This is a fascinating issue:

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-14617-testing-testing.html


California implemented something similar after lots of wrangling back in 2006. Out here, students have to pass both a math and English test to get their diploma.

Oklahoma's plan is to have them pass at least four of seven exams.


I worked in and around L.A. public high schools when this all came down and I learned a great deal. The main reason behind this requirement is to ensure the various school districts have some sort of uniform minimum standards. Basically, schools were just kicking kids along through the years without teaching them much, so many that actually got diplomas couldn't even pass simple proficiency tests. (And they really are shockingly simple.)

The bottom line is that schools get paid according to attendance and are evaluated by retention and graduation rates. So, there are incentives to keep moving kids along rather than hold them to standards along the way. I know in LAUSD you didn't even have to pass to continue forward -- just keep showing up about half the time. Ultimately you had to pass a basic core but that was about it.


What is happening now in OK is what happened in Cali: Once the new requirements were ready to kick in, there was last-minute push back by those claiming the tests are unfair.

But of course the counter argument is that if schools can't get their kids ready to pass these remedial exams, that something has to change. And what's changed is that kids are now passing both parts of that exam a markedly improved rates than just a few years ago.

Mods - Please move this to the Politics section. Everybody knows that you can't have a reasonable discussion on the subject of educational accountability.

Pete - Just kidding.

As long as the tests are over what was studied, math, english, history, etc... I don't understand how it can be unfair. For those who are learning English as a second language they could have a separate test. I see nothing wrong with having to pass tests to get your diploma.

As a former "official" teacher/instructor (carpentry, sociology/history, construction arithmetric). . .
(and if i was "teaching to 'the test'" . . . =)

I would give a passing grade to any student/studier who could write an effective, convincing, essay on "Why the Pythagorian Theroem is Important."

I would give "Extra Credit" for the proper use of to/too/two, there/their/thar, its/it's/etc. if the essay was written rather than verbal.

I would give "Extra Bonus Credit" to any student/studier who could work into the aformentioned essay the line:
"The C in Rap is silent . . . You know . . . Like the P in Pool." (and explain their answer).

I would give a "B" to any student who could compare and contrast their angst against that endured by teens from "Blackboard Jungle" to "Goodby Mr. Chips" to "Up The Down Staircase" to "Stand and Deliver" to "The Breakfast Club" to "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" to "etc. ad infinitum" =)

If they could define "angst" and explain where it comes from I would give them an A.
(perhaps prefaced with "the F- word)

[Yeah . . . Like Pete said: Fascinating. Kudos to The Gazette.]

You forgot "To Sir with Love" For the B Grade.

That's why teachers need to buy Personal Liability/School Insurance. =)
To protect them from The Plague of Law School Grads.
Just kidding. (and not counting "lawmakers" who are "lawyers", of course)

(But I will also cop to forgetting "Romy and Michelles' Great Adventure" or whatever . . .
And "Teacher Man" by that "Angela's Ashes" Irish-type dude.)

(And Ferris Beuller's Day Off =)

All of which reminds me of an "Americanized Zen Koan"
(as if i had "studied" buddhism or one of those other "unscheduled religions" [c/oLenny Bruce] =):

You Never Exit High School Or Do You?

As long as someone can read well and do enough math to balance their checkbook, it's fine with me. Not everyone can do math, and most of us never use the higher math we took. But, if you can read, you can learn anything. I would offer any level of math to a student who wants to take it or is capable. For everyone else, I'd teach them enough to get by. And if I had to, I'd spend almost every other hour making sure they can read, and once I'm sure of that, I'd let them study anything that interests them. Engineers and scientists are born, not made.

Yes, but math teaches you how to THINK more than anything else... How to step through any problem -- not just numbers -- logically.

That's an incredibly important skill regardless of profession, especially in the fast-changing world in which we live.

Math teaches you to think more than science? I'm going to have to disagree with you there, Pete.

Engineers and scientists are born, not made.

I don't think this is true. Science is just a process. Anyone can do good research if they have the background and the funding. They may not all be Stephen Hawkings but they can still be contributors.

Math teaches you to think more than science? I'm going to have to disagree with you there, Pete.

No, I meant that IMO math is every bit as important as reading.

In England they call it "Maths".
Wacky Brits.

Science is not process . . .
It is a method of investigation
Of the perception of reality.

Involving, often, Math or Maths.
Therefore, there can be no Science without "Math/s"
If you disagree you need to start doing more Social Studies.

Or at least Virtually Resurrect the flimsy paper and mortar based Library of Alexandria.
(i hear it was better than a visit to Branson)

In which was contained the answer to The Eternal Chicken vs. Egg conundrum.
The official answer. Involving math. And then science.

Well, we call it "mathematics" so would you prefer "mathematic" instead?

I thought you were a journalist . . . =)
Tell me.

(NO OFFENSE INTENDED OR IMPLIED: i have more respect for your former role in society than you can imagine. no kidding. and not just your "role" your experience. no joke)

Actually, I think their use of "maths" rather than our "math" makes quite a bit of sense. The subject itself covers a wide range of included subjects -- arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trig, several types of calculus, not to mention the higher forms, so the noun definitely is plural in scope. That's implicit in the full word when we use it. They're simply retaining that plural nature when they shorten the word.

A number of Britishisms seem to me to be a bit more logical than our own terms. For instance, the "bonnet" of a car is more descriptive than our term "hood" although both are rather far-fetched and "lid" would probably be a better term than either of them. Another example is the "chemist's" rather than "pharmacy" for the place where you get prescriptions filled...

The wonderful thing is how we're separated by our common language!

And thanks for the respect -- although I often doubt whether my former role is still worthy of any, with the obvious exception of a few of our fellow posters here...

I've never understood why they call a trunk a boot.

No, I meant that IMO math is every bit as important as reading.

Ah, yes.

If they didn't call a trunk a boot,
then what would they call a glove compartment?
A fender?
(That's for guitar storage. =)

Here's the article I mentioned, it was a Tulsa World reprint in the Oklahoman

http://newsok.com/article/3653517

I think it depends. Having dealt with multiple family members who are very intelligent, yet have a math learning disability, they've had to suffer through years of math they could not use, even if they wanted to. We all have learning disabilities, but some create more of a problem because they are considered more critical. Everyone's brain has areas of expertise and areas that function less well or poorly, so technically, we are all learning disabled in one or more areas. I couldn't learn to sing or read music if you put a gun to my head, and I got a D in the only art class I was forced to take for a grade. I'm learning disabled in art and music. But, no one cares. If you can't do math, you're made to feel like an idiot, even if it's beyond your control. I had a child who was reading at a 7th grade level (in 1st grade), but tested in math at the kindergarten level. The school's solution was to hold him back. My solution was to change schools. He will never be able to do more than simple math and percentiles (because he likes those), but he can get A's in college courses that don't require math. We do those children a disservice. One of my other children is finishing up a doctorate, but I had to reteach myself geometry to help her get a passing grade in it. Obviously, they're going to be productive members of society. We need to be a little more flexible in our approach to math. Again, reading is critical for most people. I would work a lot harder to teach a learning disabled person reading than I would math.

Math is crucial for critical thinking skills. It's more about arriving at a conclusion with a definite answer versus subjective theories and ideas in science (which I LOVE). I hate math, but the math education is as much about teaching a learning process and getting from here to there as anything. Not to mention that certain sciences must have higher math as an underpinning of their own scientific discipline. With that said, I think there's something to say for the Asian way of finding intelligence and interests early and putting students who are clearly bright on a fast-track and not thinking everyone is professional material. There's a role for vocational and technical education versus a university education - and it's crucial.

I hate the testing idea. "No Child Left Behind" should have taught us that K-12 testing, as a means to measure knowledge, is a joke. That whole "teaching to the test" is real. You've taught kids how to memorize and cram for exams; at the expense of teaching them real knowledge and allowing them the time to find their own way and grabbing hold of an interest and running. This whole Oklahoma idea is just another way the Testing Industry has weaseled its way into the legislative agenda. There's big money in testing. With that said, I support periodic testing of teachers with random tests to measure the continued ability to teach in their field.

While it's easy for us to say math is important, again, that is if you can learn it. Not everyone can. However, I think there's a risk in deciding how bright someone is too early. Not everyone who is intelligent tests well, and some people are late bloomers. But for those who aren't interested and for those who have a true learning disability there should be ways to bypass certain subjects or certainly higher level classes in certain subjects. Again, engineers and scientists are born, not made, and anyone with enough children can tell you that's true. One of the earliest things I remember asking for for Christmas was a microscope, and the books I wore out were "Stories of Great Physicians" and "The Microscope". My brightest child, in terms of grades and test scores, is a clothing store manager. If you'd told me the one who struggled with math and had average grades in school was going to be the one getting a doctorate and that her sister would perform brilliantly in high school and college and have no interest in any further education, you could have knocked me over with a feather. The doctoral student didn't perform well until college, and really didn't show much interest in anything but boys and cheerleading until then. So, while I think tracks might be kinder, there should be a way for some to jump the track. Flexibility is terribly important in education, but it's expensive.

MikeOKC: but what is the purpose of a test? To see if anything was learned, or as you put it yourself: "to measure the continued ability to [see what was learned] in their field". What is the difference between testing the teacher and the student? Why would you be in favor of testing one and not the other?

I can't speak for Mike, but I agree with him. It's an empirical rule of quality control that one must measure what one desires, because only that which is measured gets primary attention. Measuring teacher competency will result in better teachers. Measuring attendance or advancement of students will result in better attendance and greater advancement but does nothing to measure effectiveness of learning -- and teaching to the test teaches very little that's useful in later life once the test is passed.

So we should just eliminate all tests? No course testing, no end of instruction testing, no entrance testing etc?

Not at all. Just return to what we did in the 30s and 40s -- teach the subject, not the "standard" tests, and then test for knowledge of the subject. Get the outside vendors out of the loop, return responsibility to the local boards, and restore order to the schools. Of course this requires competent teachers and administrators, who might be a bit difficult to find (but I'm certain that they still exist, just not necessarily still in the educational establishment).

The BBC web site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17224662 has an interesting outside view of a closely related subject. It gives one to think...

I think we should use tests as guides. If someone cannot pass the reading comprehension test, then they need more help learning to read. Everyone needs at least basic math and if they cannot do that, then yes, they need more attention. But, in an ideal world, teaching should be tailored to each student. It's simply not affordable, so we try to hit all the people directly under the bell-shaped curve and frequently fail those to the right and left. When we require mandatory testing without much help for those to the left, then we've failed them because we haven't met their needs. Let's just recognize that we as teachers are failing some of our students. If that's the only affordable way to educate, then we need to recognize that we're not going to meet some needs. I don't think "special education" is really all that special. There are too many different types of people who need extra help and they all get lumped together. Luckily, in my case, I could help my children, I could hire tutors, and we got enough math done to get both of them out of high school. Then, when it didn't matter that they really couldn't do much math, they excelled in college. Neither one is an engineer, obviously. But, one has a degree that requires a great deal of knowledge of science and has done very well. Math and science ability aren't genetically linked, they simply frequently are seen together in the same person. For the kids whose parents cannot help, we either have to accept that we don't have the financial resources to educate them, and perhaps allow them to find something they can do well, without punitively not allowing them to have a high school degree or we shrug our shoulders and say that life is tough and some people get screwed.

Absolutely, Betts. Somewhere along the way, perhaps as a sidebar to my brief stint as an army officer, I was exposed to a few hours of classes on "Techniques of Instruction" and one of the main points I brought away from them was that such tests were actually tests of the teacher's effectiveness, not of the student's knowledge. That is, if the majority of the class failed the test, then obviously the teacher had failed to teach the material effectively. Conversely, if everyone aced the test, the teacher had been more effective than the average bear.

There's no way to get that feedback from nationally standardized exams that fail to take into account individual differences in curricula. Sadly, nobody in power seems to even be trying to get effective feedback about the educational process.

Why exactly do we have to take End of Instruction (EOI's) test if we already have to take semester exams?

Thats kind of unfair because the average high school student is not exactly an "A" student when it comes to math.

Thats kind of unfair because the average high school student is not exactly an "A" student when it comes to math.

They all could be though.

Engineers and scientists are born, not made.

All due respect, I disagree. I don't know too many folks born doing differential calculus, knowing rigid body mechanics, or understanding electrical field theory.

Engineering is as much a disciplined thought process as it is anything else.

Why exactly do we have to take End of Instruction (EOI's) test if we already have to take semester exams?

Because, at least in theory, semester tests are prepared at the school (local) level. EOI's are written and administered externally, from a state level, to ensure that a common set of minimum material is taught. At least that's how I understand it.

All due respect, I disagree. I don't know too many folks born doing differential calculus, knowing rigid body mechanics, or understanding electrical field theory.

Engineering is as much a disciplined thought process as it is anything else.

But, you are born with the interest in and ability to do differential calculus. Not everyone can do it, no matter how much time they spend on it. I might be able learn all of the above, if I wanted to, because most math and science courses (excepting geometry and physics, see below) were easy for me and interesting, although I went the biomedical sciences direction. But, as I said, try to teach me to read music or draw? You could hold a gun to my head and I couldn't do well in either subject, nor do I have the interest. That's where some of my learning disabilities lie. We all have them. It's just that some are in fields where it doesn't matter. I am mentally retarded in space relations. I have an IQ test to prove it. My husband told me not to pick a field where there are paired organs, and I turned down an offered radiology residency. You don't want me doing anything that requires translating 2 dimensions on paper to three. So, does that mean I shouldn't have graduated from high school? I got my D in geometry. I got a D in art as well, and was smart enough to stay away from music. If an exit exam required mastery of any of those subjects, I'd be driving a garbage truck. But, I was able to find a field that required none of those skills. As can many people. We don't value diversity in abilities any more than we value diversity in other things. That doesn't mean it's right.

I do think not everyone can do calculus. There are people who understand it almost intuitively, and there are people at the opposite end of the teachable spectrum who can work very hard and learn calculus. However, yes, I believe there are people who couldn't learn it if they had a lifetime. And then some who can understand for a short time and cannot retain it. But how many people actually use calculus? I remember having a conversation with my daughter her junior year in high school. Her counselor was pushing her to take calculus. She told me she didn't particularly like math, even though she'd never gotten anything but an A in her math classes, and she was thinking it might be fun to take a course in Shakespeare (or something like that, can't remember now) instead. She said she was told that calculus would make her more attractive on her college applications. I knew that she was going to do just fine without it since she was applying to small private liberal arts universities and so told her to enjoy herself and not take calculus. She did as I suggested and hasn't looked back. I don't think she would say her life has been less interesting and eventful without calculus. I knew she wasn't going to be an engineer from the time she was about 5, even though she never got a B in a class that I remember. Her brother not only took calculus, but took physics with calculus and went on to the Naval Academy to get an engineering degree. If he had asked me the same question, I would have told him he needed it, because it was obvious he would. He did well in math and physics and it was obvious from the time he was small that he might well need math and science when older. I think, if you have enough children, you understand the diversity of interests and abilities that people possess, and also have a chance to see that success is not always determined by how well one does on a math exit exam. Again, I feel very differently about reading. I think schools should exert everything within their power to make sure everyone who is capable of reading can do so. If you can read, you can learn anything, at any point in your life. If you want to teach yourself calculus at an elderly age, you can probably do so if you can read.

I think math teachers need to be more patient when giving a lecture. When they assign work, they assume we already know it. They need to make sure EVERY student understands what they are doing.

Many public schools teach for the test and nothing more. I cannot tell you how many times I hear "If you know this I guarantee you will pass the EOI." It truly makes me angry when I hear this. In so many of my classes, absolutely nothing of value is learned. Out of all of my classes, science is the least creative. Why is that? Science should be getting out there, seeing how things actually work, not sitting through a lecture all day.

While I have had many great teachers over the years, I have had many that teach only for the next test. Teachers, not students, should be tested and monitored more often. If all they do is teach for the test, they should be fired.

In my math class, we take a test nearly every week. I am a fairly smart kid, and understand most of the concepts. However, I simply don't have enough time to complete many of the tests. When it comes to math, I'm a slow worker. Everything is rushed, because we seem to think that we have to shove a certain amount of stuff down our throats, regardless of how well it is actually learned. We often have this false notion that everything must move quickly. Why is that? Why do we rush ourselves through life? What is the point of it?

Where do you go to school ZYX2 and SoonerBoy18?

I'm at Bixby.

Many public schools teach for the test and nothing more. I cannot tell you how many times I hear "If you know this I guarantee you will pass the EOI." It truly makes me angry when I hear this. In so many of my classes, absolutely nothing of value is learned. Out of all of my classes, science is the least creative. Why is that? Science should be getting out there, seeing how things actually work, not sitting through a lecture all day.

While I have had many great teachers over the years, I have had many that teach only for the next test. Teachers, not students, should be tested and monitored more often. If all they do is teach for the test, they should be fired.

In my math class, we take a test nearly every week. I am a fairly smart kid, and understand most of the concepts. However, I simply don't have enough time to complete many of the tests. When it comes to math, I'm a slow worker. Everything is rushed, because we seem to think that we have to shove a certain amount of stuff down our throats, regardless of how well it is actually learned. We often have this false notion that everything must move quickly. Why is that? Why do we rush ourselves through life? What is the point of it?

To answer your last three questions:
Because you will learn more by the end of college than was known to the entire world in 1950.
Because there is so much to be done.
To grow.

Some of you have already hit on some of these points, but as a professor of education I'll throw in my two cents. I firmly believe that standardized tests have hurt education far more than they've helped it. These tests dumb down the education process, handcuff good teachers, and there is no evidence that these "standards" improve bad teaching in any way. Let me repeat that, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THESE TESTS IMPROVE BAD TEACHING. NO. EVIDENCE. In fact, there is far more evidence that these tests have negative effects on good teaching by pressuring teachers to teach students to memorize basic facts that are incredibly unimportant to know. These tests reduce education to a silly game. They cause teachers to scrap projects and lessons that foster serious thinking for simple exercises that are supposed to help students pass a test full of meaningless information. If you've ever seen these tests you'd realize that they're full of a bunch of unimportant details that most people on this board don't know and would never need to know anyway. Sorry, but the way this issue is discussed by the general public is frustrating because buzzwords like "accountability" are thrown around in such ridiculous ways. The end effect is these types of tests drive great people out of teaching who don't want to spend their lives getting kids to jump through meaningless hoops.

If you're ever interested in thinking about education in a different way then read Frank Smith's "The Book of Learning and Forgetting." Once you're finished you start to realize how silly our educational system, often driven by accountability talk, really is.

To answer your last three questions:
Because you will learn more by the end of college than was known to the entire world in 1950.

What a silly statement. How can "knowledge" be quantified in this way? But even if it was true, students will then also FORGET more by the end of college than was known to the entire world in 1950. Let's re-test you and see how you would do now on a test you took your sophomore year? Lol.

If we would listen to the two students in this thread, instead of the adults in this thread, we would learn that our schools don't need more of what they're doing, but something very different.

What a silly statement. How can "knowledge" be quantified in this way? But even if it was true, students will then also FORGET more by the end of college than was known to the entire world in 1950. Let's re-test you and see how you would do now on a test you took your sophomore year? Lol.

I would ace it, since I teach people of that age...And like I said most of what is taught today is new entire ways of thinking about and understanding the world.

If we would listen to the two students in this thread, instead of the adults in this thread, we would learn that our schools don't need more of what they're doing, but something very different.

Schools are in need of an overhaul, but more importantly our society needs an overhaul in how we view education. A large swath of this country doesn't think of education or knowledge as a good thing. That has to change before our schools can become seriously competitive on the world stage.

Some of you have already hit on some of these points, but as a professor of education I'll throw in my two cents. I firmly believe that standardized tests have hurt education far more than they've helped it. These tests dumb down the education process, handcuff good teachers, and there is no evidence that these "standards" improve bad teaching in any way. Let me repeat that, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THESE TESTS IMPROVE BAD TEACHING. NO. EVIDENCE. In fact, there is far more evidence that these tests have negative effects on good teaching by pressuring teachers to teach students to memorize basic facts that are incredibly unimportant to know. These tests reduce education to a silly game. They cause teachers to scrap projects and lessons that foster serious thinking for simple exercises that are supposed to help students pass a test full of meaningless information. If you've ever seen these tests you'd realize that they're full of a bunch of unimportant details that most people on this board don't know and would never need to know anyway. Sorry, but the way this issue is discussed by the general public is frustrating because buzzwords like "accountability" are thrown around in such ridiculous ways. The end effect is these types of tests drive great people out of teaching who don't want to spend their lives getting kids to jump through meaningless hoops.

If you're ever interested in thinking about education in a different way then read Frank Smith's "The Book of Learning and Forgetting." Once you're finished you start to realize how silly our educational system, often driven by accountability talk, really is.

You could not have stated this any better. I wholeheartedly agree. Because we must meet certain "standards," there is simply not enough time to actually learn much.

My mom is a teacher at a private school. No, I don't attend there, because it's more than we can afford, but their approach to education is far better than any public school I have ever seen. It is often child led. Basically, the teacher gets something started and then lets the children just go with it. Whether they learn more, the same, less, I gues that's debatable. I'm not going to say that they learn more than the average public school child, but I will tell you that they have more fun and are more creative individuals.

I see absolutely no reason a student should have to go to school and sit in a desk all day. It's such a deprivation of what could be.

I would ace it, since I teach people of that age...And like I said most of what is taught today is new entire ways of thinking about and understanding the world.

No it's not. How is reading from a text book teaching someone to think? One does not learn to think by copying answers verbatim out of someone else's work.

Most of what is taught today is simply updated information, but in the complete same format as always. When I go to school, rarely am I taught to think. I am taught to do it like the book, worksheet, rubric, etc tells me to.

My current math teacher Julie Owens, IMO, is the best math teacher ever, I can go on for hours at how much she makes her students feel important when we are learning math, she challenges us everyday with about 50 problems a day and we always feel like we learned something when the class is over, wish there were more teachers like her.

And she was one of the 2 teachers in Oklahoma that was honored in 2005 by President Bush for Excellence in math :-)

Where do you go to school ZYX2 and SoonerBoy18?

I go to El Reno, IMO I think the teachers at my school are some of, if not the best in the nation. Our school is known for being one of the best Great Expectations model schools

No it's not. How is reading from a text book teaching someone to think? One does not learn to think by copying answers verbatim out of someone else's work.

Most of what is taught today is simply updated information, but in the complete same format as always. When I go to school, rarely am I taught to think. I am taught to do it like the book, worksheet, rubric, etc tells me to.

If someone has you reading from a textbook regularly then they are not an educator.

If someone has you reading from a textbook regularly then they are not an educator.

I agree. I am glad that you do not seem to be this kind of "teacher." For those that really do try their best to teach, I thank you sincerely. As I said before, my mom is a teacher, and I see firsthand all the work she puts in. I am up at the school on weekends with her often until late at night. Right now she is in Italy with her school on a study trip. Good teachers know more than just textbooks, and they work hard to find better ways to teach.

I agree. I am glad that you do not seem to be this kind of "teacher." For those that really do try their best to teach, I thank you sincerely. As I said before, my mom is a teacher, and I see firsthand all the work she puts in. I am up at the school on weekends with her often until late at night. Right now she is in Italy with her school on a study trip. Good teachers know more than just textbooks, and they work hard to find better ways to teach.

Sounds like my teacher(s) :-)

Not at all. Just return to what we did in the 30s and 40s -- teach the subject, not the "standard" tests, and then test for knowledge of the subject....
I think we are on the same page...that is what I think the purpose of any test (chapter, semester, finals, end of instruction etc)...if the "standard" test doesn't cover the course/subject material, then the test is flawed. Maybe its a matter of semantics as to what constitutes "teaching the the test" means. To me, it is what you described.