Except what they are evaluating holds no meaning. Standardized tests are nonsense. Tests in general are. What you're measuring isn't knowledge, or understanding, what you're measuring is compliance to artificial and highly contrived environments. Which is a pretty useless skill, especially when compared to a deep understanding of the subject matter.
>Teach better around the tests.
By the FSM, NO. Teach around understanding, around critical thinking, logic and reason. But not around tests. This is exactly the kind of teaching that destroyed any interest I had in subjects that where taught back in school. There's nothing more frustrating to learn things not because they might be interesting, or because the deep understanding of the subject might be useful, but because they are on the next test.
Granted, there are subjects where you can't teach "understanding" per se. History is such a subject. It's based on a lot of numbers, names and places, most of which are simple facts (WWII happened from 1933-1945 etc). However, I would argue that this means it's completely useless to do tests on history. What are you testing? Essentially memorization. Which is a useful skill, but not one on which a lot of your grades should depend. Especially because a lot of students spend hours memorizing facts which they will have forgotten a week after the test, and that time time could have been better spend on sensible things.
>But implying that the very idea of standardized testing is constricting is a waste of time. They aren't going anywhere.
You're essentially saying that because we can't do much about them makes them any less useless and constricting. Arguing that the problem can't be solved doesn't make the problem go away.
An understanding of history is essential to understand both why and how politics works in the modern day. To toss it all aside as 'dates, names, and places' is just... uneducated. From the rest of your comment, it sounds like you're a hard science person doing the usual thoughtless dismissal of the soft sciences.
False. Tests don't serve education, they hinder it. That's my entire point.
It doesn't really matter if it "works" or not, the decision making behind it is not logical, and it never will be.
I'm not saying to center the teaching on the test, but to teach around them. The tests are here to stay. You have to do well on them. This is not something there is a choice about. But that doesn't mean you can't do well on the test and at the same time teach around it. Not for it, around it.
Also, that's a strange idea that history is about rote memorization and not about understanding. Maybe I got lucky with my history teachers, but for me it was all about understanding how it all fit together, not raw facts.
That isn't an argument. That's a status quo fallacy. It doesn't matter if people want it or not, it's nonsense and should be abolished. Also, I highly doubt that people actually want this. The ones who want this broken system are businesses and corporations, because it saves them time and effort, and society as a whole has to shoulder the cost for their laziness. The education system must not bow to the demands of businesses and corporations; it has be the other way round.
>The tests are here to stay. You have to do well on them. This is not something there is a choice about.
Sorry, if everyone thought and acted like this, we'd never have any progress. This way of thinking is exactly the reason why this broken system is still around. Stop telling people that you can't change it and that they should shut up and accept it. That's cancerous and harmful. Speak out. Voice your discontent about this nonsense. Tell other people to do the same. People who just accept anything are everything that's wrong with the world, and the ones who propagate this attitude are even worse.
Sure, the businesses that directly provide the testing services, I guess. Beyond that, which businesses?
This is not some sin of the corporate world here. This is an artifact of the educational system. Of administrators and politicians and parents. It's a way to look like they're making some sort of progress. Businesses couldn't care less.
Keeping in mind that if it's not standardized, the numbers are statistical garbage...
Granted, we lack such a clear measure of success in education, and current standardized tests are a ham-fisted approach to creating one. Don't get me wrong - most of the standardized tests we use today follow the exact same approach to testing as they did 50 years ago, and whatever it is that we would like to measure when we say "educational progress", they no more accurately capture it now than they did then.
But I'm not convinced that the general idea of measuring education through testing is wrong. I think what most anti-testing people balk at is the particular (and extremely limited) set of knowledge that most standardized tests measure - they tend to be more okay with the idea of measuring mastery of a particular subject (either through in-class tests, or even standardized subject tests, which draw far less criticism than the general tests). I'd be all for trying to figure out a way to measure general achievement in terms of subject-specific but still standardized tests (which not every student takes every one of), but there are a lot of difficulties there, too.
(If anything, the code-metrics problem should be easier, because you get a large sample of data over an extended period of time that represents their actual work output, not an artificially staged test that takes a few hours.)
In contrast, I taught calculus many times. The goals and methods were exactly the same each time (ignoring small differences between the Rutgers and NYU syllabus): students should know how to differentiate and integrate, understand linear approximation, etc.
Measuring performance in reality is usually not that hard. It's just a few special professions (typically creative ones) where you run into difficulties.
I read this part of your comment, and immediately assumed that you were not a teacher. Then you said you were, and furthermore that your "methods were exactly the same", which surprised me for two reasons. First of all, the task itself is extremely heterogeneous within-task even if you re-teach the same subject several times; second, no two classes are really the same, and although there are classes I've taught seven or eight times now, the particular dynamic of the particular classroom required adaptation, using different examples, different activities, and in some cases different evaluations. Not to mention all the different levels and subjects of classes that I've needed to teach.
At least, that's what good teachers do. (I don't mean that as an attack on the parent poster's teaching---I find it at least possible that they did all these things but didn't realise how much variability there was in the task.) There are, of course, mediocre teachers, who get through their task by learning a pattern and doing it the same way each time. But that kind of gets back to the OP: it may be that the middle is easy to measure, but the high end, not so much.
In contrast, my current programming job was to build a visual search engine, my last was to trade stocks. Before that it was research in MRI, before that quantum mechanics simulations. Who knows what my next will be?
It makes sense to compare # of students who can integrate in 2012 to # of students who can integrate in 2011. It's a noisy measurement, but it works. How do you compare search engines to quantum mechanics simulations?
As for my teaching, the data I have suggests I was average. But there was not enough data to get a good picture - I only taught a couple of classes with standardized finals.
Within a single course, the heterogeneity comes from how to actually do things, how to understand what you did, how to understand what other people are doing when they do the same things, how to think about changes to those patterns when the task changes a little, how to write about what you did, how to talk about what you did, how to read/listen to other people talking about what they did, and many other aspects of understanding the material. None of these are actually the same thing; the unifying thread in a given content area is you might have to memorise the same jargon and diagram conventions for each of those different tasks.
A given course may also be somewhat heterogeneous in its content; for instance, a typical AI course might include algorithms and strategies based on discrete probability, others based on highly-architected structural representations of knowledge, and still others based on self-rewriting code. At a lower level (high school), you might consider a biology teacher, who gets to cover cellular biology, taxonomy and cladistics, genetics, anatomy and physiology, and possibly some other things I'm forgetting right now.
Between courses, teaching is heterogeneous because you're teaching a lot of different things. Even if it's all "math", for instance, there's a fair amount of variation between algebra, geometry, logarithms and function analysis, differential calculus, vector calculus, trigonometry, and probability and statistics, and that's just among the courses often taught at the high school level.
And all of that is only talking about the things taught, which speaks directly to the question of evaluation. But on the subject of heterogeneity, classroom dynamics can vary significantly just between semesters at the same school, not to mention between different schools, and within a single classroom you have students with assorted learning disabilities (documented or not) and simply different learning styles—some are more verbal, some need to see it done, some need to do it on their own first, some benefit more from working together, some really need to try it first and crash and then hear the way they were supposed to do it and try again. It's a lot more than just "a few extra geniuses or dunces".
Teaching is pretty damn heterogeneous. The best teachers I know are, and have to be, among the most mentally-agile people I know.
"It makes sense to compare # of students who can integrate in 2012 to # of students who can integrate in 2011. It's a noisy measurement, but it works. How do you compare search engines to quantum mechanics simulations?"
This is an amazingly provincial comment and it does not reflect well upon you.
Rather than assuming malice in your comment, however, I would gently suggest that it would be rather difficult for someone passed from grade to grade without basic functional literacy to ace such a test. Or, for a sneakier, harder to quantify example, there are "standardized" tests in circulation (and I was exposed to some of them in middle and high school) where certain cultural information was implicitly demanded. Probably not a problem for middle-class suburban kids, but unlikely to be appropriate for underprivileged very-rural kids (of which the testing area had many).
A narrow worldview isn't something to be ashamed of, but it is something to recognize and compensate for when making statements like yours.
Make better tests. Teach better around the tests. Those options are fine. But implying that the very idea of standardized testing is constricting is a waste of time. They aren't going anywhere.