I can't tell you how many people I've met, even with college degrees, that can't write worth a poop. I'm not talking about just spelling. Many "educated" people who were educated in America can't express their thoughts in writing. Some can't even read. They can read words, but they get no meaning from a page full of words. There are a bunch on this site as well.

Standardized tests? What a crock. This is a teacher's excuse for sitting on their ***. The tests can weed out the true losers, I suppose, but they don't identify any over-achievers. That's not what government schools do, though. They're in the business of advancing students to higher grades. It doesn't matter how they perform in lower grades. We don't want to adversely affect their self-esteem but holding them back until they learn something.

 

Well i am not going to lay out my entire standardized testing plan but it would be able to identify over achievers as well as identify the career route that will not only make the person most happy with life but also the most useful Though i know most useful sounds kinda 1984ish. I will assume u know i mean the book. I say screw self-esteem cause guess what if u inflate at student's self-esteem too much they will feel they are above doing work and that inturn makes a less useful person and in the end will cause them more grief casue they will never get to where they were once told they could get. Perfect example: In American anyone can be President no not true the guy with CP or a learning disability will not become the leader of the free world and neither will the guy that just did enough to get by while he was in high school.

 

I'm talking about real life, not some pretend test you thought up and no one uses.

My point is that a test doesn't teach, it measures. We need good teachers in good schools. Then we can worry about measuring with tests. What's the point of measuring students who haven't learned anything or who haven't been taught anything? Your putting your cart ahead of your horse.

 

I guess i just got lucky i went to public schools and i recieved a really good education maybe its because i was willing to put forth an effort when needed. I had some poor teachers i mean my 11th grade English teacher asked me what grade i wanted i said i'd be happy with a B he said its done and this was b4 the year was half over. I am also looking at testing also for placement into higher classes or lower classes depending on what is needed. And the results need to be part of ur education records even so colleges or employers can see them. Would u hire someone that took two years or just one year to get though the same class with the same teacher assuming that everything else was equal? This is just a simplified example.

 

Well, I know you want me to say the student who took one year. It depends. I wouldn't want that student if they just asked for a "B" and got it. But high school doesn't teach you much in terms of job skills. Really, what's the difference if I'm hiring a recent high school grad? I'd pick the person who impressed me the most, who looked me in the eye and spoke clearly, who didn't stutter and ramble, who sat up straight and looked like they wanted to learn and then help. I might even choose a dropout over a grad if the person made a good impression on me.

For a skilled or professional job, school records (college or tech training grades and test results) would be more important. I wouldn't give a damn about high school standardized tests, though.

 

I see nothing wrong with hiring the drop-out over the grad but that is were pre-employment screening and testing comes into play. It pisses me off when jobs say college degree need for something that i could have easily done b4 i graduated high school my point about the one or two year thing is that it is obvious that both people could do it yet it took the other guy twice as long and in a fast paced industry that would be no good however if u dont need someone that is fast paced offer the job to the guy that took two years at lower pay and u will have a way to justify it.

 

It's the job market that allows employers to do that. When there's an overabundance of available people they can do stuff like that.

Doing something quicker doesn't mean it will be done better. I understand what you're saying, but taking extra time to do something isn't ALWAYS a negative.

 

True and some employers may look at it that way and employ him over the other guy especially if they need someone that will make sure something is 100% correct b4 doing it. Carpenter saying measure twice cut once.

 

Brain surgeons too.

 

I would hope so.