I disagree with the TAKS horribly...BUT:

If you don't like the TAKS, you have other options. Homeschool, private school, or work to get rid of those things. Protesting after the fact is stupid and immature and teaches a horrible lesson to the kids. If you are in a school syatem, you follow the rules of that school system. In a country like ours, it is nice to have the luxury of being able to choose.

Not in my little world...nuclear physics is a lie spread by "the MAN!"

LOL...gotta LOVE stream of consciousness!

Then you misunderstood, credits in science ARE required for graduation.

I was talking about why it wasn't on the TAKS test not that it wasn't a required course. I know I read that somewhere about the reason for leaving off the science portion but it may have been old info that has changed. My boys don't take a science test but they are still in elementary school well Brendan is in middle school.

I know I read that somewhere about the reason for leaving off the science portion but it may have been old info that has changed.

The link that Shadesofgray posted has a science portion.

The only thing i have to say is that standardized tests like the TAKS are bullsh-t as far as i am concerned. We used to have stuff like that here in Oregon (last i heard they're phasing it out). When i was still in high school, if you failed it -even if you had a freaking 4.0- you were screwed. Like i said, they're crap.

are they tho? i know everyone likes to bitch about them, and they are a somewhat easy target. it's easy to poke holes in anything standardized. but if someone has a cumulative 3.5 or as you suggest, a 4.0 and can't pass any kind of "basic skills test" then is it the test's fault? is it more likely that those grades and GPA were not properly earned, and the test exposes that?

i can see a C or below average student maybe coming up short on such a test. and for that student, maybe a racial bias or some kind of slant may hurt their performance. but if you put up a 4.0, then that says you were perfect in high school. a 3.5 says you were close to that. in both cases, someone who does that is usually not shitty at tests. if that is really the case, a "basic skills test" not an "achievement" or IQ" test, should not be a problem.

As I scrolled through the comments, my long comment seems to be missing, so let me summarize.

I agree that teaching to the test is doing out kids a disservice. Even when I was in school, I knew I was getting a second rate education. I realized that I didn't understand a lot of US History and Government, even though it was a mandatory course to graduate. The teacher preped us well, everyone passed the class if they paid attention. The problem is The Cuban Missile Crisis, Watergate and quite a few other memorable events were glossed over. I felt like an idiot the first time I sat with a bunch of college grads (most of the guys at DLI had higher education). They were discussing politics and I was CLUELESS. So yeah, I passed the class, I graduated.....I didn't learn enough. Teachers should teach. Our parents were expected to learn a lot more than we were....and I worry about the state of the schools in the next 10 years.

The test shoudl be a benchmark for the SCHOOL. If kids with decent GPAs are failing the standardized test, then the something is wrong. Almost 17% of Texas seniors FAILED the test. I would be ashamed to have that refelected on my school. Administrators should bring back failure. I'd prefer to see a kid held back in elementary school or in 10th grade for not understanding the work. Passing the kids with dumbed down classes and then having them fail the standardized test is a pathetic way to run a school. IF a kids is struggling, remove the stigma of failure....hold them back until they actually learn the material.

Our students should not be handicapped by an overly inflated sense of "self esteem" at the cost of a real education. These are the people that are going to run (doubtfully, own) buisnesses......and vote in elections.... Do we really want morons to populate our nation? Do we want to willingly choose to be a country of greedy, self-indulgent fools? Oh wait, maybe I spoke too soon.

The fact is, we are letting our children down by failing to teach them basic knowlege while in school and then again by failing to teach them common sense and personal responsibility. Allowing them to get a reward they did not earn will only foster an increased dependence on others and a lack of personal accountability.

I pity our nation.

No, I don't pity our nation, not yet. But I am disgusted with the path we're on, and I see it ending in a pitiable place. A pitiable place indeed.

That is why I pity our nation...not as it is now...but as it will inevitably be if we continue down this path.

No, I don't pity our nation, not yet. But I am disgusted with the path we're on, and I see it ending in a pitiable place. A pitiable place indeed.

That is why I pity our nation...not as it is now...but as it will inevitably be if we continue down this path.

I just took the English portion of the TAKS test......I would be happy the kids actually graduated with enough skill to pass the test. It would prep them for Comp 1 at the very least, which BTW, I just took a few weeks ago. Anything less than that is not going to prep them adaquately for life or further education.

That being said.....
There were a few questions that I did think were intentionally missleading or phrased in souch a way that the students have to be "the MOST correct answer". I hate that nonsense. Just eliminate the "true, but not what we want" answers from a question about the intent of a photo. I can see how students would get caught up in that.

I'm not ashamed to admit I missed one. I alrady new I was a loosey speler. Although, aside from the few opinion based questions, was a decent enough test. Add in the actual written portion and it is probably a good picture of what kids should know. I do see how actual teaching time would be wasted, teaching to the test. I'm a very good test taker, but most people need practice taking a test like that.

Looking at the pass scores, you only need to get from 53-59% correct on each of the 4 parts to pass.

In every class I had, 60 was the lowest passing, and it was often 70%

Honestly, it will probably prep them for life. As for further education, you're right. But most junior colleges have their equivalents of "remedial" English, Math, etc, so they could even survive that. Having CLEPped out of Comp 1 & 2, I never considered it much of a challenge. But I'm seeing that English is a skill that a lot of people just don't adequately grasp. In other words, just because it came easy for me doesn't mean it will for other people.

We need our educators to realize that not every student is going to college. Not every student can, not every student should. I have very mixed feelings about denying them a high school diploma simply because they are not college material. Fortunately, the TAKS test is going out the window, but unfortunately it signals the start of a trend that's likely to continue for some time to come.

Standardised tests are a waste of class time. To perform effectively in them it takes drilling and careful preparation. That time would be better spent teaching.

While I think they can and should be used as a technique for gaining a rough idea of how schools are going they should never become the basis of pass/failure or funding, because they should be indicators, not the basis of a curriculum.

Moderation is more effectively achieved anyway by comparing samples of student work across a district, province or state. That way employers and students can be sure that an A in one school is roughly equivalent to an A anywhere else. Standardised testing doesn't provide that information.

SeanConners1:



Bingo, that's exactly how i feel. Well said Cacto.

Standardized tests CAN be good benchmarks for an education system.  Are they typically done well enough to serve that purpose?  No, not really. 

When I was in high school, we had a standardized evaluation in Freshman and Junior years.  The test was poorly constructed to say the least, but it did an excellent job of showing disparaties between school districts in the region.  For the exam, we took 3 solid days to do it, with each day being one section (math, reading comprehension, writing).  The first day, I was handed a test packet and scantron sheet and dove in when the timer started.  I believe the first section was reading comprehension.  Within about 45 minutes I had completed the test packet I was handed and went to the proctor and requested the next section for the day.

There was none.  I had finished the material for the day in under an hour.

Now, before you think I'm bragging, many in my test session were considered some of the "under-achievers" in the class, and they were done within 2 hours.  The kicker was we couldn't leave the room, couldn't get a book out to read etc.  Because of state rules we were required to sit quietly in the test room for the entire session.

The next two days I made a point of just having fun and being as creative as possible with my answers.  I scored ridiculously high on the first section, the only one I took seriously.

However, when the results were posted much later, it turned out that while my district breezed through it, many others in the region seriously struggled.  Even doing on section as pure random-guess, I scored better than some entire districts averaged.  The exam was a terrible measure of a students knowledge, but an excellent measure of how poorly some districts cover basic material.

Thankfully, when I took the exams they were only used to measure the success of districts in their ability to teach, it wasn't until a year after I graduated that they became the "graduation exam"

Forget a comprehensive exam required to graduate, instead make the finals for every class comprehensive and challenging.  If a student fails the final, they repeat the class.  If they don't pass everything senior year, they repeat the year.  If a student can't show a 12th grade level of reading comprehension, they shouldn't be graduating.  I don't care about their self-esteem.  School isn't about making you feel good, it's about making sure you have the basic skills to function in society (or at least that's what it used to be).

I can agree with that. In the system I went to school in there was progressive, semester by semester testing (moderated across the territory) combined with a final, end of schooling exam which was used to set the various schools against each other bell-curve wise. The disadvantage was that non-academic schools were disadvantaged; an equally bright kid would not do the same in every school. I'm not sure a standardised test can ever help to solve that problem, it can only exacerbate it.

We need our educators to realize that not every student is going to college. Not every student can, not every student should. I have very mixed feelings about denying them a high school diploma simply because they are not college material.

But this wasn't College material....I could see how it was the bare minimum to prep a kid for the next level (kind of essential to master one thing before moving on) Even kids who are not going to college should be able to pass a bare minimum basic skills test. Heck, even if you guessed on half the questions, you are likely to still pass.

While I think they can and should be used as a technique for gaining a rough idea of how schools are going they should never become the basis of pass/failure or funding, because they should be indicators, not the basis of a curriculum. Moderation is more effectively achieved anyway by comparing samples of student work across a district, province or state. That way employers and students can be sure that an A in one school is roughly equivalent to an A anywhere else. Standardised testing doesn't provide that information

The exam was a terrible measure of a students knowledge, but an excellent measure of how poorly some districts cover basic material.

Standardized testing is just that, standardized across the board. I think that it should be able to provide a rough idea of how well one school performs compared to another. Those numbers tell more than just one child's results. Samples of student work would be much harder to evaluate.....if you want to go that route, why not have a national curriculum and the same standards nationwide? I think we woudl be better off NOT teaching to the lowest common denominator, but expecting a bare minimum in profficency before passing a student who consistantly underperforms.

If a student can't show a 12th grade level of reading comprehension, they shouldn't be graduating. I don't care about their self-esteem. School isn't about making you feel good, it's about making sure you have the basic skills to function in society

AMEN!

The disadvantage was that non-academic schools were disadvantaged; an equally bright kid would not do the same in every school. I'm not sure a standardised test can ever help to solve that problem, it can only exacerbate it.

I agree that a standardized test can't solve the problem of poor educational standards and lackluster teaching, but how exactly does a standardized test make it worse?

Because the good teachers are handicapped by the class time they must devote to teaching to the test instead of working to ensure their students have a working comprehension of the material. Trying to get 75% of your students to pass when only 50% of them care means you need to spend time on a good chunk of kids who'd rather not be there. Stop giving teachers pass quotas and start putting accountability on the parents and students who don't value education.