Another Reason Educational Systems Can't Connect

[AuntShecky]

I'm putting this thread in "Serious Discussions," but part of the outrage comes
from the idea of taking some topics way too seriously. On top of recent news that schools are banning Dante's Inferno, is the shocking discovery that New York City schools are considering certain topics taboo (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/out_of_the_question_YegJJGCOo33j0CQsccdZuL).

Among the list of subjects banned from the tests are a couple that seem
reasonable--drugs, for instance, pornography, violence--simply because many children are already exposed to those things every day and the school is supposed to be a "safe haven" for them.

But in their laudable effort to treat the young with sensitivity, the educationists go too far by avoiding topics which kids find interesting, such as celebrities, especially those who could possibly serve as role models. Movies? Holidays? Dancing (except for ballet)? In what way could "dinosaurs" be deemed offensive? Give me a break!

The list of banned topics is so expensive it's hard to imagine anything left that would spark a youthful imagination. How are our kids going to learn about the world outside their own limited spheres if so many barriers to information prevent them from doing this? According to the NY Post article, a Columbia University professor states "If the goal is to assess higher-order thinking skills, controversial topics [. . .] are exactly what students should be reasoning about."

I'm interested in hearing what my fellow LitNutters think about all this.

[OrphanPip]

I'm not sure the intent with the tests is actually to be PC though, it looks like they are trying to eliminate possible confounding variables to get a statistically representative test result. The natural impulse for someone planning such a data gathering endeavour is to widen the net of exclusion as much as possible, thus why they eliminate seemingly trivial things from the test. I imagine there is probably a scholarly history of criticizing such tests for creating misleading data because of privileged knowledge or politically sensitive questions.

It would be different if these were curricular changes instead of just guidelines for getting an unbiased assessment of math and science skills.

Edit: Of course, I can see where a reasonable argument could be made that the endeavour goes so far as to create another confounding effect by alienating students from the test material.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yes, but when you hear their reasoning, it becomes inrdeiby inane. I heard about this on the news a few days ago. The tests can't mention dinosaurs because it might conflict with someone's religious views. They can't mention birthdays because certain religious sects, like Jehovah's Witness, don't celebrate birthdays. Other words include Halloween, dancing, and any reference to disease are not allowed.

It's PC run amok, and I'm a liberal. It's just ridiculous!

[OrphanPip]

Yes, but when you hear their reasoning, it becomes inrdeiby inane. I heard about this on the news a few days ago. The tests can't mention dinosaurs because it might conflict with someone's religious views. They can't mention birthdays because certain religious sects, like Jehovah's Witness, don't celebrate birthdays. Other words include Halloween, dancing, and any reference to disease are not allowed.

It's PC run amok, and I'm a liberal. It's just ridiculous!

I'm still not sure how it has to do with PC though. I can easily imagine why it might be sound to remove mentions of divorce or violence from such tests, because they can be reasonably expected to distract students with certain pasts. But, the rationale isn't to avoid offending anyone because offending people is bad, the rationale is to avoid offending people so that they can get reliable unbiased data, so that they can make more accurate assessments about the student body's academic progress.

I would certainly object to the removal of mentions of slavery from a history class, or mentions of dinosaurs from biology. However, that's not quite the same as making sure no math questions involve multiplying stegosauruses, so that students can concentrate on the math itself.

[Charles Darnay]

For the reason that the focus is on what should be on a standardized test and not what should be taught in schools, this issue seems more silly than harmful. They are not saying "don't teach evolution" as some actually do encourage, but rather that "standardize tests should appeal to absolutely everyone, and apparently birthdays do not." - this is just silly.

It is also research (and probably research money) going to all the wrong places. One of the issues with standardized testing (there are many) is their cultural biases. Students who have not been living in the US (or wherever the test is) are expected to pick up on cultural clues that long-term residents take for granted.

In Ontario, for example, we do not have many standardized tests in our school system (thankfully). One that we do have is a literacy test to be taken during high school (typically grade 10.) Early research showed that foreign students performed significantly worse. The response was: "well, yeah of course: their proficiency with the language is worse so they will not perform as well as a fluent English speaker." Further research showed, however, that it was not only a person's proficiency with English, but their understanding of cultural norms. Students were shown a picture of a candy cane, with the headline "Time to celebrate", and they were asked to write a short article based on the headline and picture. All Canadian born students immediately made the connection between "candy cane" and "Christmas" - but this is not a universal symbol, so there were some foreign students who would read and write perfectly fine but could not make this connection because it did not exist to them.

My rambling point is that I am not against a move to make standardized testing standardized, but the way it is being treated here is completely pointless.

[OrphanPip]

For the reason that the focus is on what should be on a standardized test and not what should be taught in schools, this issue seems more silly than harmful. They are not saying "don't teach evolution" as some actually do encourage, but rather that "standardize tests should appeal to absolutely everyone, and apparently birthdays do not." - this is just silly.


It may seem silly, but the people working on the test are probably being deliberately over cautious so as not to bias their results. I doubt they actually think people will complain over the mention of birthdays in the test, Jehovah Witnesses are usually used to mentions of birthdays, they just want to produce something as accurate as possible.

They likely had a brainstorming session where they eliminated everything they thought possible to eliminate without jeopardizing the test. It's more a product of streamlining than PC. They don't want to have to deal with any nuances or loose ends.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm still not sure how it has to do with PC though. I can easily imagine why it might be sound to remove mentions of divorce or violence from such tests, because they can be reasonably expected to distract students with certain pasts. But, the rationale isn't to avoid offending anyone because offending people is bad, the rationale is to avoid offending people so that they can get reliable unbiased data, so that they can make more accurate assessments about the student body's academic progress.

I guess I agree (though I think catering to a tiny percentage of kids who may find words like dinosaur and birthday distracting is silly), though I wonder if that's the reason the state's banning these words from their tests. Is it to get unbiased results, or to be PC?

I still don't fully buy the accurate results rationale, though. Students are going to have to think a bit about a wide range of issues, and sometimes these might be uncomfortable for them. What's wrong with that? Are our children so fragile that they can handle such explosive topics as birthdays, dinosaurs, and dancing to the point that the mere mention of such taboos will cause them to get answers wrong on a test? If an assessment is trying to be made on the thinking ability of students, questions that pose possible difficulties for students shouldn't be avoided, they should be encouraged.

[OrphanPip]

I guess I agree (though I think catering to a tiny percentage of kids who may find words like dinosaur and birthday distracting is silly), though I wonder if that's the reason the state's banning these words from their tests. Is it to get unbiased results, or to be PC?

I still don't fully buy the accurate results rationale, though. Students are going to have to think a bit about a wide range of issues, and sometimes these might be uncomfortable for them. What's wrong with that? Are our children so fragile that they can handle such explosive topics as birthdays, dinosaurs, and dancing to the point that the mere mention of such taboos will cause them to get answers wrong on a test? If an assessment is trying to be made on the thinking ability of students, questions that pose possible difficulties for students shouldn't be avoided, they should be encouraged.

I agree students should be challenged and assessed under those conditions in one context, but not in the context of broad ranging standardized tests that are meant to attest standard reading, writing, math, and science levels. Promoting a critical engagement with the subjects that students learn is certainly important, but it's less relevant to the question of whether the students have acquired basic skills to begin with.

I think education has multiple goals, from the perspective of the state. One, you want to produce a population of individuals who have acquired basic skills. Secondly, you want to foster an engaged and active civil society, by helping to produce reasoning and creative students. The standardized tests are looking to measure the first concern. By necessity, the second concern will likely have to be left up to individual teachers to work on.

[Darcy88]

I agree students should be challenged and assessed under those conditions in one context, but not in the context of broad ranging standardized tests that are meant to attest standard reading, writing, math, and science levels. Promoting a critical engagement with the subjects that students learn is certainly important, but it's less relevant to the question of whether the students have acquired basic skills to begin with.

I think education has multiple goals, from the perspective of the state. One, you want to produce a population of individuals who have acquired basic skills. Secondly, you want to foster an engaged and active civil society, by helping to produce reasoning and creative students. The standardized tests are looking to measure the first concern. By necessity, the second concern will likely have to be left up to individual teachers to work on.

Does the state really encourage reasoning and creativity? I think it discourages both. A stupid unimaginative citizenry is more easily kept in line.

[OrphanPip]

Does the state really encourage reasoning and creativity? I think it discourages both. A stupid unimaginative citizenry is more easily kept in line.

States have invested interests in maintaining an engaged civil society. That is why we have programs like multiculturalism in Canada, the point is to make everyone get involved in the societal culture. Why does the state finance cultural institutions, cultural activities, community organizations, and civil society in general? Because it makes a more cohesive and productive society, one that is more easily mobilized in times of crisis, and more engaged in the national project. People who feel disaffected from the state don't contribute to the state, and people who don't have outlets for their doubts and creativity in society are disaffected citizens.

[tailor STATELY]

Dantes Inferno was danting (sic) for me at a ripened age... perhaps my translation was flawed (lol). It didn't convert me to catholicism nor atheism, but wow, was it tedious.

I'd say back to the 3-R's, but even that's flawed (lol).

McGuffey Readers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGuffey_Readers), through all their incarnations, were good enough for students to excel and become citizens who helped the nation of the USA flourish.

My philosophy of teaching would be KISS... keep it simple... and drill baby, drill.

It's a shame that:

teachers have to do so many other things other than teaching.

society isn't social - it's turmoil.

families are fractured and/or dis-functional. The children of these families start school each day with one or two strikes (sic) against them.

money earmarked for schools too often gets hijacked to the student's detriment. Perhaps that's the problem... the money should be earmarked for students; not teachers, schools, nor school systems.

books are expensive and constantly being revised and updated for the almighty dollar - not the student's sake.

politics, activism, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/political correctness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness) run amok in the educational process.

It is a wonder that we have the internet for students to quickly access information and help them to learn what they would wish to learn on their own (teacher friendly filtered and guided of course).

Just a few thoughts I had that are inherently flawed in their own ways.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[ClaesGefvenberg]

The list of banned topics is so expensive it's hard to imagine anything left that would spark a youthful imagination.You could say that... In fact, I find it hard to see anything at all that could not fit into one or several topics. I would venture to say that the creators of that list have effectively rendered it impossible to come up with a useful test.

I often approach problem solving by entering extremes into the equation. Thus, I suggest that we put the list itself to the test: Can anyone come up with anything that would not get caught by that ludicrous list?

/Claes

[AuntShecky]

Does the state really encourage reasoning and creativity? I think it discourages both. A stupid unimaginative citizenry is more easily kept in line.

I think that's exactly what I'm getting at. Also, in the back of their minds, the educators are not just streamlining data, they are attempting to optimize results. In a way, we can infer from the article in the NY Post -- a newspaper not known to be a bastion of intellectualism-- that the sanitized test questions are just another example of "dumbing down."

[OrphanPip]

I think that's exactly what I'm getting at. Also, in the back of their minds, the educators are not just streamlining data, they are attempting to optimize results. In a way, we can infer from the article in the NY Post -- a newspaper not known to be a bastion of intellectualism-- that the sanitized test questions are just another example of "dumbing down."

I don't think that's really a fair criticism. You're essentially saying they are working in a positive bias, which is semi-correct in that the point is to optimize the results of individuals, which in turn will increase the average. However, the point isn't to optimize the results in general, but to make sure no individual within the test group is privileged by the test structure. Behind this is sound research that such tests have real issues with cultural biases depressing the results of certain groups. I don't think that such an approach can really be faulted, the point is to make sure everyone taking the test performs at their best, not to make the test easier overall.

I'd say it could be fair to say such an endeavour is misguided and not going to provide useful data for improving the education of students. I'm not saying such standardized testing is a good thing, but if you're going to do that kind of data gathering, it is best to do it in a way that gives the most accurate results. It is fair to say such test don't adequately assess academic achievement, but it is hard to say that they aren't at all useful for seeing how many students lack basic skills, at least relative to the group average.