Standardizing the Standard's Standard Standards.

Tests being used to test students ability has always gone to the extreme, but this case of testing is a new low.

Those Who Pass Classes But Fail Tests Cry Foul
By Ian ShapiraWashington Post Staff WriterTuesday, November 21, 2006;

Sylvia James hardly considers herself clueless in mathematics. After all, she finished sixth grade with a B-plus in the subject and made the Honor Roll, which she saw as a victory in a challenging year of fraction conversion and decimal placement.

But what happened when she took the state math test?

She flunked it.

Now, by that measure, Virginia considers the 12-year-old below par in math.
"I was kind of shocked," said Sylvia, who attends Herbert J. Saunders Middle School in Prince William County. "I just thought I was going to pass it because I always usually pass everything else. I guess I went through the test pretty quickly."

Many students in the Washington region are suffering from academic split personalities. Driven by the federal No Child Left Behind law and tougher state diploma standards, the testing blitz has left these students in a curious limbo: They pass their classes with B's and C's yet fail the state exams..."

So here is a question. If a student fails a test required to be taken by the state, what is the point of having a class to help prepare them for the class? Especially if the student is led to believe that their performance in the class is some kind of reflection on what the test will be on?
This story could easily be used to make a point for someone who believes that testing should be done away with completely, but I think it makes a stronger point for individuals who believe that at least the NCLB Act should be demolished. Errors in standards will continue to show themselves as long as we are setting black and white benchmarks for students who learn in the greys.

Another problem that could be the cause for this and other cases is that the communication between the state and the classroom on what students are to learn is not happening. If the state has higher standards on what is expected of the student and does not inform districts and educators of these expectations, the state is to blame, again.

"...Whatever the reason, the fact that some bright students struggle on state exams upends the perception that only the worst students fail them.

"This is a warning sign that there's something out of tilt in the system," said Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy in Washington, which tracks how states implement the federal law.

Thelaw requires annual state testing in reading and math for all students from grades 3 to 8 and at least once in high school. The results are used to rate schools, and those that fall short of adequate progress are threatened with sanctions. States often add more tests in high school that students must pass to graduate..."

For full article, click here; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100075.html?nav=rss_education

So instead of the state working with the classes to help raise testing abilities (since it seems testing will not be absent from education anytime soon), they decide to apply more tests to schools who fall short of previous exams. This not only makes no sense, but prompts a negative cyclical effect which tells students and parents that they are not as bright as they should be. This type of encouragement is the last thing needed in public education.