Another question about standardized tests

[Greaseball]

From someone who doesn't even have kids old enough to go to school! It's just something I always wondered...

For those of you who went to public school, what kind of standardized testing did you have to go through, if any? Did you feel it made you a better student, prepared you for real life/college/career more adequately, or was a good way to demonstrate what you learned? If you did not have to take any tests, or not very many, did you feel unprepared when you went to college or got your first "real" job?

Do you feel you would have been better off if you were tested in the same way children are today? Do you think that because children from your generation were not tested as often, they were not as well educated? Or that your school could have improved greatly if they used standards-based education?

[Artisan]

I will answer this more later, but just a couple of thoughts.

As a teacher, I did have to take standardized tests to get into college, and had to pass them to become certified. However, in no way did the tests I took in third grade help me. They do not help me now as a teacher and adult, either.

[daylily]

I went to private schools, but we still had to take standardized tests. There was something called the SRA's, and then in eighth grade we took high school entrance exams, which were standardized tests.

My high school entrance exam did, in one way, have a positive impact on my life. In fifth grade, I decided I hated math. Then I decided I was bad at math. My scores on the math section of this test bore that out. The high school of my choice told my parents that I should be placed in a remedial math class. My mom had an absolute fit and insisted that they place me in the same math with the other freshmen and the high school complied. But here's the thing--instead of crumpling up in despair over my failure in that math test, I used that failure as an inspiration to prove that I wasn't bad at math after all. In fact, as I discovered as high school progressed, I'm actually quite good at math and went on to take an honors level calculus class in college and get an A. So that standardized test, for me, was a wake up call and provided inspiration. No way was I going to let myself be in remedial anything.

Did you feel it made you a better student, prepared you for real life/college/career more adequately,

So I guess I could answer yes to this question. Also, standardized tests prepare you for taking the SATs. Can you imagine what it would be like to take the SATs if you'd never seen a standardized test before?

I took the SATs twice, and I can't say that it harmed me in any way. At my high school, a major topic of conversation was what SAT score you needed to get into certain colleges. I was absolutely driven to get a good score, and I prepared myself and scored well (this was before the tests were "recentered": ).

Then, of course, the SATs prepare you for the GREs and the MCATs and all the other standardized tests you encounter if you want to further your education. I took the GRE and the GRE Subject Test in Literature. I loved the Literature test! It was like being in a paper-and-pencil version of Jeopardy, with "Literature" as the only category. This is my idea of heaven.

And in high school I took the ACTs, just for the fun of it. That test isn't really used in my region of the country, but I just had to know how I compared to other kids.

Competition isn't always a bad thing.

[shelbean91]

When I was in grade school, every year we took the Iowa Basics. It was about 2 days-might have been spring and fall or just once a year, I don't really remember. I loved those days b/c we didn't have to do any real work. I always finished early, so I got to read a book until the timed section was over.

In high school, we had pre-ACT practice tests (we didn't do the SAT where I was, seemed ACT was preferred), we had ASVAB tests (standardized tests having to with the army- the amount of recruiting calls I got after those tests was ridiculous) and a number of other tests.

I don't think they harmed me much, but we did lose a lot of teaching days as a result of these stupid tests. I always did well, but some didn't. I remember one guy spelled his name out of the bubbles on the sheets. I was so glad to graduate and get a decent score on my ACT so I would be done with the stupid bubble tests, but most of my 1st and 2nd year college classes had scantron tests- so the bubbles followed me.

I don't think I learned more or less as a result of these tests. We didn't do any sort of prep for them, so it was really more of an assessment. I don't know what type of influence the tests had on the teachers or school districts at that point. My main problem with the tests now is they put SO much emphasis on the results.

[daylily]

I had another thought: there are many careers that require that you pass a standardized test. Nurses & doctors need to pass board exams, lawyers need to take the bar exam, and don't accountants have to pass a CPA exam? Then there are civil service exams. And teachers need to be certified--with a standardized test, I assume. Even realtors have to take a test. So you could argue that becoming familiar with these tests prepares you for success in certain careers.

[shelbean91]

I agree it's important to have these tests to a degree, I just think there are too many and too much emphasis placed on them. I had to take the tests, but not to graduate- just to evaluate.

If we want to have some sort of accountability before graduation there are different options. I just had to have a certain number of credit hours and certain classes passed. My youngest sisters (8 and 10 years younger) had to have an extensive portfolio of work that they had put together for years- starting in grade or middle school. I think doing a presentation with portfolio would be better 'life skills' than passing a standardized test.

I chose to research the AIMS test in AZ, which is required for graduation last semester. We found many issues with the tests. One being that they weren't necessarily testing what they were supposed to. An example I remember was a reading question asking if someone left at 2:15 and it took 2 1/2 hours to get somewhere, what time would they arrive? That is more of a math related question than a reading question. A student could very well have fine reading skills but weak math skills and they wouldn't get this question correct. (Sure, they should know how to tell time- but put the math question in the math section.)

I think there was a push to get these tests in place too fast. Anytime you rush something that important, it's not going to end up the highest quality. In order to do it properly, time needs to be taken. They've revamped the test upteen times since it was introduced, pushed back the class that actually needs it to graduate from 1999 (I think) to 2003 to 2006. I would rather have them take the time to get the tests correctly done and wait than rush them to the shelves and have to change them over and over, causing stress to the students and school districts.

[Greaseball]

I started taking the tests in 3rd grade, and then one in 4th and 5th grades. I think middle school there were none, and then some in 9th grade.

In grade school, there was a lot of prep. The teachers were frazzled. They told us over and over again how important it was to fill in the little bubble all the way, and not go outside the bubble. I remember all the questions looked really easy, and for about 3 weeks that's all we did. No learning of any other stuff.

9th grade was the worst. There was no prep, but the tests lasted all day. They would just pile us into the auditorium. One friend of mine actually walked out in protest. It didn't affect his grade at all; he actually graduated with a lot of awards.

I never took the SATs. I do plan to go to graduate school, but the GRE is not required for my major. It may be recommended, though, so I may take it if it looks like my application needs something else. If I want to become a licensed psychologist there is an exam; I don't know if that counts as a standardized test or not.

My dh got the highest SAT score in his school, but I don't know if it did him any good. He ended up graduating from a college that doesn't require one to take the SATs. He also has to take a lot of standardized tests for his teaching license, so who knows, maybe the SATs helped him there.

But no, I also don't think all the testing I did in grade school has prepared me for anything.

When I was in high school, we didn't have the CIM/CAMs. I don't see how graduates of my generation are any less prepared for college or work than graduates who do take those tests.

[captain optimism]

I can't remember all the standardized tests I took during the course of my education. I was never afraid of them and I always excelled at them. We took at least one in second grade and I remember several in middle school and high school. I know I had the WISC in 8th grade to qualify for a special gifted and talented program. I did well on the SATs, the ACTs and GREs. I also took a test to become a teacher in Massachusetts and I found that pretty easy, too. Other folks found it difficult, I think because it was timed and standardized and all.

Oh yeah, I also helped my mom prepare for the Miller Analogies test. That was really fun!

I enjoyed the standardized tests because most of them were low stakes tests. They were a little like doing puzzles. Our classroom instruction wasn't always that interesting--though I do remember some fun lessons, and I liked my teachers-- and I was often trying to amuse myself with writing things or reading things that weren't part of the curriculum. So I was never annoyed that we had to do them. The PSATs and SATs were a little scarier, but still not too bad. The good thing about being made to take many standardized tests was that they prepared me for other, high-stakes standardized tests. The bad thing about them was that they weren't really relevant to anything else I was doing in life. (Except on the rare occasions that I did word puzzles.)

I used to want standardized tests to count for a lot because I was good at them! But then I developed more emotionally as a person and realized that they were unfair to students who were frightened by tests. That's what I still think now.

[lauren]

I just remember a week of California Test of Basic Skills in primary, junior high and high school. That must have been the company our school district used. As I got older, I ddin't take them very seriously and don't think I tried very hard. No one ever really explained to us what they were for, or why we should try, and I was in a really good school district.

Had to take SAT's and GRE's to get into undergrad and grad school. I treated them as a burden to bear to get what I wanted. Don't think I did terrific on them, but enough to get into schools I wanted I guess.

For my clinical social work license, yep, one more test. At least it was relevant to my career, but still multiple choice, etc.

I don't think standardized tests are motivating, useful or tell us very much about ourselves. But I have learned how to take them, and I guess in our culture, one needs to be able to do that.....