Re: Standardized Testing

Brian Drayton (Brian_Drayton@TERC.EDU <Brian_Drayton@TERC.EDU>)
27 Nov 1995 10:24:11 -0400 

The suggestion to narrow the discussion is a useful one.  As I listen to the
arguments pass back and forth, however, I realize that the issues that
standardized testing raise for me have more to do with how the standards are
developed, by whom, and to what ends.   Where should the "gates" be?     It
is interesting that a large industry has grown up to do testing for schools
and colleges, so that the model of standards development most often pushed
includes the need to work with this industry etc. -- rather on a parallel
with the "need" to work with (= satisfy) the insurance industry when thinking
about "health care reform". 
   Therefore, when we look at math testing, as suggested by the previous
message, I would like also to look at how the standards were developed, and
how they are being propagated, as a model for other topic areas. 
-- Brian Drayton (brian_drayton@terc.edu <brian_drayton@terc.edu>)
--------------------------------------
Date: 11/27/95 10:07 AM
To: Brian Drayton
From: TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
>Seems that much of what we know today as "standards" has emerged from an
>epistemology which sees knowledge as outside the learner and reality as
>absolute.  Don't we need to give serious thought to the meaning of
>standards within an epistemology that sees the learner involved in the
>construction of knowledge within a reality that is tenuous?
>
>Dr. Kathleen Martin            Texas Christian University

In my opinion, no!

After seeing so many arguments that say, essentially, "Since testing is
imperfect, don't test at all,"  I think we should begin concentrating only
on standardized testing for mathematics, where reality *is* "absolute", and
not "tenuous".  Narrowing the discussion that way should eliminate a lot of
the fuzziness.

Now, within this narrower focus, what is wrong with current standardized math
tests, and what can be done to make them better?  (Note that word, "better";
I don't believe that *anyone* expects that they can be made "perfect".  If
new things had to be perfect before they could be used, we'd still be in the
stone age or worse!)

------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by qm.terc.edu with SMTP;27 Nov 1995 10:05:22 -0400
Received: (daemon@localhost) by hub.terc.edu (8.6.9/8.6.4) id JAA12208 for
teech-workshop-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 09:55:46 -0500
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (psuvm.psu.edu [128.118.56.2]) by hub.terc.edu
(8.6.9/8.6.4) with SMTP id JAA12202 for <TEECH-Workshop@HUB.TERC.EDU <TEECH-Workshop@HUB.TERC.EDU>>; Mon,
27 Nov 1995 09:55:41 -0500
Message-Id: <199511271455.JAA12202@hub.terc.edu>
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 5419; Mon, 27 Nov 95 09:57:36 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin CAG9@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (LMail
V1.2a/1.8a) with RFC822 id 9362; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 09:57:36 -0500
Date:    Mon, 27 Nov 95 09:57 EST
From: "Chuck Gaston" <CAG9@PSUVM.PSU.EDU <CAG9@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>>
Subject: Standardized Testing
To: TEECH-Workshop@HUB.TERC.EDU <TEECH-Workshop@HUB.TERC.EDU>
In-Reply-To:  kmartin AT tenet.edu -- Fri, 17 Nov 1995 07:19:25 -0600 (CST)
Sender: Owner-TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <Owner-TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu <TEECH-Workshop@hub.terc.edu>
X-listname: teech-workshop@hub.terc.edu <teech-workshop@hub.terc.edu>