2008 Woodie Awards
Lecture explores pros, cons of standardized tests
Katherine Neubert, Collegian Staff
Issue date: 5/8/08 Section: News
Teachers and educators gathered with community members on Monday night at a seminar to argue the benefits of standardized tests on children and high school-aged teens.
The discussion, led by Stephen G. Sireci, was entitled "Educational Testing: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Unanswered Questions."
Sireci himself is not an educator, but rather a psychometrician, someone who studies the measurement of an individual's mental attributes and characteristics. He began his lecture with the popular acknowledgement that most people don't like to take tests. He then showed a slide of students drawing themselves taking the MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System) - the drawings depicted the MCAS as something "evil."
What sparked Sireci's interest in the topic of testing started when he saw an MCAS bumper sticker while driving home to Northampton one day. It said "These tests hurt kids."
"How do these test hurt kids, and why?" Sireci asked, as he described his motivation for studying the subject.
Teachers in the audience expressed their particular like for the MCAS and other state tests, saying that it gives teachers structure, whereas before, there was none.
Sireci continued to explore the question, "Are educational tests inherently evil?"
He showed some modern tests and their history, like Alfred Binet's (1904) Intelligence Test helping to educate children in Paris, and the SAT, designed to select college applicants, with the original idea to select students based on merit.
"Tests need to measure the curriculum teachers are teaching," added Sireci. "Good educators know the value of good testing."
Sireci showed examples of all sorts of tests for getting into college, obtaining licenses and finding careers.
"There are tests for everything," he said.
Sireci then showed a study he did with his 11-year-old son, evaluating his report card from the Bridge Street Elementary School in Northampton.
He asks important questions about testing; "Have state-mandated standardized tests done more good than harm? Have they made a difference?"
Sireci believes that if we teach to the test, it is the same as teaching to the curriculum. If we set high standards, students will meet them.
Some of the teachers in the audience discussed their experiences and concerns about the time the tests are administered in relation to when they are given back.
He also touched upon achievement gaps, negative aspects and how to prepare students so not to provoke anxiety before tests.
Sireci hopes to continue his studies of educational testing by assessing students who are not sufficiently proficient in the English language, and computerized-adaptive testing, like the GRE (Graduate Records Examination).
Katherine Neubert can be reached at kneubert@student.umass.edu.
The discussion, led by Stephen G. Sireci, was entitled "Educational Testing: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Unanswered Questions."
Sireci himself is not an educator, but rather a psychometrician, someone who studies the measurement of an individual's mental attributes and characteristics. He began his lecture with the popular acknowledgement that most people don't like to take tests. He then showed a slide of students drawing themselves taking the MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System) - the drawings depicted the MCAS as something "evil."
What sparked Sireci's interest in the topic of testing started when he saw an MCAS bumper sticker while driving home to Northampton one day. It said "These tests hurt kids."
"How do these test hurt kids, and why?" Sireci asked, as he described his motivation for studying the subject.
Teachers in the audience expressed their particular like for the MCAS and other state tests, saying that it gives teachers structure, whereas before, there was none.
Sireci continued to explore the question, "Are educational tests inherently evil?"
He showed some modern tests and their history, like Alfred Binet's (1904) Intelligence Test helping to educate children in Paris, and the SAT, designed to select college applicants, with the original idea to select students based on merit.
"Tests need to measure the curriculum teachers are teaching," added Sireci. "Good educators know the value of good testing."
Sireci showed examples of all sorts of tests for getting into college, obtaining licenses and finding careers.
"There are tests for everything," he said.
Sireci then showed a study he did with his 11-year-old son, evaluating his report card from the Bridge Street Elementary School in Northampton.
He asks important questions about testing; "Have state-mandated standardized tests done more good than harm? Have they made a difference?"
Sireci believes that if we teach to the test, it is the same as teaching to the curriculum. If we set high standards, students will meet them.
Some of the teachers in the audience discussed their experiences and concerns about the time the tests are administered in relation to when they are given back.
He also touched upon achievement gaps, negative aspects and how to prepare students so not to provoke anxiety before tests.
Sireci hopes to continue his studies of educational testing by assessing students who are not sufficiently proficient in the English language, and computerized-adaptive testing, like the GRE (Graduate Records Examination).
Katherine Neubert can be reached at kneubert@student.umass.edu.
Be the first to comment on this story