But not prohibitively so, or else the SAT-II wouldn't be doing it.
Basically, I don't have a problem with standardized tests in theory. In fact, I think it could fix a lot of problems, if properly implemented, unlike the abortion of NCLB. Part of that would include having essay tests for subjects like history or english where it's very difficult to get relevant results from a multiple choice test.
SAT II isn't done by every student in a given year every year or two. Also, the fee for the SAT Subject Tests (new name for the SAT II) is $17 I believe. Extrapolate that over the number of students who take standardized tests every year and then you have your answer to how hugely expensive this would be.
AP exams are even worse in terms of cost. Scantron tests are much more cost-efficient.
But not prohibitively so, or else the SAT-II wouldn't be doing it.
Basically, I don't have a problem with standardized tests in theory. In fact, I think it could fix a lot of problems, if properly implemented, unlike the abortion of NCLB. Part of that would include having essay tests for subjects like history or english where it's very difficult to get relevant results from a multiple choice test.
No, it is prohibitively so. The SAT-II charges no small fee to administer their test once to one student, then add in that the total number of students who take the SAT-II each year are a miniscule portion of the overall number of students enrolled in the American education system, and currently we test more frequently than once a year, and you'll see prices spiraling upwards quite quickly.
The industrial model has been proven to be only so effective in education. It just can't do everything.
The only justification I've ever heard for letting the fed fuck around with education to begin with is that we can't have huge disparities between educational standards in different states. But if we're also claiming that it's impossible to even measure the quality of education, then this justification flies right out the damned window.
It is trivially easy for a politician to create a graph and say:
"Here's what your U.S. government spends on missiles. And here's what they spend on educating your child. Vote for me and I'll restore sanity to government!"
Also, giving back to the states or even the local communities may be good in some respects. But then you go to rural WV and find a school where the only textbook is the Bible and any talk of kosher meals or headscarves gets a paddlin'.
But as a simple example, demonstrate to me that you're a good writer. If you could, perhaps, write a test that demonstrates who's a good writer, and all of D&D can take it, and then we can know for a fact exactly which person is the best writer.
Well, no one is specifically charged with improving my writing skills here. But ok, here's a test: I'll write a story and give it to a random sample of forumers and have them rate it on how well written they think it is.
Is that test perfect? No. Will it very likely provide significantly meaningful data about how well I write? Very likely. And it can be standardized, repeated, measured, and so forth. I can go to a writing course and come back and do it again, and measure the improvement or lack thereof. And if you don't like that test, could I come up with a bunch of other examples? Yes. Your challenge to me was pitifully simple.
There are simply many areas of knowledge and education that can't be reflected in a standardized test, which is why they're a failure.
Ignoring that I just answered your challenge, I still point to mine and Jeff's logic from earlier: if you can't test for it, you can't ever demonstrate that you've improved it. So what are we talking about, then?
Yar isn't arguing that every area of learning should be measured through standardized testing. He is arguing that some areas CAN be measured effectively (or at least are our best ways of measuring education in those areas) and that standardized tests should be used to measure both teacher and student performance in those areas.
At least, that's what I understand and it seems sensible.
No, Yar's saying NCLB failed because of the teacher's union.
Both, really.
Yar on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
SAT II isn't done by every student in a given year every year or two. Also, the fee for the SAT Subject Tests (new name for the SAT II) is $17 I believe. Extrapolate that over the number of students who take standardized tests every year and then you have your answer to how hugely expensive this would be.
They also charge fees for verifying SAT results, sending results, asking that test results be kept in their system or other mundane transactions. I suspect that they charge universities for accessing their records as well.
But not prohibitively so, or else the SAT-II wouldn't be doing it.
Basically, I don't have a problem with standardized tests in theory. In fact, I think it could fix a lot of problems, if properly implemented, unlike the abortion of NCLB. Part of that would include having essay tests for subjects like history or english where it's very difficult to get relevant results from a multiple choice test.
No, it is prohibitively so. The SAT-II charges no small fee to administer their test once to one student, then add in that the total number of students who take the SAT-II each year are a miniscule portion of the overall number of students enrolled in the American education system, and currently we test more frequently than once a year, and you'll see prices spiraling upwards quite quickly.
Okay, ETS charges $26 to take a single SAT-II subject test. Let's assume, first off, that there are no economies of scale going on (which I would find very hard to believe as you'd be able to defray R&D costs across a larger group of students). There are about 50 million K-12 students in the US. This would mean that the implementation cost would be 1.3 billion dollars per testing cycle, or approximately 2% of the US Department of Education's $60b per year budget. I also don't see why standardized testing every year is necessary or even desirable. I think testing every 2-3 years, or whenever a student changes institutions, would be sufficient.
This puts it in the range where we would need to make damn sure that the cost is justified and we're getting a return on investment. If you don't think that this is worth spending, I understand and see that as a valid argument. If you think that this is prohibitively expensive, I don't really see that as a valid argument. Any meaningful reform is going to cost a metric fuckton of money - we need, as a country, to get over our fear of spending money on education.
Spoilered for 'can o' worms:'
[spoiler:5bea295f4b]I also think that there's something inherently sick about a country where we spend several times as much money on defense that we do on education, where it's easier to appropriate $10b on missile defense that doesn't work than it is to appropriate $1b to make our schools better, but that's a digression.[/spoiler:5bea295f4b]
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
But as a simple example, demonstrate to me that you're a good writer. If you could, perhaps, write a test that demonstrates who's a good writer, and all of D&D can take it, and then we can know for a fact exactly which person is the best writer.
Well, no one is specifically charged with improving my writing skills here. But ok, here's a test: I'll write a story and give it to a random sample of forumers and have them rate it on how well written they think it is.
Is that test perfect? No. Will it very likely provide significantly meaningful data about how well I write? Very likely. And it can be standardized, repeated, measured, and so forth. I can go to a writing course and come back and do it again, and measure the improvement or lack thereof. And if you don't like that test, could I come up with a bunch of other examples? Yes. Your challenge to me was pitifully simple.
Come on Yar, this is daft even for you. What are your criteria for judging the writing? Can you standardize that? Is it possible to word it in such a way to always get consistent results? For example, who would judge the D&D writing? Would we be able to question their criteria? Would you really trust whatever D&D judge we selected to be unbiased toward potential topics?
Now, I'm educated in composition, so I'm aware of what goes into these projects. For a school of about 7k to do ONE writing proficiency exam that probably about 10-15% of the students take TOPS requires a very large number of highly qualified professionals who hate the work because they have better things to do. Also, the exam can at best give basically pass/fail results, or a 1-5 scale with 3 passing, which frankly isn't terribly meaningful.
NOW -- this is an absolutely terrible way to go about assessing writing, but it's necessary at times. Considering that's a fair amount of work and an extremely imprecise scale, on a short, meaningless topics (questions include "if you could be anyone else in the world, who would you be?") for 700 students only, extrapolate that then for ... well, let's say we only test certain grades ... 20 million students. Do you know what we're talking about here? Your pathetically flat and unnuanced example may make some sense to you, but it's absolutely impractical if you extend it beyond your nose.
Come on Yar, this is daft even for you. What are your criteria for judging the writing?
I told you. They rate it. 1 to 10, how well written is it? Different readers may have different criteria but that gets averaged out over a random sample.
No. If you want to come up with a consistent process for questioning them and then doing somethng with the results of those questions, then sure. Otherwise, not helpful.
NOW -- this is an absolutely terrible way to go about assessing writing, but it's necessary at times. Considering that's a fair amount of work and an extremely imprecise scale, on a short, meaningless topics (questions include "if you could be anyone else in the world, who would you be?") for 700 students only, extrapolate that then for ... well, let's say we only test certain grades ... 20 million students. Do you know what we're talking about here? Your pathetically flat and unnuanced example may make some sense to you, but it's absolutely impractical if you extend it beyond your nose.
It was YOUR example, not mine. You asked me for a way to rate the writing skill of a forumer and I gave it to you.
Come on Yar, this is daft even for you. What are your criteria for judging the writing?
I told you. They rate it. 1 to 10, how well written is it? Different readers may have different criteria but that gets averaged out over a random sample.
No. If you want to come up with a consistent process for questioning them and then doing somethng with the results of those questions, then sure. Otherwise, not helpful.
Would you really trust whatever D&D judge we selected to be unbiased toward potential topics?
No. Why should I? It should average out.
How could you possibly justify potentially fucking kids over on their tests by just telling them "don't worry, it'll average out"...that doesn't help their shitty score due to being saddled with a shitty examiner.
Unless you're suggesting these tests not in any way effect the children, and just serve for measurements of progress overall...in that case, I'm cool with it.
Of course, getting kids to try on tests that can't hurt them is tough, if I recall my youth.
On an off note, I saw the movie "Accepted" the other day. It was a movie where Jason Long starts his own college, which emphasizes on creativity and letting kids who don't fit in anywhere else in charge of their own education. At one point, Long proclaims, "You don't need fancy high brow traditions or money to want an education!"
I think something got mixed up here. I was asked to come up with a standardized, measurable system for rating the writing skills of D&D forumers.
It would have to be significantly different in order to work for millions of schoolkids. But it could be done.
It is done here. Part of the final skills test here is a piece of extended writing - any format bar poetry. You get your inspiration from a sort of 'theme sheet' filled with pictures and textual excerpts related to a particular concept - when I took the exam, it was Time; the year before was Water, etc. So, you could write anything from a short story to a report on the physics of time to an imaginary news article about the social effects of everyone running around on crazy schedules to an interview with a guy who'd invented some kind of clock, and you'd still be marked on the same things: spelling, grammar, syntax, and the ability to draw out an argument or assemble a coherent sequence of ideas. It works really well, because it lets everyone play to their strengths within the field of extended written expression.
Posts
SAT II isn't done by every student in a given year every year or two. Also, the fee for the SAT Subject Tests (new name for the SAT II) is $17 I believe. Extrapolate that over the number of students who take standardized tests every year and then you have your answer to how hugely expensive this would be.
AP exams are even worse in terms of cost. Scantron tests are much more cost-efficient.
The industrial model has been proven to be only so effective in education. It just can't do everything.
"Here's what your U.S. government spends on missiles. And here's what they spend on educating your child. Vote for me and I'll restore sanity to government!"
Also, giving back to the states or even the local communities may be good in some respects. But then you go to rural WV and find a school where the only textbook is the Bible and any talk of kosher meals or headscarves gets a paddlin'.
omg you win great point.
Well, no one is specifically charged with improving my writing skills here. But ok, here's a test: I'll write a story and give it to a random sample of forumers and have them rate it on how well written they think it is.
Is that test perfect? No. Will it very likely provide significantly meaningful data about how well I write? Very likely. And it can be standardized, repeated, measured, and so forth. I can go to a writing course and come back and do it again, and measure the improvement or lack thereof. And if you don't like that test, could I come up with a bunch of other examples? Yes. Your challenge to me was pitifully simple.
Ignoring that I just answered your challenge, I still point to mine and Jeff's logic from earlier: if you can't test for it, you can't ever demonstrate that you've improved it. So what are we talking about, then?
Both, really.
They also charge fees for verifying SAT results, sending results, asking that test results be kept in their system or other mundane transactions. I suspect that they charge universities for accessing their records as well.
Okay, ETS charges $26 to take a single SAT-II subject test. Let's assume, first off, that there are no economies of scale going on (which I would find very hard to believe as you'd be able to defray R&D costs across a larger group of students). There are about 50 million K-12 students in the US. This would mean that the implementation cost would be 1.3 billion dollars per testing cycle, or approximately 2% of the US Department of Education's $60b per year budget. I also don't see why standardized testing every year is necessary or even desirable. I think testing every 2-3 years, or whenever a student changes institutions, would be sufficient.
This puts it in the range where we would need to make damn sure that the cost is justified and we're getting a return on investment. If you don't think that this is worth spending, I understand and see that as a valid argument. If you think that this is prohibitively expensive, I don't really see that as a valid argument. Any meaningful reform is going to cost a metric fuckton of money - we need, as a country, to get over our fear of spending money on education.
Spoilered for 'can o' worms:'
[spoiler:5bea295f4b]I also think that there's something inherently sick about a country where we spend several times as much money on defense that we do on education, where it's easier to appropriate $10b on missile defense that doesn't work than it is to appropriate $1b to make our schools better, but that's a digression.[/spoiler:5bea295f4b]
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Now, I'm educated in composition, so I'm aware of what goes into these projects. For a school of about 7k to do ONE writing proficiency exam that probably about 10-15% of the students take TOPS requires a very large number of highly qualified professionals who hate the work because they have better things to do. Also, the exam can at best give basically pass/fail results, or a 1-5 scale with 3 passing, which frankly isn't terribly meaningful.
NOW -- this is an absolutely terrible way to go about assessing writing, but it's necessary at times. Considering that's a fair amount of work and an extremely imprecise scale, on a short, meaningless topics (questions include "if you could be anyone else in the world, who would you be?") for 700 students only, extrapolate that then for ... well, let's say we only test certain grades ... 20 million students. Do you know what we're talking about here? Your pathetically flat and unnuanced example may make some sense to you, but it's absolutely impractical if you extend it beyond your nose.
Absolutely.
Most likely, yes.
A random sample of several forumers.
No. If you want to come up with a consistent process for questioning them and then doing somethng with the results of those questions, then sure. Otherwise, not helpful.
No. Why should I? It should average out.
It was YOUR example, not mine. You asked me for a way to rate the writing skill of a forumer and I gave it to you.
How could you possibly justify potentially fucking kids over on their tests by just telling them "don't worry, it'll average out"...that doesn't help their shitty score due to being saddled with a shitty examiner.
Unless you're suggesting these tests not in any way effect the children, and just serve for measurements of progress overall...in that case, I'm cool with it.
Of course, getting kids to try on tests that can't hurt them is tough, if I recall my youth.
It would have to be significantly different in order to work for millions of schoolkids. But it could be done.
Tuition at this school? $10,000 per semester.
That just threw me off for the entire movie.
It is done here. Part of the final skills test here is a piece of extended writing - any format bar poetry. You get your inspiration from a sort of 'theme sheet' filled with pictures and textual excerpts related to a particular concept - when I took the exam, it was Time; the year before was Water, etc. So, you could write anything from a short story to a report on the physics of time to an imaginary news article about the social effects of everyone running around on crazy schedules to an interview with a guy who'd invented some kind of clock, and you'd still be marked on the same things: spelling, grammar, syntax, and the ability to draw out an argument or assemble a coherent sequence of ideas. It works really well, because it lets everyone play to their strengths within the field of extended written expression.