I defined what it meant to game a test, and gave definitions which fit the example. You have rejected my definition, without giving an alternative.
"That's a useful skill" is not a useful educational criterion. Knowing how to change a tire on a car is a useful skill, but it's not appropriate for a math course.
"Educating students" is also a useless criterion. Education is a never-ending process. I'm still learning things now. Schools by necessity must restrict themselves to certain topics. A Spanish teacher cannot simply use "I'm educating students" as an excuse to spend four weeks on Canadian politics in the 1970s.
If test prep is so important, why isn't it its own course, where the teachers are trained for it, and where there are specific curriculum goals?
"This is why tests are standardized, not left up to the schools or teachers" - are you willfully ignoring the point? Someone defines the standards. The page I linked to suggests that the standards for this New York test were defined by people who want the public school systems to fail, as part of the general effort to privatize public school.
> The bottom line is that there are tremendous financial interests driving the agenda about our schools — from test makers, to publishers, to data management corporations — all making tremendous profits from the chaotic change. When the scores drop, they prosper. When the tests change, they prosper. When schools scramble to buy materials to raise scores, they prosper. There are curriculum developers earning millions to created scripted lessons to turn teachers into deliverers of modules in alignment with the Common Core (or to replace teachers with computer software carefully designed for such alignment). This is all to be enforced by their principals, who must attend “calibration events” run by “network teams.”
You even used the passive "that's why tests are standardized" - who standardized the tests, what political and financial goals influence them, and how transparent is the standardization process?
When the schools and teachers define the tests, then these issues are much clearer, and any failures are limited to just the school or teacher, and not systemic to the entire state.
Hence why it's possible, and likely, that some test standardizers have gamed the test results, under my concrete definition of "gaming."
I agree that if you want to define education in the course material as "gaming", the tests can indeed be gamed. Knowing how to reject an obviously false answer (e.g., "23.6 x 10.9 = ? a) 1,000,000, b) 0.000000001, c) 257.24 d) 527.24) is part of learning math.
As for who defines the standards, the answer is our politicians or whoever they delegate to. And if you define gaming as "defining a standard", then yes, the test creators also game the system.
So far, you haven't actually pointed to any part of the standard that you object to. Nor have you pointed out any sort of gaming other than "teaching the material on the tests, including how to ballpark answers".
I defined gaming as "aspects which influence the test results other than proficiency in the subject matter."
I did not define it as "education in the course material". Please don't make that assumption.
It's impossible to evaluate your example without defining the pedagogical goal. Your example test question cannot distinguish between proficiency in multiplying two three-digit numbers, and proficiency in selecting from one of four possible answers, where two are obviously incorrect.
That said, this question is biased in favor of students who have been taught estimation techniques, in this case, round, compute 20 * 10, and look for the closest answer. They will be able to answer more of these types of questions than students who can actually multiply the numbers, but haven't learned the approximation methods.
Had the answers been "1) 257.24, 2) 256.24, 3) 247.34, 4) 248.34" then the other class of students would fare better. Then again, those who learned casting-out-nines would be able to reject two of these quickly.
It's clear that sometimes ballpark answers are better than exact ones. In bookkeeping, it's clear that exact answers are better. It's possible to teach students both ... by taking time away from other skills which are also part of mathematical proficiency. A standardized testing system encourages monoculture teaching, so that all students are primarily taught the method most likely to be on the test, on the assumption that the test defines proficiency.
It appears that you have defined "proficiency in the subject matter" as "ability to pass a standardized test." If so, then by definition it's impossible to game the system, making this discussion pointless. Is that your definition of proficiency?
P.S. Here's another way to game the test system - expel your worst students before the state tests. In that way, your school gets the money (for the student) but doesn't have to be responsible for the poor grades, or even make an effort to educate them. See http://www.researchonreforms.org/html/documents/DumpingKidsO... for examples.
"That's a useful skill" is not a useful educational criterion. Knowing how to change a tire on a car is a useful skill, but it's not appropriate for a math course.
"Educating students" is also a useless criterion. Education is a never-ending process. I'm still learning things now. Schools by necessity must restrict themselves to certain topics. A Spanish teacher cannot simply use "I'm educating students" as an excuse to spend four weeks on Canadian politics in the 1970s.
If test prep is so important, why isn't it its own course, where the teachers are trained for it, and where there are specific curriculum goals?
"This is why tests are standardized, not left up to the schools or teachers" - are you willfully ignoring the point? Someone defines the standards. The page I linked to suggests that the standards for this New York test were defined by people who want the public school systems to fail, as part of the general effort to privatize public school.
As http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/08/... points out:
> The bottom line is that there are tremendous financial interests driving the agenda about our schools — from test makers, to publishers, to data management corporations — all making tremendous profits from the chaotic change. When the scores drop, they prosper. When the tests change, they prosper. When schools scramble to buy materials to raise scores, they prosper. There are curriculum developers earning millions to created scripted lessons to turn teachers into deliverers of modules in alignment with the Common Core (or to replace teachers with computer software carefully designed for such alignment). This is all to be enforced by their principals, who must attend “calibration events” run by “network teams.”
You even used the passive "that's why tests are standardized" - who standardized the tests, what political and financial goals influence them, and how transparent is the standardization process?
When the schools and teachers define the tests, then these issues are much clearer, and any failures are limited to just the school or teacher, and not systemic to the entire state.
Hence why it's possible, and likely, that some test standardizers have gamed the test results, under my concrete definition of "gaming."