NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just randomly wondering about something about standardized testing, and not having it. What is the point of it? It has nothing we are going to need after 18, just algebraic fluff that we need to get us to the next grade. Who will need pi as an accountant, or lawyer, or pediatrician, or author or telemarketer? I don't care about the End of Grade tests (EOGs). EOGs mean nothing except going on to the next grade. And in the US, all you have to do is read the directions carefully and then do the work and turn it in, you pass without actually learning anything. So, I was wondering.

What if students had portfolios in order to pass a certain grade level? We do worksheets to the best of our ability, and pass tests and quizzes created by the teacher, and whatever grade we get on those goes into our portfolio? Therefore there is no pressure to pass state tests, and if we have decent teachers we'll learn what we need to learn, and we won't be taught according to what's on the EOG's or SOLs or whatever, we'll be taught stuff we need to know, such as English, maths, science, social studies, computers stuff, as well as electives, and what we get on that goes to our portfolio. Also, this may not quite work out as well, but if we totally bomb something in a certain year, we still have summer school where we go back to our portfolios and correct whatever we bombed on, to prove that we learned what we did wrong, instead of my high school's way of "You got an F, you failed, you're stupid, screw you, we're moving on, die." (Of course if we correct what we did wrong we show the original work and also the corrected work on that date of summer school, so we can prove we learned it.)

I know, it seems crazy, but what's your opinions?

EDIT: how do I create a poll????????? :mad:
EDIT 2: Never mind. :p

Sounds good, but the only problem is $$$. How, I don't know. But it will "cost too much". ;)

Good idea otherwise.

Sounds good, but the only problem is $$$. How, I don't know. But it will "cost too much". ;)

Good idea otherwise.


Good point, but how will it "cost too much"? You can either store the grades on the computer or buy 500 file folder thingies at Staples or something.

But yeah, I know someone's going to find something wrong with it :rolleyes:

I do believe it's time for some bumpage.

Don't make me get out the n00b smilies :eek:

Homeschool kids have portfolios. ;)

anyway, the big thing with standardized testing is schools want funding and the only way to get it sometimes is to prove that the kids are learning something and the current way of figureing that out is by using standardized tests.

I think it sucks, I think it's ruined an already sucky school system, but hey, what are you going to do about it?

Homeschool kids have portfolios. ;)

anyway, the big thing with standardized testing is schools want funding and the only way to get it sometimes is to prove that the kids are learning something and the current way of figureing that out is by using standardized tests.

I think it sucks, I think it's ruined an already sucky school system, but hey, what are you going to do about it?

Wouldn't testing cost more money? If we got rid of testing and made portfolios (basically keeping everything else) wouldn't it cost less?

Wouldn't testing cost more money? If we got rid of testing and made portfolios (basically keeping everything else) wouldn't it cost less?

depends. Probably initially, but teachers would have to wade through all that crap so they would be working more, and probably for the same amount of money, plus it would be hard to get a "standard" of teaching, some teachers would just pass students to get rid of them (although that goes on a lot now where I am from it's called "social promotion")


I think after the initial bugs were worked out in a perfect world where there wasn't the emphasis that there is today for everyone to be the same and for the government to control everything that it could make for a better educational system.

depends. Probably initially, but teachers would have to wade through all that crap so they would be working more, and probably for the same amount of money, plus it would be hard to get a "standard" of teaching, some teachers would just pass students to get rid of them (although that goes on a lot now where I am from it's called "social promotion")


I think after the initial bugs were worked out in a perfect world where there wasn't the emphasis that there is today for everyone to be the same and for the government to control everything that it could make for a better educational system.

Hmmm there probably should be some type of standard of the curriculum, and even if we did have portfolios teachers could only pass students because the students earned it, because the portfolio would be sorted out by the state... hmm?

I was just randomly wondering about something about standardized testing, and not having it. What is the point of it? It has nothing we are going to need after 18, just algebraic fluff that we need to get us to the next grade. Who will need pi as an accountant, or lawyer, or pediatrician, or author or telemarketer? I don't care about the End of Grade tests (EOGs). EOGs mean nothing except going on to the next grade. And in the US, all you have to do is read the directions carefully and then do the work and turn it in, you pass without actually learning anything. So, I was wondering.

What if students had portfolios in order to pass a certain grade level? We do worksheets to the best of our ability, and pass tests and quizzes created by the teacher, and whatever grade we get on those goes into our portfolio? Therefore there is no pressure to pass state tests, and if we have decent teachers we'll learn what we need to learn, and we won't be taught according to what's on the EOG's or SOLs or whatever, we'll be taught stuff we need to know, such as English, maths, science, social studies, computers stuff, as well as electives, and what we get on that goes to our portfolio. Also, this may not quite work out as well, but if we totally bomb something in a certain year, we still have summer school where we go back to our portfolios and correct whatever we bombed on, to prove that we learned what we did wrong, instead of my high school's way of "You got an F, you failed, you're stupid, screw you, we're moving on, die." (Of course if we correct what we did wrong we show the original work and also the corrected work on that date of summer school, so we can prove we learned it.)

I know, it seems crazy, but what's your opinions?

EDIT: how do I create a poll????????? :mad:
EDIT 2: Never mind. :p

Actually, the move in education now is precisely this.

Hmmm there probably should be some type of standard of the curriculum, and even if we did have portfolios teachers could only pass students because the students earned it, because the portfolio would be sorted out by the state... hmm?

Students would then have a 6-month summer while state people sorted it out... ;)

Students would then have a 6-month summer while state people sorted it out... ;)

:eek: That's WAYY too long, no matter how much we students hate school. 2 months is long enough!

Or perhaps, we have a state-intituted cirriculum, while the county/school district enforces it and sorts everything out? Or perhaps the school itself?

A lot of teachers have been pushing for portfolios for years. They are the best way to actually track the development that an individual student achives and their devlopment.

The reasons why they have not been adopted:

They cost a lot. It's not just the file folders, but the increased time needed to check a year (or an entire school career) to see if the child has devloped and where he or she is. If you think about each child turning in a 50 page portfolio, and then multiply that by a class of 30, and 6 classes you have a whole hell of a lot of work ahead of you.

Parents and politicans object because they like numbers. Polticians especially, they want to see rankings go up so they can claim they raised test scores through their actions in the Great School Board (aka the legislature).

And, yes, sadly, some teachers object due to it's much easier to teach to a damn test. Drill and kill doesn't take creative lesson planning and energy.

In terms of being better than standardized tests, they are MUCH better and much more relevent to actual educational goals and progress. We're working on it, in other words.

Or perhaps, we have a state-intituted cirriculum, while the county/school district enforces it and sorts everything out? Or perhaps the school itself?
Er... we more or less have that now.

Er... we more or less have that now.

WEll, we'll still have that... I meant we would *still* have that... but now it just won't be on a test, it will be in a portfolio. :cool:

I guess it would be difficult to do check everyone's work in a class of 30, but then we could have more teachers and smaller class sizes *nods*. Either that or use the computer to record the grades, and tell the kid to search his portfolio for any work he needs to go back to?

We don't have a procedure comparable to what you deplore in the UK, but I'm with you anyway. Education is not about the development of a capacity to jump through metaphorical hoops.

I guess it would be difficult to do check everyone's work in a class of 30, but then we could have more teachers and smaller class sizes *nods*. Either that or use the computer to record the grades, and tell the kid to search his portfolio for any work he needs to go back to?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for portfolios as they make the best sense in evaluation of students (for long term mesurments). I'm just pointing out that, yes, we're going to need a lot more teachers or teacher's aids to get through them in any meaningful way.

Sad, but there it is. And since that means more money, I can already hear people yelling about throwing money at school again. *sighs*

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for portfolios as they make the best sense in evaluation of students (for long term mesurments). I'm just pointing out that, yes, we're going to need a lot more teachers or teacher's aids to get through them in any meaningful way.

Sad, but there it is. And since that means more money, I can already hear people yelling about throwing money at school again. *sighs*

Does every student necessitate analysis?

Assuming that testing occurs regularly within a year, why bother analysing a straight A student?

Does every student necessitate analysis?

Assuming that testing occurs regularly within a year, why bother analysing a straight A student?
The idea behind portfoilios would be to replace the high stakes testing that goes on either every grade (finals) or the mandated testing required for national mesurment or graduation.

The reason why portfolios are better than a standard test is that they provide an overall picture of what a student has actually done and learned over a period of time. This gives a better picture of student improvement.

So, to answer your question, yes. A straight A student would need to be evaluated to see if he or she actually managed to learn something (if work has stayed the same with no improvement, we're not doing our jobs right).

The idea behind portfoilios would be to replace the high stakes testing that goes on either every grade (finals) or the mandated testing required for national mesurment or graduation.

The reason why portfolios are better than a standard test is that they provide an overall picture of what a student has actually done and learned over a period of time. This gives a better picture of student improvement.

So, to answer your question, yes. A straight A student would need to be evaluated to see if he or she actually managed to learn something (if work has stayed the same with no improvement, we're not doing our jobs right).

So are we rendering the acquisition of facts an end in itself?

Surely there are students for whom the submission of a portfolio is a waste of time?

So are we rendering the acquisition of facts an end in itself?
Not facts, but the ability to learn. It finally answers the age old question of did we teach the kid how to think?

For that, portfolios (especially in the non-sciences) work out great as they record the devlopment of a student's ability to think over the given time period.

Surely there are students for whom the submission of a portfolio is a waste of time?
Well, if I had God Himself in class, possibly. But for everyone else, surely there is SOME development that can be tracked and lessons learned from that.

Not facts, but the ability to learn. It finally answers the age old question of did we teach the kid how to think?

For that, portfolios (especially in the non-sciences) work out great as they record the devlopment of a student's ability to think over the given time period.


Well, if I had God Himself in class, possibly. But for everyone else, surely there is SOME development that can be tracked and lessons learned from that.

No. The capacity to recite facts does not equate to a capacity to think.

The submission of a fixed quantity of essays in a year would work, however I may be approaching this from an English perspective. English secondary school obliges nothing of you until the GCSE's. Presumably, the US system requires one simply to pass each year?

Does the english (I forget the scottish) schooling system not require, from GCSEs onwards, a mix of portfolio work and exams? I remember submitting essays, and lab reports, and hearing that art students had to do their projects, which counted along with a final end of year exam to the overall grade in a given subject. It was a similar story at A level, and of course continued at uni.

A mix of assessments is best, surely, as it lets you triangulate on an individual's ability, testing them from different perspectives. Exams and coursework, both changing every year, to keep students and teachers on their toes and learning/teaching, has got to be the preferred solution if it can be afforeded.

No. The capacity to recite facts does not equate to a capacity to think.
Which is the point of the portfoilio. Through it I can track the evolution of student writing ability and quality thereof. I can even see if the student is becoming more capable of higher levels of thought (For example, a student may turn in a nice 5 page essay on turtles at the begining of the year that reports only. At the end of the year, a revised copy includes well researched opinions on the preservation of sea turtles).

The submission of a fixed quantity of essays in a year would work, however I may be approaching this from an English perspective. English secondary school obliges nothing of you until the GCSE's. Presumably, the US system requires one simply to pass each year?
The US system is a little different with students having to satisfy certain requierments in order to advance a grade level and (now in most states) pass a test in order to graduate from school. The portfolios are looking at quality, not nessicaraly quantity. The reason being is that we just don't have a nationwide high stakes test like the UK or Japan.

A mix of assessments is best, surely, as it lets you triangulate on an individual's ability, testing them from different perspectives. Exams and coursework, both changing every year, to keep students and teachers on their toes and learning/teaching, has got to be the preferred solution if it can be afforeded.
Exactly, traditional exams still have a place in a portfolio system as they do provide good snap shots into students at that time. The portfolios would replace finals testing to see if you move to the next grade, or the exit exams to see if you graduate. Teachers would be able to look at, and evaluate, your whole school career and see where and how you have progressed. Which is a far better and fair messure than a high stakes standardized test that accounts for only 3% of the curricula.

Exactly, traditional exams still have a place in a portfolio system as they do provide good snap shots into students at that time. The portfolios would replace finals testing to see if you move to the next grade, or the exit exams to see if you graduate. Teachers would be able to look at, and evaluate, your whole school career and see where and how you have progressed. Which is a far better and fair messure than a high stakes standardized test that accounts for only 3% of the curricula.

Exams also place different learning demands on pupils/students, remember (how could we forget? :p ). Ideally, quick thinking, quick planning, knowledge of a subject to a depth that you can write intelligably about any aspect of it without notes, etc etc.

It's worth pointing out that english and scottish exams are based on a mix of short answers - from a sentence or two to a couple of paragraphs - and essays, often both within the same actual exam. No multiple choice papers, as a rule (although I think my chemistry/biology papers might have had a multiple choice section in addition to the short answers/essays, now I think about it. Been a while!).

Coursework throughout the year, exam at the end, with a weighting between them of 25-75 to 50-50, I think. You'd still need to set a minimum requirement for the exam, I think, to make sure pupils/students didn't rely solely on their coursework, but both would be taken together to determine how well an individual had done throughout the year.

Say the mark needed to pass the year was 50% overall, for example - you'd need a minimum mark of at least 40% in each individual work you did, either a piece of coursework or an exam, or you need to re-sit it. Fail your resit, and repeat the year (or the course you failed, anyway).

Exams also place different learning demands on pupils/students, remember (how could we forget? :p ). Ideally, quick thinking, quick planning, knowledge of a subject to a depth that you can write intelligably about any aspect of it without notes, etc etc.

It's worth pointing out that english and scottish exams are based on a mix of short answers - from a sentence or two to a couple of paragraphs - and essays, often both within the same actual exam. No multiple choice papers, as a rule (although I think my chemistry/biology papers might have had a multiple choice section in addition to the short answers/essays, now I think about it. Been a while!).

Coursework throughout the year, exam at the end, with a weighting between them of 25-75 to 50-50, I think. You'd still need to set a minimum requirement for the exam, I think, to make sure pupils/students didn't rely solely on their coursework, but both would be taken together to determine how well an individual had done throughout the year.

Say the minimum mark needed to pass the year was 50% overall, for example - you'd need a minimum mark of at least 40% in each individual work you did, either a piece of coursework or an exam, or you need to re-sit it. Fail your resit, and repeat the year (or the course you failed, anyway).
That's close to some parts of the US system (actually saying the US system is not quite true as there is no central or standard). In the US many student have a wide range of exams (quizes) that happen throughout the year to suppliment homework and in class assignments of various weights.

The "normal" run is a quiz every week to two weeks. A quarter test at the 1-3 term quaters (2nd term is usallay midterm and may over 1st quater and 2nd material) with the final on the 4th. The midterm and final MAY be comprehensive, or may not. Some teachers prefer that the midterm and final cover the two previous quaters only.

Most teachers will also have a big end of the year comprehensive project, a portfolio or paper or so on. While in school I turned in papers for English, a large lab report for Chemistry, and wrote a one act play for drama. Those projects are usually the most heavily weighted in terms of grades. Tests normally couunted for 40%-50% of the total grade followed by that damn project, class work, homework, and pertisapation grade.

Portfolios would replace that final test at the end of term, taking up about 50% of the weight, but would be able to track a student though the whole school year in a more meaningful way (short answer is much better than multi choice, but it still is hard to get a good grasp on what a student actually knows).

That's close to some parts of the US system (actually saying the US system is not quite true as there is no central or standard). In the US many student have a wide range of exams (quizes) that happen throughout the year to suppliment homework and in class assignments of various weights.

Yeah? Ah! Good deal - I have to say, I think that's pretty much how I think an education system should test its users, 1 to 3 pieces of coursework in a course throughout the year to test potential and development (in addition to things that _don't_ count to a final grade, homework etc), and a big thing to test performance as well as potential.

Most teachers will also have a big end of the year comprehensive project, a portfolio or paper or so on. While in school I turned in papers for English, a large lab report for Chemistry, and wrote a one act play for drama. Those projects are usually the most heavily weighted in terms of grades. Tests normally couunted for 40%-50% of the total grade followed by that damn project, class work, homework, and pertisapation grade.

Portfolios would replace that final test at the end of term, taking up about 50% of the weight, but would be able to track a student though the whole school year in a more meaningful way (short answer is much better than multi choice, but it still is hard to get a good grasp on what a student actually knows).

I'm not sure - I think you need a fairly large end-of-year thing, either project or essay-based exam depending on what's most appropriate for the course. It keeps you studying and attending to the end of the school year, sees what you're like under pressure (a huge thing - you can't just test potential under ideal circumstances, performance counts).

An argument against going to a 'hard' portfolio system, other than the extra expenditure needed, is that pupils build up a commanding 'war chest' of marks early on in the year, then piss about as they've accumulated high enough marks to scrape a pass without trying and working up till the end of the year. A 'minimum marks' (again, of say 40%) scheme mitigates this a little, but I don't think it's a solution in of itself. 50-50 coursework to end-of year-thing is fairer.

This mixed approach obviously also means that pupils don't _only_ study at the _end_ of a year for the big thing, but have work reasonably consistently. In a pinch, I suppose you could go 60-40 in favour of coursework, but the essay based exam or similar large project tests too much, is too useful, to be downgraded further.

Purely formative homework, 1 to 3 coursework assessments (50% overall) throughout the year, and a final end of year essay-based exam (50%) or similar project if appropriate, I reckon.

Personally, I'd dump any multiple choice assessment - too easy/open to abuse - for work counting towards a final grade, but then they were rare (and looked-forward to as easy marks!) at my school, so maybe I'm biased.

A lot of teachers have been pushing for portfolios for years. They are the best way to actually track the development that an individual student achives and their devlopment.

The reasons why they have not been adopted:

They cost a lot. It's not just the file folders, but the increased time needed to check a year (or an entire school career) to see if the child has devloped and where he or she is. If you think about each child turning in a 50 page portfolio, and then multiply that by a class of 30, and 6 classes you have a whole hell of a lot of work ahead of you.

Parents and politicans object because they like numbers. Polticians especially, they want to see rankings go up so they can claim they raised test scores through their actions in the Great School Board (aka the legislature).

And, yes, sadly, some teachers object due to it's much easier to teach to a damn test. Drill and kill doesn't take creative lesson planning and energy.

In terms of being better than standardized tests, they are MUCH better and much more relevent to actual educational goals and progress. We're working on it, in other words.

Well, if they would get class sizes down to something manageable, there would be fewer complaints about this. I have five classes of 34 students, two semesters a year.

One person tracking 340 portfolios a year, with multiple rewrites of everything... and they won't even assign us an aide to help...

Does this sound in any way effective?