Conservatives put too much emphasis on testing and blame liberals (teachers especially) for not wanting to test. They think teachers don't want to be held accountable. Nothing is further from the truth. Teachers know that the tests aren't accurate enough to assess the abilities of the student. More testing only provides less time to teach. Multiple choice tests often tests student's test taking skills more than they test knowledge of the subject.

We live in an age where computer software holds the potential for more accurate testing methods. So there should be a push for more variety in testing methods in place of the over emphasis on testing.

I suggest using the term, "Assessment" rather than testing or Evaluation. Testing, even in its many
forms, is only a part of the Assessment Process...

Texas is actually considering dropping its statewide testing system altogether.

I don't have a problem so much with the tests themselves as with the fact that too much weight is put on them. Adminstrators' and teachers' jobs are on the line, and the state has even closed some schools for poor test results. With this much at stake, is it any wonder that some educators ONLY care about teaching the test?

This sounds like a vote for option #4 "Less testing, current methods are fine as is."

I think you need another option, maybe the current level of testing is fine, but the ciriculum is what needs adjusting.

Texas lowered its standards for testing.

There should not be state standards, there should be national standards based on internationally competitive curricula.

I'm fine with testing, but only if it measures something worth measuring.

I know some of my friends in Europe have to pass national exams for each class. They must write an essay and complete a multiple choice questionaire. The tests are given at the end of the semester and the results are sent out of the school to professional graders. The students name, school, and location are taken off so that grader does not know anything except the grade level. They are trained to grade at each grade level for each course. I know those kids sweat it out for weeks. This system has been in place for a long time.

Find what works and model the best.

The curriculum is a different subject altogether. I put up another thread that dealt with curriculum. But there seems to be a push for more testing, especially from the right-wing. That's why I solicited your input specifically. More testing gives teacher's less time to teach the curriculum, regardless of how effective the curriculum is.

If you think that the current methods of testing is fine, then the only thing that can change in the way of testing is the amount of testing. All those options are covered if you don't like the status quo in testing. The only options I left out was an option for the status quo by accepting both the amount and methods of testing.

I just realized that I put the wrong link to the thread on curriculum.

Here's the correct link. http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...howtopic=106097

It's not a broad topic of curriculum in general. It's just one possible portion.

I don't like any of the answers, I keep seeing kids working their way through college who can't make change for a dollar without a register that tells them what to do (and if you give them 78 cents to cover 63 cents they get terminally confused). We need real standards for education to mean anything, quantity and methodology of testing doesn't address that.

How's this for an alternative, let's go back to a high school diploma meaning the person can at least perform basic functions like doing basic math and reading at a 9th grade level. If they learn enough civics that they could pass a citizenship test and basic reasoning it'd be a huge step forward too.

We have standards. It's just that conservatives are obsessed with testing to see if we are meeting those standards. The more we test, the less time we give teachers to teach those standards. It make schooling more about proving what you know than learning.

So if you don't think that testing is currently overemphasized and you think that the methods are fine as is, then you are correct in saying that none of the answer suit you. I forgot to add "the status quo" as one of the options.

Teachers began teaching for the test. The biggest failure was eliminate the student then the % is on the school passing no child left behind.
Testing a student does not teach. Provided education that reaches all groups of children. Those not bright in science may be brilliant in the arts..

Creativity, incentive and reward for teachers is the most successful. Salary is also an issue.
Education by states based on property taxes division of money has really failed poorer communities also.

I am a firm believer in try another way for problem solving... If the peg doesn't fit try another way don't get rid of the peg. If you can't find a way to make the peg fit after trying all the possibilities then get another peg board or demonstrate how the peg might fit.
Have you noticed they don't teach technical skills anymore; By high school you could set your educational goals and set subjects to meet those goals.
Carpentry math or college prep math. Science of mechanics or geometry and astrology. Reading and writing skills.

I believe all kids learn but most kids learn differently.

Computer science or computer arts.

I remember taking Spanish in summer school so I could learn and be tested in a shorter basics program. During the school year because of my difficulty with foreign language I was placed in a business English class. Learned how to write a check, how to shake a hand, how to interview as well as basic English for writing business and personal letters.

I used what I learned in that class more then I used college classes or school.
Instead of convincing a child to drop out with a promise to take GED why can't GED be a program goal before they drop out.

I guess keeping the really brilliant mind from being board and the really slow process mind in school with direction toward testing to a trade. The middle average brain is educated to take test.
So much has been lost even phonics made a comeback because children learned to read.

Technology changes so fast nowadays, the schools wouldn't know what to teach if they wanted to.

This is my problem as well.

Tests are fine, but teaching students to be able to pass tests IMHO eliminates much of the valuable information students learn by having discussions and getting engaged in critical thinking about who they are and what options exist out there in the real world.

In addition, some students just do not test well.

Right now the curriculum is geared toward teaching to pass the tests...so if you have a problem with the curriculum its likely that you would also have a problem with the test..this is the case since NCLB was passed.

There are three factors in education:

Curriculum

Testing

Teachers

Of the three, only two are ever discussed, and they have the least impact.

I can remember many good (and bad) teachers from my youth, but few curriculae or tests.

BINGO...

Whether you call it No Child Left Behind or Every Child Dragged Along, It is the wrong kind of conversation...We need to shift the discourse, How do we facilitate Child Development in our Communities?

Agreed - and I think this goes to the discussion that we were having in the other thread...

What do we want our children to know?

I would think we want them to be able to serve our nation's economic, social and political interests which concern our participation in the ever-changing global marketplace...

What tools are needed for this effort?

Well, I think that bill and heart listed the curriculum that should be considered...

I also thought that heart's discussion of international standards was valuable as well, but bill and rla have pointed out that that might not be the best use of resources...

Initially, I thought it would be good idea...thinking that standards for curriculums were readily available, but I do not think that they are...so that might not be appropriate...but aptitude is tested...and comparisons are made between the competence of students globally...

The problem here is that "assessment" is too specialized for the spectators to trust the results. They treat assessment as if it's too subjective to mean anything. In reality the results are not so subjective, but instead objective on a level that is outside or above the ability of the average spectator to evaluate. So, even though assessment is necessary, the process needs to be duplicated and oversimplified so that people with no clue about what is necessary can still have a say in what will be expected.

In place of valuable time that would have been spent teaching, multiple choice tests are administered so that teachers can prove to spectators (in a less accurate way) what the teachers already know about the students from their more accurate assessments.

That works for me..

For many good leads, I suggest that the reader Google Bloom's Taxonomy in Educational Objectives...