NY Times article about lack of readiness for college

[Gregatron]

I teach at a medium size Midwestern university. (Hope it's okay that I invade here.) One of my colleagues sent me an email of this article: Many students are coming out of high school not ready for college. I see this myself. I think most of you guys represent a smarter portion of college students, and since I know many of you (in that message board way of "knowing"), I thought I would get your opinions on this.

This is the response I sent my colleague:
[ QUOTE ]
While I am only in my first full year of teaching on the college level, I was once a public school teacher (in Mississippi). I saw teaching being forced to literally "teach to the test." (I was a special education teacher, so I was not required to do this.) IMO this seems to suppress critical thinking and abstract thinking skills that are so important to succeeding on a college level.

Sometimes I am simply amazed at the gibberish I get when students turn in papers. Not only can many of them not write a coherent sentences, but they can't even think well.

While I am only in my first year of teaching at this level, my mother is also a Ph.D. She tells me that this problem has been getting worse over the past several years -- students, she contends, are just getting dumber and dumber (though she puts it much less bluntly than that). We both believe this is, at least partially, the result of increasing reliance on standardized testing in our public schools as benchmarks to "success".

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to share your relevant thoughts or experiences.

[Tiburon]

I'm a HS senior right now, and I agree that standardized testing distracts students and teachers from learning. In our school, they spend weeks before the state tests teaching us "test-taking strategies" and trying to motivate us to actually try hard so they can get funding from the state. Unfortuantely we learn nothing useful.

Also, nobody knows how to write anymore. When we peer edit each others papers I'm amazed at the lack of ability to spell, use grammar, or write a complete sentence. If they can't do this, how can they be expected to do things like effectively analyze evidence? I think the problem is there aren't enough writing assignments. For example, in my senior english class we wrote two papers the whole term, while every night we'd have some sort of pointless worksheet to do. Then when people get to college they can't handle writing papers on a consistent basis.

[Gregatron]

I will tell you this -- and this is just the truth: from your post I can tell you write better than 90+% of the students.

[Tiburon]

Thanks, hopefully I'll be part of that 25% that's ready for college.

[T50_Omaha8]

I think this is a problem that starts long before high school, so I wouldn't put all of the blame on standardized tests.

Here's a wacky theory:
Coming to college is becoming a more and more common thing. In the past, going to college was considered a big step up and a big deal; nowadays, NOT going to college is considered pretty bad. Maybe more and more people who would have opted out of extra school in the past are being socially pressured into going now, and this is the consequence.

But yeah high school classes suck IMO and do little to help develop abstract thought. I say we force the students to shape up or fail them.

But it goes beyond writing too. When I was a TA for a physical geography class I was simply amazed at how difficult it could be to explain concepts like a rain shadow or angle of sun declination to people, and how they would just memorize what happens instead of gain a real understanding for why it happens. IMO the second way is MUCH easier and more rewarding, but our education system has taught people--even the fully capable ones--just to memorize.

[MrMon]

The standardized tests are not the cause of this, the article clearly points out that the problem is you can label a course anything you want, but whether or not it contains what it needs to is another matter. The idea behind the standardized tests is, schools shouldn't be able to get away with this any longer, as everyone is held accountable to the same standard, regardless of what their courses are titled.

I am transitioning to teaching (physics) and I can tell you based on what I have observed so far, the idea that students are being held to low standards is very true in some districts. I observed in an almost all-black district and the courses were pathetic. What was being taught was boring, low-level, and not being taught well. The teacher certainly meant well, so whether she felt compelled to teach at that low a level, I don't know, but she was also teaching outside her area of training. Something seemed missing in a lot of the kids as well, like they hadn't been taught the basics somewhere along the line.

In contrast, I've also seen excellent schools, where students really do do top level work. There are screw-up kids here too, but they don't let them dominate the classroom. So it's possible to teach the kids, but some schools clearly do a better job than others. But the standardized tests have little to do with it.

[Gregatron]

Good thoughts Mon. I think there is a lot of truth to what you say about kids not being taught well in certain school districts. In a lot of cases I blame parents. Many kids never really see books until they go to school, are not read to, or taught to read at a young age by their parents. That is certainly not the school's fault. Also, many schools in the US just plain suck. IMO we have both the best public schools in the world, and some of the worst (huge standard deviation).

However, it seems things are getting worse, and while I did not mean to imply monocausality, I do think standardized testing is at least one culprit.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea behind the standardized tests is, schools shouldn't be able to get away with this any longer, as everyone is held accountable to the same standard, regardless of what their courses are titled.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes that is the IDEA BEHIND them. In reality -- and this is just my opinion -- kids are learning to think discreetly instead of narratively. They come into college with a "multiple choice" mindset. Teaching with the goal of doing well on standardized tests means less emphasis on developing abstract thinking and instead makes students focus on rudimentary decision making. While there are some bad schools out there to be sure, this emphasis on standardization is, IMO, a lowering tide that sinks all boats.

That said, perhaps standardization could be done that tests abstract, critical thinking. I am not necessarily against standardization itself, though I do think it suboptimal. However, I am wholeheartedly against the way it is being implemented. I think the system could be tweaked in ways that would make teaching to the test virtually impossible.

[T50_Omaha8]

[ QUOTE ]
That said, perhaps standardization could be done that tests abstract, critical thinking. I am not necessarily against standardization itself, though I do think it suboptimal. However, I am wholeheartedly against the way it is being implemented. I think the system could be tweaked in ways that would make teaching to the test virtually impossible.

[/ QUOTE ] The racial sensitivity nuts wouldn't like this at all. Teaching to the test makes the 'standard deviation,' as you call it, appear to be a good deal lower, which helps really abominable schools not look quite so bad. One this tweaking occurs, grades will plummet for poor, disproportionately black schools, and PC activists will throw up the racist-test flag.

Also most people in power have no interest in revealing how bad the problem truly is.

[MrMon]

I don't think standardized tests to test for abstract thinking on a widespread basis are really practical, nor are they truly possible. A test for that really can't be accurately tested by multiple choice test. And essay testing really is difficult to grade consistently on a mass basis. So that type of testing is best left to a classroom teacher.

I think most people misunderstand the idea behind standardized testing, including much of the teaching community. It measures one aspect of learning well, basic factual knowledge. But that's not where knowledge ends, rather, it's where it begins, so what the standardized tests are doing is providing a floor, one that says you need to know these things AT A MINIMUM.

All this talk about kids needing to learn how to think critically and abstractly, that's great, but the kids need to know something to think about before they do that. (Technically, that's not correct, as my education profs will tell you, but I'm simplifying.) Too many teachers think that if they teach to the test and they do well, the kids know all they need to know, which is definitely not true. But you aren't going to get very far teaching them how to think critically with a brain full of mush. Give me a kids full of facts who can just recite them, I can teach him to think critically. Give me an abstract thinker who knows no facts, and you probably have a child who has gotten a high grade point, but knows nothing and resents it when you tell them so.

Ideally, you need to teach all kinds of thinking simultaneously, but too many teachers leave out the hard stuff for the fun, abstract thinking. Those teachers do a disservice to their students, but it's a widespread practice, as it's all the rage in the ed schools. Standarized testing had to be implemented because the disservice became so widespread, it was obvious the kids were learning nothing.

[Misfire]

You're making a mistake assuming that standardized tests actually set a floor. I teach standardized testing for a living (maybe I'm part of the problem, but I do it for the monies), and can tell you without a doubt that most standardized tests can be beaten with almost no actual knowledge of the subject matter.

Standardized testing plus teach-to-the-test curricula create a lot of false positives, allowing ill-equipped students into programs they are not at all qualified to attend.