The bogusness of improving test scores

There are many reasons why the appearance of progress being made in education is largely bogus.

Cheating is one such reason. There has been widespread cheating in Atlanta.

Other reasons for improved test scores include:

Older students. By moving back the cut-off dates, the average student becomes older, and an 8-year old will do better on a standardized test than a 7-year old.

Coaching: The public school system has become obsessed with coaching children to do well on the tests, which boosts test scores but doesn’t necessarily mean there has been genuine learning. This focus on drilling for reading and math tests comes at the expense of teaching students other things they ought to know, such as history, science, geography, art, and ethics. Reading stuff in these subject areas is a better use of class time then drilling for a multiple choice reading test, and less boring for the children.

One of the benefits of being rich is that you can send your children to private schools that aren't obsessed with drilling for standardized tests.

Comments

[Jay M]

I would have blamed something similar to the Flynn effect.

[Go Galt]

Another factor -- dumbing down the tests. Make the tests easy enough, and the racial gap starts to close. Yeah, right.

[Camlost]

100% of the cheating scandal in Atlanta is happening within public schools with black percentages ranging from 70-90%.

At a 99% black middle school in Atlanta they went from 1% of students passing year-end CRCT exams to 46% passing.... in only 1 year !!

http://www.ajc.com/news/state-report-depicts-parks-1001338.html

The principal has been caught sending memos saying "other local schools are cheating, we will look bad if we don't cheat, too".

Down here in the Atlanta blogs the HBD-denial is in full force. Some are claiming that "this sort of cheating would be found if we investigated the 'suburban' schools, too". But no one has an answer when I point out that the cheating seems to happen at the schools feeding high schools with the absolute lowest SAT scores.

[davver]

Part of the problem is that different groups need different teaching methods. Low IQ prole boys would benefit most from systems that emphasized discipline and drills. While high IQ children need more free form self driven education.

As you've mentioned in the past, the fact that all must be treated equal means nearly everyone is treated poorly.

[One Radical]

Educators have found the way to narrow the racial achievement gap indeed.

1) Make test scores so easy that everyone can pass, making appear the gap has narrowed
2) cheat for your students like in ATL

This eliminates disparate impact too! Did you all see the LA Unified's "homework is racist" bull crap?

http://oneradical.wordpress.com/2011/07/02/homeworkdisparateimpact/

[Test Test]

You're being hypocritical, HS. When you ace the SAT, the test--and studying for it--is the most important thing in the world. But when teachers coach for the test, suddenly standardized tests don't matter.

I say the test matters, accross the board. And if you can coach for it, that means the kids did actually learn to read, add, and subtract--which was the purpose of the test.

Who knows what those teachers would be teaching if it they weren't "teaching for the test." I suspect "teaching for the test" is a 100% improvement on the crap inner-city teachers were telling thier students before.

[jeanne]

"high IQ children need more free form self driven education."

I tested out at 138 when I was 12 and I loved drills and memorization, and hated the self-driven crap. The latter just seemed an easy out for the teacher. In fact I hated all the newer teaching fads that came along and preferred anything that seemed old-school and therefore real.

I think bright kids expect to learn what their parents and older sibs learned, they way they learned it, and when the curriculum changes it's usually not for the best.

Bright kids just know how to survive the fads better, while the dull get even more confused.

[Jay M]

There is a real solution to closing the black/white test score gap. Unfortunately, most would vigorously disapprove of selective breeding and sterilization of violent criminals (of all races).

"Low IQ prole boys would benefit most from systems that emphasized discipline and drills. While high IQ children need more free form self driven education."

That scenario exists in real life. Poorer school districts need schools that emphasize critical thinking and the process of problem solving instead of discipline and rote learning. Some schools put such a high premium on security that the schools themselves even resemble prisons:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1ZeXnmDZMQ

Skip ahead to 15:00 for an example (although the entire video is worth watching).

[davver]

jeanne,

I'm high IQ and I hated wasting my time learning useless things. All my learning came on my own, and I usually did material several grade levels above where I was.

Maybe you don't have any inner drive? I don't know. You have a girl name, if your actually a girl it may simply be a matter of girls liking to be told what to do a lot more then boys.

[Single Issue Voter]

I'm high IQ and I liked doing rigorous drills which I constructed.

[Camlost]

"Some schools put such a high premium on security that the schools themselves even resemble prisons:"

Violent schools are filled with violent black students. If those same schools were filled with Korean immigrant kids they wouldn't be so violent, all of a sudden.

[JP]

I agree with Test Test -- if you can coach for it, that means the kids did actually learn to read and do arithmetic, which was the purpose of the test. In the case of stupid NAMs in public schools, drilling them to pass reading and math tests _actually does represent "genuine learning"_. They know nothing, and you have to pound the basics into their skulls.

"This focus on drilling for reading and math tests comes at the expense of teaching students other things they ought to know, such as history, science, geography, art, and ethics. Reading stuff in these subject areas is a better use of class time then drilling for a multiple choice reading test, and less boring for the children."

This logic might apply if the students were suburban whites and not inner-city NAMs. There is no point at all trying to teach inner-city NAMs "history, science, geography, art, and ethics" when they don't even know how to read, write, or do basic arithmetic. How are NAMs going to "read stuff in these subjects" in class when they CAN'T read and they hate reading like Superman hates Kryptonite? As for boring, stupid NAMs are going to be bored in school no matter what you do, so you might as well use class time to the best possible effect, which is to drill them on basic concepts rather than reading things to them that they will instantly forget.

[davver]

"which I constructed."

Then, by definition, its self driven learning.

[ExtraMedium]

"davver" beat me to it. "teaching to the test," is good for the left side of the bell curve

[The_King]

Actually the elite will hire private tutors that will focus on any weak areas their children might have that will substantially increase their SAT or ACT scores. Not to mention its more cost efficient since the child can go at their pace and not get slowed down by the incompetence of others.

There is also a huge advantage to private education since the test makers will base the question on the ability of these students and many speak/write similarly.

If public school want to compete they should require the same reading list and assignments as students who attend elite private schools. Its time to bring back Social Darwinism and trim the fat.

[Sid]

"One of the benefits of being rich is that you can send your children to private schools that aren't obsessed with drilling for standardized tests."

The_King beat me to it. It seems like elite private school kids take content-rich classes in their schools (Mark Zuckerberg, for example, learned Greek and Latin before he went to college), and then cram in various SAT prep classes after school is over. The result is that they compete very well in society, while ever isolating themselves into SWPL cultural bubbles. Since elite kids don't interact with American society beyond playing Scrabble with their friends, they have little idea what the rest of society is like.

[HS: If only those ghetto kids were playing Scrabble in their free time instead of participating in flash mobs.]

[davver]

"One of the benefits of being rich is that you can send your children to private schools that aren't obsessed with drilling for standardized tests."

Which is also why second generation tiger parents often hurt their kids. First generation immigrants need to become upper middle class accountants, programmers, engineers, etc. through rote learning so they have the resources to raise their children better. However, rather then take the next step with their own children and teach them the soft skills to function in high society, tiger parents remain obsessed with rote learning from their own childhood. It's why a lot of Asian households "stall" at upper middle class.

[Yan Shen]

Significantly g-loaded tests are far less amenable to preparation than less g-loaded exams. This is something to keep in mind when discussing test prep. The AP History exam can probably be extensively prepped for, but something g-loaded like the SAT less so.

[Ernest scribbler]

One of the most g-loaded parts of iq tests is the verbal section. But you can study straightforwardly for verbal. The fact that it's g-loaded just points to its very high correlation with g.

[Columnist]

@ davver

Yes. Middle class people do not understand that upper class isn't middle class+. It requires an entirely different set of skills.

[John]

A test that would otherwise be a good test for IQ can be ruined if everyone overpreps for it. For instance, being able to repeat digits read to you is somewhat g loaded. (Having someone say the number 83576920 and you repeating it back). However, it turns out that you can practice this skill and get very good at it. Therefore, at test taking time, you can look like a genius when in fact all you did was practice a skill. The lingo is that the gain in test scores is "hollow": it doesn't reflect g anymore. A person who did this would not score any higher on the vocab portion of the test.

When teachers teach to a test, the gains are hollow, and the test becomes a less effective measure of intelligence.

Judging teachers based on student test scores is a really bad idea. Just because the teachers unions are against it doesn't make it a good one. This is one case in which they are right. And now, the trend is making its way to colleges.

[tenthring]

John,

It depends on what the purpose of the test is. Are you looking to test for IQ or is the material on the exam itself actually valuable? One makes prep cheating and the other a verification of having valuable knowledge.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"As for boring, stupid NAMs are going to be bored in school no matter what you do, so you might as well use class time to the best possible effect, which is to drill them on basic concepts rather than reading things to them that they will instantly forget."

I'd rather spike the drinking fountains of inner city high schools with some sort of liquefied birth control pills.