This is a dodge to an explicit question for the third time.
It's not meant as a dodge, and I'm not trying to sound elitist here (although I'm aware I might). Asking how a standardized test is unfair is not something that I can give a two sentence answer to. Its something that educators differ on, for starters, and it also depends what you mean by 'fair' and what you see the role of testing as being.
When I was going through teacher training here in Australia, we literally studied standardized tests to look at what role something like cultural bias would play. What role reading comprehension would play, where the topic being tested wasn't reading comprehension. How an ESL student would be advantaged or disadvantaged if a standard written test was used compared to an oral test, compared to work samples taken over a course, etc.
Closer to what you're talking about would be things like whether standardized testing bias exists to a greater or lesser extent in some subject areas over another. Maths, for example, is more like a universal language, and so prone to less bias based on cultural or language barriers.
So if you're looking for 'standard tests are unfair because x' type answer, you won't get it. I'm not dodging anything here, and I'm extremely passionate (still) about standardized testing and it's flaws (or, more accurately, it's misuse).
I am happy to provide you with reading material to support or more fully explain this if it is something you are actually willing to invest time in. Your call.
Incidentally, ALL assessment methods are inherently biased, just as all people are. Recognition and allowance for our bias is what's important here, something some education systems (with the US being a prime example) seem to do very poorly.
If the standard is helping then your sarcasm does not help.
True enough. I apologize.
Another dodge. Common ancestor or animal lineage belongs in the myth category. Right next to little men in sperm. It is as useful to applicable science as is reading bumps on head is to psychology. Has zero application value to medicine.
It is not science. Perhaps they can squeeze it in history in some ways. Like 19th century precursors to 20th-century race wars based on obsolete race theories. Something like that.
It's pretty amusing that you keep accusing me of 'dodging' because you don't like how I phrase my responses. I'm not dodging anything, but rather trying to take this discussion past 'evolution bad', since at that level there simply isn't anything to discuss. Whilst you might think evolution belongs in 'myth' the overwhelming preponderance of scientific opinion disagrees with you.
Free rent in your head? Don't expect the same from me.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
I agree. SATs do not measure improvement, and are not used as a teaching tool in any sort of holistic sense. If anything, they drive less desirable teaching practice. So...where does that leave them?
It is not science. Repeating the same mantras does not make it so.
This would appear to be ironic in the extreme. The mantra doesn't make it 'science', but rather the vast preponderance of scientific opinion. That could, of course, be wrong, at which time the curriculum should be updated to reflect the vast preponderance of scientific opinion. Just like we do when teaching children about how many planets there are in the solar system.
Well i read somewhere some Muslims are removing evolution. What do ya know? They must think it is useless. Wasn't Ken Ham an Australian educator?
None of this seems to add much to the discussion or your argument. Ken Ham is Australian, and taught high school science here for about 2 years. Is there something about him you wish to bring into the discussion?
Everybody, to some extent, kowtows to the mob. Angry parents etc. This includes frontline teachers who are sometimes subject to parental wrath. My child does not lie! How many times did teachers hear that one? The way it got in was thru the courts and those who pay the freight have a say in what is taught. Don't expect taxpayors to sit back like sheep and kowtow to what is being taught. That is a recipe for diaster (myopic, as you say) and it is usually the front line teacher who receives the brunt of anger for subjects taught. They do some whacky things in education. Like letting boys come to school in dresses and usage of the girls bathroom. Naturally this is going to **** some parents off and they are going to scream bloody murder if little boys in dresses are in the same bathroom as the little girl who wants them the hell out! Sometimes children have more sense than adults.
Err...we're talking about science curriculum here though, not social engineering experiments, or whatever else. I would certainly not be first in line to defend the education system, nor even teachers, since I think there are systemic issues across the board.
And yes, various factors come to play with curriculum decisions, including politics, and other pressure groups. Remove them and let the scientists determine science education...do you think evolution is included or not?
Your link does not work because i have ad blocker. It does not make it past my firewall. Besides, i already know their case and their motives much of which is to dumb things down. Remove the math requirements because minorities and females fail at too high rates for the bean counters. We need to dumb down all the STEM courses so we can allow more 2nd and 3rd stringers into the mix. Race preferences where Whites and Asians are kicked to the back of the line.
I get that you couldn't access the link...or, I would assume, any of the links I provided. But that being the case you shouldn't be commenting on them or their content. I certainly did NOT provide one side links that suggest we should dumb down education or remove entrance requirements for college. That is fundamentally and completely incorrect, and misrepresents my position entirely. I do wonder if you're even trying to understand this to any depth.
Talk about bean counters, females, etc just appears nonsensical when framed against the point I was trying to make. NACAC (National Association for College Admission Counseling) funded scientific testing of courses not requiring ACT/SAT scores to be submitted versus those that do, and looked at the graduation rates discrepancy in each case. This speaks directly to the usefulness of SAT scores as determinants of college performance.
From the linked source :
With almost 123,000 students at 33 widely differing institutions, the differences between submitters and non-submitters are five one-hundredths of a GPA point, and six-tenths of one percent in graduation rates. By any standard, these are trivial differences.
It makes a bunch of pertinent points and quotes other sources also, but you get the point. High School performance is a better predictor of college success than SATs. Much better. Why you are wanting to stand by SATs for no apparent reason, and why you brought this into a discussion on science curriculum in Arizona, I'm unsure...but you don't really seem to have spent much time studying this topic area. I'm not trying to 'win' an argument here. I'm trying to have an actual discussion with some depth.
