades.

How did I not make the connection between the end of primary and end of junior grades?  I feel silly about that.

I was talking specifically about the one in Grade 10 that is a requirement to graduate high school with my comment.  The woman who came to talk to us said that the minimum to pass was a middle school level, which was what surprised me the most.

I believe a grade 8/9 level of literacy is considered the bare minimum for fictional literacy. That's probably why.

[Deleted]

rugbywife those rankings totally matter. My elementary is top 10 and we all know kinder to grade 5 is the most important. Lol

[rugbywife]

Aug 23, 2015 19:45:50 GMT -5 nursecramer said:

Aug 23, 2015 8:10:03 GMT -5 @hannymaren said:

We used to have standardized testing but it was more of a statistical analysis. The information was used as a general health status of all the students. I don't even know if it was broken down per school.
rugbywife how do they do it now in Canada? My friend said her daughter told her the test asks how well you learned things
Green means you learned more than they expected
Yellow means you learned what they expected
Red means you learned a little less than expected
Black means you didn't learn.
(My own colours. I don't recall the correct rainbow)
And none of the kids were stressed

Are you currently a teacher? Just FYI, if you are making your own color coded charts, you should never use black as the "bad" color.


As far as all of this ::waves hands at OP:: I just cannot believe that there are more people who want to opt out of vaccines than standardized tests.

Lol, she's a pharmacist, it's all good.

[NewOrleans]

Aug 23, 2015 20:13:25 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Aug 22, 2015 16:45:26 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Also, families are allowed with impunity to opt out of everything from the swimming unit in gym to health class to Greek mythology. So I see no reason testing should be sacrosanct.

To be fair, testing supposedly gets to the point of education - it finds out how much children are learning.  If you believe that, and believe that testing helps "fine tune" things, I can see how one would think getting all of this data is more important than any one kid learning to swim, about sex or Greek mythology (ie, a non important (read: tested) subject).

They are starting with an incorrect assumption, but the logic is not that bad if you accept that testing is broadly useful.

Greek mythology is very important to comprehending other literary texts which allude to it. It's sort of a cornerstone. So it's not non-important; it fosters cultural literacy, inferential reading, and comparitive subjects.