S02.E12: Standardized Testing

[Athena]

American students face a ridiculous amount of testing. John Oliver explains how standardized tests impact school funding, the achievement gap, how often kids are expected to throw up.

[Victor the Crab]

WYATT!!! FUCK YEAH!!!

[Irlandesa]

I didn't realize who he was until the riffing section at the end which I'm glad they threw in there.

 

Tonight's episode was terrific.  As a student, I loved standardized tests because I was good at them.  But when I taught (I no longer do) I saw how insidious they were and it has only gotten worse.  (And Pearson is evil.  I'm still in higher ed and they're all over the place.) 

 

And I will never get sick of John misidentifying the countries he talks about.  Or stop being happy about finding out about "demangos."

[ganesh]

The country gag is a good gag. This time I knew that was Venezuela. It was a good twist because they've done it enough times now that the audience knows the joke. 

 

I liked the riffing on Bud Light. 

[ottoDbusdriver]

I liked the riffing on Bud Light.

 

Me too.  Some of those descriptions for Bud Light were too funny -- I know there is no such thing as bad publicity, but the folks at Budweiser must be cringing after last night's episode.

 

"Bud Light tastes like a raccoon ejaculated carbonated vinegar inside of an old log"

 

"Bud Light tastes like a liquid John Mayer song"

 

"Bud Light tastes like the scared urine of a rabbit"

 

"Bud Light tastes like Steven Seagal's pre-cum"

 

"If a nickel could urinate, it would taste like Bud Light"

 

"Bud Light tastes like the ghost of a dead lemon"

 

"Bud Light tastes like butter churned by Boko Haram"

 

"It's like someone drank a good Mexican beer, and then pissed in this bottle"

 

"Bud Light tastes like a cloud rained the tears of a sick child"

 

"It's like making a tea out of dipping Scott Kahn's balls in water"

 

"Bud Light tastes like all the used bronzer in Wildwood, New Jersey"

 

"It tastes like Robert Durst's aquarium"

 

"Bud Light tastes like antifreeze that's been filtered through a used yoga mat"

 

"Bud Light tastes like ISIS attacked your taste buds"

Edited May 4, 2015 by ottoDbusdriver

[iMonrey]

I didn't understand the kids saying they had opted out of the test, or that everyone in their class had opted out. Are these tests optional? When I was in school you couldn't opt out of any tests, except for the SATs when you were in high school. 

 

What on earth is going on with Wyatt Cenak? He looked like that the last time he was on The Daily Show too. The homeless look is not a good look on him. Or anybody. 

Edited May 4, 2015 by iMonrey

[enlightenedbum]

I didn't understand the kids saying they had opted out of the test, or that everyone in their class had opted out. Are these tests optional? When I was in school you couldn't opt out of any tests, except for the SATs when you were in high school. 

 

What on earth is going on with Wyatt Cenak? He looked like that the last time he was on The Daily Show too. The homeless look is not a good look on him. Or anybody. 

Some places let you opt out, yeah.  It screws over the school because of the stupid way NCLB is written, too.  Not that I blame the kids really.  High stakes testing is bullshit and always has been.

 

Disclosure: starting teacher training in six weeks so I am somewhat biased.

[iMonrey]

So how are these tests administered, and what possible incentive would kids have to take them if they can opt out? I've never known a child volunteer to take a test in all my life.

[ganesh]

Unless their test results somehow would affect their college admissions? That's the only thing I can think of why they would want to take the tests.

[Frisson]

In Texas, certain grade levels require passing the test as part of the requirements for being promoted to the next grade level. If they opt out, they don't move on.

[peeayebee]

My favorite part of the Bud Light thing was the guy from Girls. I can't remember the actor's name, but he plays Ray. Anyway, his delivery of all those lines was fantastic.

[EyewatchTV211]

Some school districts were encouraging students (or students' parents) to opt out of tests in protest. It has had some success. Increasingly, states are decreasing the number of required assessments or refusing to participate in Race to the Top.

 

I am currently a school psychologist, and I have also studied special education. So glad John took on this topic. Everything he said in that report is true (including being trained on protocol for what to do if a student gets sick on the test), and that barely even scratches the surface of why it is problematic to judge performance on standardized assessments. I've worked in a few Title I schools, and I can't tell you how many cases I've dealt with or heard about involving: CPS, homelessness, incarcerated parents, parents being deported, children living with people besides their parents, other poverty-related issues, etc. Not every student is going through something this severe, but many are experiencing something these days, and we have to consider the likelihood of these kids being able to just focus on their learning when they're concerned about so much crap in their lives. If anyone knows of Maslow's hierarchy, they know that people need to deal with safety/physical needs first before anything else. 

 

It is also unfair when US students are compared to students in other countries on many of these tests because it's usually not comparing apples to apples. You have countries who only educate a small portion of their population (those expected to be the best and brightest) or who separate out the kids early on to different educational tracks based on early school performance. Or countries with homogeneous populations. Or where it's the norm for children to all be tutored everyday after school and on the weekends. Statistically, the US students actually aren't doing worse (or better) than in previous periods of time when people may have fond memories of "better schools" and when the US was going through such a boom scientifically/technologically. There is definitely always room for improvement, but standardized testing is not leading to that.

 

*Apologies for the long rant

[enlightenedbum]

So how are these tests administered, and what possible incentive would kids have to take them if they can opt out? I've never known a child volunteer to take a test in all my life.

The way I understand it there are a couple reasons they could:

 

1) The alternative activity could be even more lame.  You'd think that'd be impossible, but from my recollection, particularly after elementary school, it's not.

2) Because test results count towards school funding and not taking it is sometimes counted as a zero against the school, if they have younger siblings their parents could encourage them to take the thing.

3) Similarly if they like their teacher and don't want them hit with a zero they might do the teacher a solid and bother to show up.

[larapu2000]

What's the solution to standardized testing? I don't understand doing pre tests, that seems idiotic, and not doing them every year, but how can we measure effective teachers and administrative leadership? I'm legitimately asking this question, because I think teachers that kick ass should get a bonus or higher seniority, etc, and that poor teachers should be held accountable for not educating their students that deserve to learn.

[BabyVegas]

I agree with you, but it's very important to note that standardized tests do not necessarily mean that good teachers are noted and poor teachers are held accountable. I was in my school system's gifted program, which meant lots and lots and lots of testing. For instance, in one of my AP classes the teachers were so bad that a group of parents convinced one retired teacher to lecture us on late arrival days. The actual classes themselves were basically useless. Everyone I knew said that their factual knowledge came from the retired teacher and their scores came from a combination of those lectures, our textbooks, and the ability to BS a pretty decent essay.

 

It's been awhile since I had to do high school or college entrance standardized testing (although I have my grad school entrance exam coming up in just a few short weeks) but I remember one of the most frustrating things being that they would only test on a very limited range of subjects and that determined your placement in all subjects. The SAT, for example, tests verbal, math, and writing. What about the kids who excel in science? (I know they can take the ACT, but the SAT is an expectation for almost all college-bound kids). I'm good at persuasive writing, so I tended to excel when tests contained a persuasive writing component. I'm much weaker at multiple choice, so if a test happened to be all multiple choice I tended not to do as well. Standardized tests do not realistically do a good job of determining anything other than how good a kid is at taking that one particular standardized test.

 

If you want to reward good teachers and hold teachers accountable, their pay should be based on factors other than a test that isn't so damn skewed. For a lot of the big standardized tests, test prep companies will offer courses. Programs like Kumon and similar will offer test prep for the smaller tests. That means that kids whose parents can afford prep classes are generally in a better position when taking those tests. Ask the students how they felt their knowledge progressed or ask them to explain what they learned, if it's about learning. But as soon as a test gets into "well, we can't give you a good grade because we already gave out X number of good grades and we have quotas to hit" it isn't about any kind of knowledge anymore. 

 

Sorry if that was rambling, but standardized testing has bothered me pretty much since I was a little kid.

[beowoof]

I still feel conflicted about it but I learned a lot from this episode. On the one hand I still think standardized tests are important. You need to be able to directly compare schools and this is the best way to do that. But on the other hand, the way it is now clearly isn't working. I guess I'm just confused about how the whole system got so messed up. I'm from Canada and I took standardized tests in schools and there were never any problems. I think the difference is that the tests were written by the government, not outsourced to a private company. So you took the test, and the data goes back to the government to study. The test didn't count towards your grade, so no one was stressed out taking them. And the teachers salary wasn't tied to the test scores (at least afaik, but I assume I would have heard teachers complaining if it did). It seems like a simple thing to get right so what went wrong? Well I think if the department of education wrote and scored the tests things would be very different. There is no need to get a private company involved in public education.

[EyewatchTV211]

I still feel conflicted about it but I learned a lot from this episode. On the one hand I still think standardized tests are important. You need to be able to directly compare schools and this is the best way to do that. But on the other hand, the way it is now clearly isn't working. I guess I'm just confused about how the whole system got so messed up. I'm from Canada and I took standardized tests in schools and there were never any problems. I think the difference is that the tests were written by the government, not outsourced to a private company. So you took the test, and the data goes back to the government to study. The test didn't count towards your grade, so no one was stressed out taking them. And the teachers salary wasn't tied to the test scores (at least afaik, but I assume I would have heard teachers complaining if it did). It seems like a simple thing to get right so what went wrong? Well I think if the department of education wrote and scored the tests things would be very different. There is no need to get a private company involved in public education.

Bolded part - you're talking about America. Good luck with that argument, lol. I totally agree myself, though.

 

Basically, there do exist school systems who have excellent teacher evaluation systems based on specific standards for teaching that rely more on real life measures, observation, demonstration of student success through other factors, and other administrator-led ratings. Relying purely on student performance is impossible because there are tons of factors involved in how a student will perform besides just teacher effectiveness. It sounds like Canada is using standardized testing appropriately - in small amounts, there is a reason to have them.

 

While it's nice in theory, the use of "rewarding" good teachers with higher pay to encourage better teaching has been proven completely ineffective, and it is not surprising. Teachers typically do not go into the field for money. And as others have already mentioned, much of teaching is an art (though there is a science aspect). So you can't really just motivate someone to "do a better job." I think most teachers would say that they are trying their best because they really want to help students. A lot of people try to apply business-model practices to education, but it doesn't work.

 

If anyone is interested in more information related to any of this, catch up on Diane Ravitch's blog/books, etc. She has done a lot of important research. And this is a turnaround for her, after previously being part of Bush's education leadership and supporting high stakes testing initially. 

Edited May 5, 2015 by VMepicgrl

[Jamoche]

A lot of people try to apply business-model practices to education, but it doesn't work.

Probably because those business-model practices don't work in businesses, either. It might work in the kind of jobs where money is the primary motivator, but I've been a Silicon Valley software engineer for 20+ years and being able to do interesting jobs, having the respect of your peers and the support of your management, etc, are far more important; companies that screw that up can't keep people no matter how much they pay. We do it because we love it, the money is a bonus. Given that teachers don't make anything near what we do, the "loving it" part has to be even more important to them.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Jamoche

[iMonrey]

When I was in grade school we had standardized tests all the time (this was in the 60s and 70s). They were given during normal school hours and there was no opting out. I don't recall taking standardized tests in junior high or high school. The kids they showed who said their whole class opted out seemed to be junior-high age. Are these tests scheduled on a Saturday or something? Or are they passed out during normal school hours and the kids who don't want to take them just sit there or walk out of class?

 

I'm very old.

[Irlandesa]

What's the solution to standardized testing? I don't understand doing pre tests, that seems idiotic, and not doing them every year, but how can we measure effective teachers and administrative leadership? I'm legitimately asking this question, because I think teachers that kick ass should get a bonus or higher seniority, etc, and that poor teachers should be held accountable for not educating their students that deserve to learn.

There is actually value to pre and post tests as long as there is some teaching in between.  You can evaluate different teaching methods or see whether how/what you cover improves students' scores. 

 

But back to standardized tests and evaluation, if you could think of a fair way to assess student learning and teacher/administration performance, you'd make a killing.

 

First, a word on standardized tests. Standardized tests used to be simple evaluative tools.  They were a snapshot.  They could provide information.  Schools could compare them to previous years or look to see what areas were weak that a district overall could work on.  I remember taking them every other year. I was good at them so I liked taking them.  But I'm a white chick who grew up in the midwest.  I had parents who fed me, clothed me, helped me with homework and made sure I got enough sleep at night.  They read to me every day and taught me how to read before I started school.  They were both teachers.  Standardized tests?  Those suckers were written for me to ace.  *fist pump*  And I did. But did my teachers deserve raises for that?  I've had good teachers and I've had bad teachers but it is far more likely that the things my parents did for me had a far greater impact on my testing scores.

And that brings me back to this point which was stated upthread:

If anyone knows of Maslow's hierarchy, they know that people need to deal with safety/physical needs first before anything else.

This really can't be stated enough.  This is one of the biggest problems with tying standardized tests to administration and teachers--so much of learning is out of the control of teachers and proposals for little things to help cover some of those issues, such as breakfasts at school, there is pushback that it's a 'nanny state.'

 

You will hear about a teacher every once in a while who is able to buck that trend and is able to whip up a classroom but these teachers are often giving their lives beyond the school day and even some of their salary over to improve the lives of their students.  I commend them but not everyone is cut out for that.  Most of us aren't.  Those teachers are rock stars.  Teachers shouldn't have to be rock stars, however, to be considered good at their job.  Most of us aren't rock stars in our jobs.

 

Standardized tests have also had a history of racial bias that is a whole other topic.  

 

Ultimately, we understand numbers in the US.  They seem like a very black and white thing.  It's a way to reduce the complex issue of learning into non-complex numbers.  So a somewhat useful tool because the tool of the devil once we started putting too much stuck into that data. 

 

How was it done before standardized tests?  Observation--fellow teachers and administrators would evaluate what a teacher would do in class.  Did they lecture?  Did they have activities/active learning?  Were things laid out well?  Did the teacher respond to questions? Did the teacher recognize when students looked confused?  When I taught, we also went through lesson plans to make sure the objectives aligned with the class's objectives, program objectives and school learning outcomes.  It was more qualitative than quantitative.

 

Since this is already long, can I also rant on the absurdity of common core?  If you haven't had the pleasure, can I just tell you that it sucks donkey balls?  I taught beginning math to adult learners and they gave me a book to use before I began which was based in common core.  It's overly complicated, in my opinion.  The way it works, students are essentially filling out a whole sheet of paper to add up two big numbers. That's another problem.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Irlandesa

[MrWhyt]

 

I liked the riffing on Bud Light

My favorite, simply cause Wyatt cracked himself up with it:

 

Y'know the disappointment that your parents feel, for you still working in this job?..

[AshleyLyn]

All I can say is, as much as I sometimes wish I can go back in time, I am so damn glad I am not in school anymore. I had a hard enough time graduating a little over a decade ago. I would probably be unable to now.

[bookworm]

I have some experience with standardized testing and opting out.  My daughter is 16 and I just wrote a, really long and testy, letter to the county opting her out of a standardized test.  

 

Our state has four tests, in biology, english, math and government, that every student has to pass to graduate; they take one each year.  The tests are basic, at the level of "Can you function as an adult human out in the world?"

 

But, this year they decided to try to get into some funding pool, Race to the Top?, by switching over to the PARCC test, which is the one JO was talking about kids barfing and crying over.  The test comes in two halves taken several months apart and each of the halves has several parts.  My DD took part of the first half and then was absent for the other part of half #1 because of a field trip.

 

We tried over and over to get her into a makeup for the other part of the first half.  First, the state messed up the admin's sign on, then the admin showed up too late to start the test, then the computers didn't work, etc.  Finally, they announced the second half would be in a week, right in the middle of AP tests.  So we contacted the school about getting the last parts of half #1 completed before half #2 was administered.  They said the state had "closed the window" for taking half #1 and there was no way to finish.  However, DD should take half #2 because it's a standardized test, which cannot be missed or the sky will fall.  

 

When I started asking how they would report the PARCC on her transcript if she never finished the test (the four basic tests are reported as is the score which is considered passing for each) they had no idea.  They don't even know how they're going to report the test, yet, just that it will be there somehow.  They also didn't know if they could/would note she didn't take the whole test.

 

A teacher told me about opting out, but the staff tried to argue that without my daughter "the curve" would be affected because they count on her to pull the curve up.  They were worried they wouldn't get some of the money they wanted without her test scores but they had no idea how the partial information would be reported to colleges.  She has tried too hard to get sidetracked by this kind of crap; I opted her out the next day.

[blueray]

I didn't understand the kids saying they had opted out of the test, or that everyone in their class had opted out. Are these tests optional? When I was in school you couldn't opt out of any tests, except for the SATs when you were in high school. 

It's an option now. I don't recall it being one when I was in school, but I wish it was I sucked at standardized tests and I hated them. I get that you need to judge how a school is doing but it shouldn't  be completely based on if a child could take a test. I personally would often get distracted when taking them because of people finishing early and getting up during it. The exams were also usually also very long who could pay attention that long. I also for an example suck at science and my teacher managed to get me to pass the biology regents. However, I passed by a few points which probably would have brought down a curve, had it mattered at the time. The fact that I (or current students like me) just simply struggle with a subject shouldn't impact the teacher at all.

 

A high school by me had 75% or so of a class boycott taking a common core test. It was a campaign by the parents and it probably will effect the school. I was impressed by how many of the students boycotted it.

Edited June 2, 2015 by blueray

[NextIteration]

When I was in grade school we had standardized tests all the time (this was in the 60s and 70s). They were given during normal school hours and there was no opting out. I don't recall taking standardized tests in junior high or high school. The kids they showed who said their whole class opted out seemed to be junior-high age. Are these tests scheduled on a Saturday or something? Or are they passed out during normal school hours and the kids who don't want to take them just sit there or walk out of class?

 

I'm very old.

 

The standardized tests us old dinosaurs took through the 60s and 70s (Iowa and California were the gold standards) were to track us into groups for reading, writing and arithmetic. 

 

We had a high school that generally had the highest scores in it's district repeatedly year over year skip school for the 11th grade state math assessment, this frustrated the state so then they just made that test and an attained score necessary for graduation.  Take that!

 

John didn't ever cover the NWEA "MAP" testing which is used by many states and districts as pre-tests to NCLB testing so they can figure out who isn't up to snuff and start giving those kids special attention to the detriment of the rest of the class.  My kids capped out NWEA testing at really early grades making their results essentially meaningless - but one year when one of my kids was hospitalized during the administration of our state NCLB testing, they sure as hell made sure said child got a make up - since that child brought up the numbers.

 

Obama absolutely sucks on this issue.  I can't express the amount of hate I have for Arne Duncan.

Edited June 3, 2015 by NextIteration

[EyewatchTV211]

Obama absolutely sucks on this issue.  I can't express the amount of hate I have for Arne Duncan.

Sadly, both sides suck on this issue, and it seems to be the one issue they agree on. Agree with the hate for Arne Duncan. He visited and spoke at a school I worked in a few years ago. I didn't even want to see him, but I heard that one of my co-workers who taught preschool asked him a pretty direct question about some of his bad policies. I thought, "Good for you!"

 

Related to your child being hospitalized - I think I've heard news stories where students who were in the hospital for an extended time were given the test IN the hospital. Or maybe this was just a nightmare I had, but I think I remember hearing it.

 

This country needs to imitate other countries where the culture supports teachers (not just when they are brave and protect children from violent acts) and it is a respected, better paid position. We need to attract the "best and brightest" to teaching like we do to being doctors, lawyers, etc. Or just attract a bigger pool of people, period. That isn't to say that some of those people don't go into teaching. However, it is a way to improve the quality of teaching. When all these critics of teachers want so-called "bad" teachers to be fired, I wonder how many people they think are waiting to take their place.

 

*I am another white chick from a middle class town in NJ with parents who fed me, clothed me, loved me, helped me with homework (or gave me the resources to figure things out myself), and made sure I got enough sleep at night. I did well on the tests we had at the time, whether or not I had good teachers that year. I went to what was considered a good school district and strangely had a string of bad math teachers, but I've always been awesome at math so that had no impact. 

Edited June 7, 2015 by VMepicgrl

[NextIteration]

Sadly, both sides suck on this issue, and it seems to be the one issue they agree on. Agree with the hate for Arne Duncan. He visited and spoke at a school I worked in a few years ago. I didn't even want to see him, but I heard that one of my co-workers who taught preschool asked him a pretty direct question about some of his bad policies. I thought, "Good for you!"

 

Heh.  I wasn't really an Obama supporter, sure I voted for him but I never got sprinkled with Obama pixie dust, he made a lot of promises about getting rid of NCLB but his administration has put testing on steroids.  It needs to go, Race for the Top makes NCLB look like child's play and it's bullshit, I can't even with all the support for corporatized Charter Schools.

Edited June 7, 2015 by NextIteration

[possibilities]

You can pay teachers a higher salary (and I agree we should), but that's not the only thing that children need. Many classrooms are crumbling. They don't have books, heat, desks. The kids are hungry and stressed, the classrooms are overcrowded. The testing issue may or may not have started with good intentions, but now it's a racket that funnels money to the test companies and siphons attention away from what's really keeping kids from learning. Jonathan Kozol (among other people) has been writing books about this for decades. But the people who legislate know about as much about education as they do about women's reproductive health. Transvaginal ultrasounds and standardized tests for all.