Logic-free Education Professors

Today's NY TImes has a story about the Time Tracker, a surprise toy hit that some parents are apparently buying and using with small children to make them more time conscious in preparation for standardized tests.  Now this seems dumb enough to me, but what really seemed dumb was this quote:

I've come across a tremendous proliferation of everything else to help people do better on tests, but never these things," said Martin Carnoy, a professor of education and economics at Stanford University, referring to the Time Tracker. Such toys, he says, are likely to be bought by parents who want to give their children an edge in the testing that begins in some school systems in the third grade or even earlier.

"Lower-middle-class parents are concerned about their school quality and their children's grades," Professor Carnoy said. "The upper middle class is less concerned about the quality of the school than about the performance of their own kids on these make-or-break tests."

ARRRGGGHHH!!!   Come on!  Couldn't we have some evidence of decent thinking skills from professors of education?  In the first place, what gives this yahoo credibility in his opinion about what "lower-middle-class" and "upper middle class" parents want for their kids?  Is he a personal expert?  Has he researched this area?  Or is he just running off at the mouth without letting knowledge prove a hindrance?  And why doesn't this surprise me from a professor of education. 

In the second place, what "make or break tests"?  I defy anyone to show me a test anywhere in this country that makes or breaks a child's opportunities in life.  Come on, folks!  Think!  The SAT?  Are you kidding?  Are you suggesting that a high SAT score makes for a happier life?  Wanna bet?  The data's not going to back that one up. 

How about what the SAT generally is believed to measure:  intelligence.  Really, are the most intelligent people you know also the happiest?  Are their families stronger, more loving, and more resilient?  Are they better liked and have a wider group of friends?  Do they find more satisfaction in their jobs and hobbies?  Now, tell me again about these make or break tests.

So, what's really going on here?  Who REALLY HATES standardized tests?  Education professors!  Why?  Because those tests are making them and most of what they have "developed" over the years look REALLY USELESS.  So, in that classic move of the logically unhinged, they attack the messenger.  Smart, real smart.  Maybe they should have flunked a test somewhere along the way.  Might have helped them get a better handle on reality.

Comments

[Dave Shearon]

Chris, how many opportunities to pass the test? Is it a quality test (valid, reliable)? (I'm always a little concerned about state-developed tests.) Is performance on the test correlated with access to effective teachers during middle and high school? What level is the test (8th grade? 9th?)

If it is, as is typical, a relatively modest test with multiple chances to pass, and, as in TN when we had such a test, passing, at least for the lowest quartile by pre-achievement scores, is dependent on quality teaching, then what is make-or break? The test? Or, the education? And what should we focus on? Poor test results? Or inadequate education?

[Chris C.]

I agree with much of what you said, but I think "make or break" tests, or at least something close to that, do exist. When passing a standardized test is required for a high school diploma (ie, Massachusetts), I think that's a a make-or-break situation to some degree.

Certainly, people can succeed and be happy in life without a high school diploma. But that kind of outcome can really limit life's possibilities.