A successful adult failed high school standardised test. It shows that these tests don't really measure the abilities that are required to make yourself a success.
This is the problem when pure academicians, who are not exposed to industrial and commercial lives are asked to evaluate students.
I used to work in industry for more than 25 years. The skills that are required for survivals are not advanced maths but basic fundamentals. I notice that students are very weak in basic fundamentals. They can only aswer questions that appear to be tough but have actually been trained before, making them more tests of memory instaed of understanding of the fundamentals.
The best way to find out is just to sample a few tests, and give them to successful real people in various fields. Let us find out which aspects of the questions are important for them. I want to see the results for myself.
For now, I am simplifying tests so that I can test for fundamentals instead of pure memory. But I notice that short term memory is vital towards surviving in the real world because you need to understand what you read. If you cannot follow instructions, then you cannot do things required by your customers. You also cannot read instruction manuals.
We need a new set of students who can understand what they read, instead of being able to memorise standardised sets of questions. Based on my experience for the past two years, those students who are good at understanding and short term memory, are also good at University Level examinations. Funnily they are not so good at current STPM or SPM examinations. However I have not met any of Malaysia's top students in my class.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/when-an-adult-took-standardized-tests-forced-on-kids/2011/12/05/gIQApTDuUO_blog.html
Posted at 04:00 AM ET, 12/05/2011
When an adult took standardized tests forced on kids
Update, 4:40 p.m. Tuesday:
Revealed: The school board member who took standardized test
Original post:
This
was written by Marion Brady, veteran teacher, administrator, curriculum designer and author.
By Marion Brady
A longtime friend on the school board of one of the largest school
systems in America did something that few public servants are willing to
do. He took versions of his state’s
high-stakes standardized math and reading tests for 10th graders, and said he’d make his scores public.
By any reasonable measure, my friend is a success. His now-grown kids
are well-educated. He has a big house in a good part of town. Paid-for
condo in the Caribbean. Influential friends. Lots of frequent flyer
miles. Enough time of his own to give serious attention to his school
board responsibilities. The margins of his electoral wins and his good
relationships with administrators and teachers testify to his openness
to dialogue and willingness to listen.
He called me the morning he took the test to say he was sure he
hadn’t done well, but had to wait for the results. A couple of days ago,
realizing that local school board members don’t seem to be playing much
of a role in the current “reform” brouhaha, I asked him what he now
thought about the tests he’d taken.
“I won’t beat around the bush,” he wrote in an email. “The math
section had 60 questions. I knew the answers to none of them, but
managed to guess ten out of the 60 correctly. On the reading test, I got
62% . In our system, that’s a “D”, and would get me a mandatory
assignment to a double block of reading instruction.
He continued, “It seems to me something is seriously wrong. I have a
bachelor of science degree, two masters degrees, and 15 credit hours
toward a doctorate.
“I help oversee an organization with 22,000 employees and a $3
billion operations and capital budget, and am able to make sense of
complex data related to those responsibilities.
“I have a wide circle of friends in various professions. Since taking
the test, I’ve detailed its contents as best I can to many of them,
particularly the math section, which does more than its share of shoving
students in our system out of school and on to the street. Not a single
one of them said that the math I described was necessary in their
profession.
“It might be argued that I’ve been out of school too long, that if
I’d actually been in the 10th grade prior to taking the test, the
material would have been fresh. But doesn’t that miss the point? A test
that can determine a student’s future life chances should surely relate
in some practical way to the requirements of life. I can’t see how that
could possibly be true of the test I took.”
Here’s the clincher in what he wrote:
“If I’d been required to take those two
tests
when I was a 10th grader, my life would almost certainly have been very
different. I’d have been told I wasn’t ‘college material,’ would
probably have believed it, and looked for work appropriate for the level
of ability that the test said I had.
“It makes no sense to me that a test with the potential for shaping a
student’s entire future has so little apparent relevance to adult,
real-world functioning. Who decided the kind of questions and their
level of difficulty? Using what criteria? To whom did they have to
defend their decisions? As subject-matter specialists, how qualified
were they to make general judgments about the needs of this state’s
children in a future they can’t possibly predict? Who set the pass-fail
“cut score”? How?”
“I can’t escape the conclusion that decisions about the [state test]
in particular and standardized tests in general are being made by
individuals who lack perspective and aren’t really accountable.”
There you have it. A concise summary of what’s wrong with present
corporately driven education change: Decisions are being made by
individuals who lack perspective and aren’t really accountable.
Those decisions are shaped not by knowledge or understanding of
educating, but by ideology, politics, hubris, greed, ignorance, the
conventional wisdom, and various combinations thereof. And then they’re
sold to the public by the rich and powerful.
All that without so much as a pilot program to see if their
simplistic, worn-out ideas work, and without a single procedure in place
that imposes on them what they demand of teachers: accountability.
But maybe there’s hope. As I write, a
New York Times story by Michael Winerip makes my day. The stupidity of the current test-based thrust of reform has
triggered the first revolt of school principals.
Winerip writes: “As of last night, 658 principals around the state
(New York) had signed a letter — 488 of them from Long Island, where the
insurrection began — protesting the use of students’ test scores to
evaluate teachers’ and principals’ performance.”
One of those school principals, Winerip says, is Bernard Kaplan.
Kaplan runs one of the highest-achieving schools in the state, but is
required to attend 10 training sessions.
“It’s education by humiliation,” Kaplan said. “I’ve never seen teachers and principals so degraded.”
Carol Burris,
named the 2010 Educator of the Year by the School Administrators
Association of New York State, has to attend those 10 training sessions.
Katie Zahedi, another principal, said the session she attended was
“two days of total nonsense. I have a Ph.D., I’m in a school every day,
and some consultant is supposed to be teaching me to do evaluations.”
A fourth principal, Mario Fernandez, called the evaluation process a
product of “ludicrous, shallow thinking. They’re expecting a tornado to
go through a junkyard and have a brand new Mercedes pop up.”
My school board member-friend concluded his email with this: “I can’t
escape the conclusion that those of us who are expected to follow
through on decisions that have been made for us are doing something
ethically questionable.”
He’s wrong. What they’re being made to do isn’t ethically
questionable. It’s ethically unacceptable. Ethically reprehensible.
Ethically indefensible.
How many of the approximately 100,000 school principals in the U.S.
would join the revolt if their ethical principles trumped their fears of
retribution? Why haven’t they been asked?
Armed with printouts of his presentation slides, Ng Chak Ngoon (right)
who described himself as a retiree, presented the panel with a graph
that showed 222 lines with every one being taller than the other as it
progressed.
He
further estimated that if a party relied on all the small seats to win
power, it would only require 15.4 percent of the total votes to form a
majority in Parliament.
"If you have Negeri Sembilan's, I would like to see my chances of winning," added Loke.
