Are Standardized tests an effective way of measuring learning?

Standardized tests just tell you where your children rate compared to others in that age group.

What a shame really, our children are individuals.

The Bible even says, "For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they MEASURING THEMSELVES BY THEMSELVES, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise." 2 Cor. 10:12

Don't stress... ;o)

I honestly don't think standardized tests are an effective way of measuring how much one has learned.

Some people are just good test takers while others are not. I was an excellent test taker and would sometimes study/review the night before the test, AKA "cramming," and would get high scores on the test. However, I didn't really "know" the material. This was when I was a very young person.

I learned that in order to really know the material, one must study continuously and progressively. Another reason some people are good test takers is because they have great memories, as in almost photographic type of memories; others do not.

To me, it's sad that standardized tests are the only method used by the schools to measure learning--but I suppose that's the most efficient method. I am sure your child will do fine. Perhaps there is a state learning standard site where you can access sample tests--just so you'll know what to expect this year.

Also, remember it's only a test. All the children who are public schooled don't do well on the tests, and many schools are now "teaching to the test."

You're a great homeschooling mother, and I know that your child is learning much.

While they may be effective at determining whether or not a standard lump of information has been presented equally and absorbed by the majority of millions of students enrolled in the public school system, I do not think they tell you anything about the quality of an individual’s education. I see why the government wants to ensure equal education for all of the students in their care. I do not believe that the state has any right to insist that a student outside of the public education system take these tests. What does it prove? Perhaps they think you should be teaching able the Revolutionary War this term, but your child became enamored with the Industrial Revolution instead. Just because he does not know the answers to a test on one subject, does not mean he is not well versed in others. I would say in your case, the tests are a nuisance only and should not be taken too much to heart.

Good luck to him. Have yourself an extra long bubble bath and let go of any stress these tests have caused. You’ve earned it.

EDIT: I was the opposite of Renee! I had horrible grades throughout grammar and middle school, but always tested well on standardized tests. (In high school I found out I needed glasses and that my crush liked smart chics. It was instant honor roll for me. How sad is that?) The standardized tests actually what kept me from flunking a couple of times when I should have. If you’d have looked at my daily scores and behavior (I have ADD) you’d have known I was falling behind. But the tests said I had learned it all, so I passed. What is really irritating is that my math scores were consistently low, but everything else was consistently well above average on those tests. This bit me in the butt later in life. Those tests masked my problems and prevented me from getting the education I needed. Some people just test well. It does not mean they know more than the other students. Trust me: it takes one to know one.

No, standardized tests are not an effective way of measuring learning.

There was some little research project done not long ago. Can't remember if it was done where I live or elsewhere. In any case, the students did their standardized year-end exams before getting their high school diplomas--these particular students all did well. 6 months later, I believe it was, they took the *same* exams again--without warning. Most of the students failed the 2nd time around.

Standardized tests are really about whose standards? Some outside source that says that x, y, z ought to be known by this and such a grade. Can you imagine if we assessed toddlers the same way? "I'm going to have to give Billy a B. He'd get an A if he could build a 5-block tower instead of just a 3-block tower."

Go visit Alfie Kohn's site and read some of the stuff on testing. It'll make you feel better. Although maybe more imposed upon since you have to do the test. ;)

Nope, they're not...they're just a way for the government to feel like they're still overseeing things, since they have some sort of quantitative figures in their hands. Honestly though, they're pretty much a waste of time.

I figure the pro for having to take them is that the kids will be more prepared for SAT/ACT testing...they'll already be used to the standardized test format, they simply have to focus on content.

The tests aren't required in my state, but I still do a unit each year with a prep book just to make sure my son is used to the format. I'll probably have him take an optional Iowa Basic Skills this year or next, just to start exposing him to the test format. I tell him up front that I'm not concerned with the results, but that I want him to just go in and try his best - it's just for prep. That way, he doesn't have the anxiety and he can go in and just figure the thing out :-)

Edit - 85th percentile or above? Public schools rarely get beyond the 60th percentile or so, at least as far as averages go. Why should homeschool children have to score 25 points above that in order to show progress?

Not all standardized tests are equal.

I'm in Ohio, and our state graduation tests are an embarrassment. Every time I see a set of sample questions, there is one that is entirely WRONG! and others that are poorly written.

But the national merit scholar exam, the Terra Nova tests, the Graduate Record Exam, MCAT, LSAT, and several others are well-prepared and useful.

To pull out a few Ph.D. terms (since previous poster boasted about her husband--BTW, as one wag put it, earning a PhD depends more on stubbornness than intelligence), the question is: what is the scope of the test, and is it valid and reliable.

There is no single way of assessing education. Multiple-choice tests can't do a decent job of telling us about the student's writing, speaking, creativity, physical, musical, or interpersonal skills. These types of test can give us a nice idea about math, reading, and listening (tho' few cover listening, since it would require a bit of technology to give the students something to listen to, and they want to test on the cheap). Tests that are limited in scope to the subjects they can test appropriately are worthwhile to that extent.

Validity means "does this test really test what we want it to?" Back in the 1950s there was a test of musical talent that determined which kids got to join the band program. Early in the 1960s, researchers finally proved that the test really was a vocabulary test, and that students' scores on it had no relation to whether they could play an instrument (and later we learned that playing an instrument made those underachievers learn better--which increased their vocabularies!).

Reliability involves whether the test yields consistent results. In Ohio, the state board of education doesn't even know what is considered a passing score on the test until after they receive the scores--kind of like deciding how many points a touchdown is worth after the football game is done.

Now, other forms of assessment can fall short too. Consider essays--the best way to assess writing, don't you agree?

The standardized writing test that George W. Bush championed in Texas involved having students write a short essay; if the student wrote exactly five paragraphs of three sentences each, the student received top score on that test. Clearly, a student who was coached to write five three-sentence paragraphs of fluff would out-score a student who employed livelier, more varied writing to convey fairly deep content. Similar results were found in other states that used essays; here in Ohio a reporter got the test assessors (who, incidentally, are minimum-wage employees who generally hold only a high school diploma) to mark up two essays he prepared--the bland, stupid one got higher marks than the lively, insightful one.

Conclusion 1: different types of assessment are like different tools in your kit. You don't use a hammer when a pipe wrench is needed, but that doesn't mean the hammer is bad.

Conclusion 2: yes, many state education offices are useless. Sometimes you just have to hunker down and feed the beast. If you have done as good a job of home-schooling as your writing here suggests, then your student will have no difficulty handling the test adequately, and you will have given the state reason to continue to support responsible home-schooling.

There aren't many folks who'd claim that these bubble-in tests are the best way to measure learning. They are, however, the least worst solution. Out of all the ways to measure learning (direct observation, "authentic tasks," portfolio-based assessments, open-ended response, juried competitions, and standardized tests) there's only one that has any hope of providing some sort of standard at a reasonable cost.

We don't want to be cynical and claim it's all about money, but one shouldn't dismiss practicality. Any method of measuring learning must survive real-world criteria, and if your goal is to measure all the students in the state (any state), standardized tests are the way to go.

One reason they're so effective is because of the concept of sampling.

Statisticians know there are two ways to measure a population: measure every element in the population, or sample. For example, say you want to measure how well a candidate is doing in the polls in the weeks before an election. You could contact all registered voters and ask them how they're going to vote, which is extremely expensive, although you'd get a very accurate number. Or you could pick a "sample" of voters and ask them. The result you get isn't the best result, but it's a pretty good one.

Standardized tests work in much the same way. Although they can be designed such that you're not "sampling students" (for example, if you want to test every child in your population, say every 4th grader in the state), the point of the tests is you're sampling knowledge.

For example, a math standardized test cannot include every problem of every type that the student should know how to solve, the student would need a whole box of number 2 pencils! Rather, the test includes a variety of problems, sampling the skills for a given educational level.

more at web page ...

Absolutely not!

I think standardized testing is one of the worst aspects of our education system. I beleive they tell absolutely nothing about the student other than whether or not he or she is a good test taker, and I am a person who always aced standardized tests and tests in general. There is a strategy involved.

Here's a list of reasons:

http://www.successful-homeschooling.com/homeschool...

Here are some tips for taking standardized tests:

http://www.successful-homeschooling.com/test-takin...

Get the book "Whatever Happened to Recess and Why are Children Struggling in Kindergarten?" Great book about the pitfalls of standardized testing.

I believe standardized testing is a form educational abuse! (Since homeschool critics seem to like throwing that word around.)

I also do no believe in government intervention in homeschooling, but that is a whole 'nother story!

Good luck!

I think those tests are B/S. Yes they can be a good measurement of the students general knowledge until the schools get involved. I know personally from going to school in Texas and now having my children doing the same, that the schools tend to cater their curriculum around the tests themselves. Everyday when the teachers are giving instruction they mention 'the test' they are all so worried about recieving better test results as a whole, that they begin to lose sight on the big picture 'education'. The schools are judged on how well they teach our children and they use these tests to decide that.

IMO they're pretty much a waste of time. Schools 'teach to the test' so they can get better results and look like they're doing a good job, which means you end up with kids who have learnt how to do well in tests, not learnt the subject the tests are meant to cover. HS kids generally learn the subject and learn it in a more complete and real world useful way which may or may not result in good test results. Schools have to test to 'prove' to parents that their children are learning something, I just don't see why parents should have to prove anything at all to anyone else.

Thankfully here we don't have to put up with any testing at all.

I think they are effective in measuring some things, like specific skill in math, for example, or basic rules of grammar and spelling. They can't be a full measure of all learning. How can it measure if the child actually applies their grammatical knowledge in their writing? Does it measure how well a kid manages money? What if your kid plans to be a photographer or an artist? Does it measure how well they can paint? Or how well they compose a photo? Does it measure what they know about friendship? Or hard work?