What does "doesn't test well" mean?

[unsinkable]

Are people only referring to standardized tests?

 

How can a student who doesn't test well, end up with good grades (ie 4.0) and above?

 

For Students I know who "don't test well", it is across the board, standardized tests and school tests and quizzes. So "doesn't test well" means the student fails, barely passes, squeaks by, etc on tests and quizzes, even with preparation.

 

And school tests and quizzes are a huge part of their grades.

 

In college, these kids struggle even worse than in high school because the grades are based on mostly tests, and compared to high school, very little homework.

[Dmmetler]

In my case, "doesn't test well" was only on bubble tests-I have visual-spatial processing difficulties and motor skills issues, so I could get the question right, but couldn't transcribe it. Class tests generally were written on paper, not bubbled in.

 

In my case, it wasn't identified that this was the problem until high school trig, where the teacher gave an SAT math review weekly using a score sheet. He was also dyslexic, and picked up the dichotomy and that there was something more going on. As soon as we mentioned it to my neurologist, his response was "Oh! I should have thought of that earlier", he wrote a letter recommending accommodations, and my SAT score ended up 600 points over my PSAT, taken non-accommodated.

 

If I'd been in PS today, I either would have been stuck in 3rd grade, or I would have been identified much earlier as needing accommodations. I had the DX, but no one had connected the dots because standardized tests weren't a big deal.

[bettyandbob]

A standardized test that consists of multiple choice and requires you to just sit (mostly) for a 4 hour block is different from the quizzes and tests my dd gets in school. My dd is in an IB program so her exams are heavily essay format. On a very basic level multiple choice tests show what you don't know, but an essay exam is more likely to show what you do know. My dd's essays require analysis of topics, really complete digestion of information and applying such information to something new. Multiple choice tests have you just spitting back facts. So, I would not compare what is happening on the SAT or ACT to tests in classroom settings.

 

My dd has excellent grades. She is taking the hardest classes her school offers in every subject except math. She will finish the IB equivalent to Calc AB (her course goes a little further) and then take an online AP stats senior year. Her school offers through multivariable calc and linear algebra. So she is not the top math student, but still competitive if she's interested in STEM.

 

Yet, her PSAT scores don't line up. We've done a prep course. She does practice tests. She reads slow. She could read quite young, but it was hard and she avoided reading for years. She has shown some mild dyslexic tendencies (I have an MEd in sp ed). She's learned to compensate. She wasn't reading for pleasure until a couple of years ago. Children who read early and a lot have a huge advantage in vocabulary and reading comprehension and probably writing. They also can proceed through a test with speed, which is important. Test prep is not going to take that advantage away.

 

So, we've worked on vocabulary. We've tried to improve reading speed. But these things also make you feel unconfident and stressed going in. Add the stress and your ability to think clearly during the test is affected.

 

These are some of the things that mean not testing well for my dd. She is well prepared for college.

 

I was actually similar, but over 30 years ago when I applied the SAT was not the strong factor it is today. dd has taken a much harder courseload in high school than I did and earned grades mostly higher than I earned. I do not think it's likely dd will get into the very competitive public ivy I attended because of the SAT.

[wapiti]

Just a guess, but to add to the motor issue, the SAT and ACT may be more tightly-timed than a regular college exam.  So, motor processing speed can play a big role in both reading and bubbling.  One measure of this skill would be the Processing Speed section of the WISC (with the two subtests looking at slightly different angles).

 

Why the tests are so tightly-timed I'm not sure.  ("Faster isn't smarter.")  It's irritating, because I'd guess that there are a number of kids whose processing speed isn't low enough to get them accommodations but nonetheless has a significant impact on scores.

 

related thread:  http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/504037-do-you-believe-some-people-just-dont-test-well/

 

Eta, thinking more about this, for some kids, it may be well worth taking a stab at seeing whether accommodations might be available by getting private ed psych evals.

[angela in ohio]

For my oldest, I mean it to be across the board. It means that her test scores don't accurately reflect what she knows because of other factors. In her case, she has test anxiety.

 

I think in high school, students who don't test well can still get great grades because the grades are based on many factors, including projects, homework, and papers. In college, once grades are based largely on exams, those same students can flounder. For my dd, the answer was a college which focuses much less on exams and more on projects and papers.  And the answer to getting in to start with was that they took her SAT and SAT subject test scores in context.

 

My second dd thrives on tests. I have to admit, if I only had her, I would think people who talk about testing issues are just making excuses. Until you have a bright child who just utterly can't cope with a test, until you've worked and worked to get them just to be able to do okay on a test you know they should excel at, its hard to believe.

[8filltheheart]

Are people only referring to standardized tests?

 

How can a student who doesn't test well, end up with good grades (ie 4.0) and above?

 

For Students I know who "don't test well", it is across the board, standardized tests and school tests and quizzes. So "doesn't test well" means the student fails, barely passes, squeaks by, etc on tests and quizzes, even with preparation.

 

And school tests and quizzes are a huge part of their grades.

 

In college, these kids struggle even worse than in high school because the grades are based on mostly tests, and compared to high school, very little homework.

My definition of "does not test well" means that the artificial testing situation of the ACT/SAT does not produce results that are indicative of their actual abilities. Why? A whole host of reasons. Anxiety, slow processing speeds, slow reading speed, reading fatigue, etc.

 

I have had kids that repeatedly have had the highest grades in their college classes who had standardized test scores that did not reflect just how high performing they are.

[unsinkable]

It sounds like people are discounting the idea that the students I know who "don't test well" are actually NOT TESTING WELL in classes. And it is IMPACTING their grades.

 

:confused:

[unsinkable]

My definition of "does not test well" means that the artificial testing situation of the ACT/SAT does not produce results that are indicative of their actual abilities. Why? A whole host of reasons. Anxiety, slow processing speeds, slow reading speed, reading fatigue, etc.

 

I have had kids that repeatedly have had the highest grades in their college classes who had standardized test scores that did not reflect just how high performing they are.

And all those things...anxiety, processing speed, etc. etc. etc. impact the kids I know in their day-to-day school work. For the the kids I know, it isn't ONLY on SAT and ACT day.

[regentrude]

"Does not test well" does not have to refer solely to standardized multiple choice tests.

As a college instructor, I see students who do not "test well" every semester. The tests are not multiple choice, but long response questions - they have to work out problems. For some students, the test situation and the stress about the grade creates crippling anxiety so that they perform far below their actual ability, and the tests do not reflect their level of mastery and the amount of work they put into preparation.

 

What kinds of grades such a student gets depends largely on the makeup of the course: what percentage of the grade is for tests, and what percentage for other ways to demonstrate mastery? If homework, projects, group discussions, essays factor in heavily, the student may be able to compensate for his underperformance on tests. Also, to a certain degree test anxiety can be managed. Some students do better if they sit in the front row for tests and are thus able to tune out what is going on around them - noticing the other students increases their anxiety. I had dramatic improvements in some students' test performance through this simple measure. Some students' test anxiety is so severe that they receive a medical accommodation for single room testing.

 

Having observed this as an instructor, and having experienced this myself (in a single subject with a particular instructor), test anxiety is a real issue.

 

ETA: There are other reasons that can cause a test performance below ability. For example, a dyslexic student who reads slowly may have trouble reading the text fast enough - but this is less an issue of testing per se, as more of the time constraint. It is obvious that learning or processing disabilities may cause students to be unable to demonstrate their level of knowledge. But for these students, the same impediment would be there even if the situation were not a test situation. For some students, it is the fact that this is a Test (with a capital T) that makes them unable to perform as well as they would if it were just an ungraded assignment with no stakes.

[FaithManor]

For my child, it is the nerves that go with timed, bubble tests that have ait riding on it. He puts a LOT of pressure on himself, gets nerves up, and the anxiety short circuits memory as he watches the clock tick away. We have done more practice than you can imagine and it doesn't get better. The thought that scholarships admissions to selective schools, etc. ride on this single performance, really gets to him.

 

On the other hand, he can publicly speak very well. His engineering presentation for Team America Rocketry Challenege was knocked out of the park! In retrospect, I wish my own attitude towards high stakes testing had been a little different because I did very little of it K-8 and maybe if I had allowed it each year - we do not have to report test results in Michigan - he'would have been more accustomed to it and worked his nerves out earlier.

 

Now we deal with the fall out of lack of stamina since the accident, and residual affects c $&_($ from the concussion. He did pull his score up some last time, but selective schools that put a lot'of emphasis on the score for merit aid are out. Go v England that he faces months of physical therapy once his leg heals enough to begin,neither his father nor I are willing to push this any farther. It is what it is, and he will likely end up as a top notch student at his safety. That is good enough for us.

 

His writing is brilliant, even under pressure. It is an area in which he shines.

 

My middle boy is a natural at the ACT and posts scores in the English section that he does not deserve in real life. I told him the other day, "You managed a 32 in the English section so why do you currently have a low B in English?" I received a grin until I reminded him he will not have a 4.0 and wants to apply to Cornell. This wiped the Cheshire Cat grin off his face. No, their will not be any extra credit allowed in order to raise the grade this quarter. They get what they earn and live with the consequences.

[Tokyomarie]

A standardized test that consists of multiple choice and requires you to just sit (mostly) for a 4 hour block is different from the quizzes and tests my dd gets in school. My dd is in an IB program so her exams are heavily essay format. On a very basic level multiple choice tests show what you don't know, but an essay exam is more likely to show what you do know. My dd's essays require analysis of topics, really complete digestion of information and applying such information to something new. Multiple choice tests have you just spitting back facts. So, I would not compare what is happening on the SAT or ACT to tests in classroom settings.

 

 

A tightly timed essay exam may not actually show what the student knows if that student has difficulties with expressive language. Such a student may test very, very well on multiple-choice tests because they can quickly recognize correct answers. The same student may not be able to translate thoughts into words, create coherent sentences, and organize paragraphs quickly enough to finish an essay test in the designated time. Yet, the same student may be able to demonstrate their knowledge in writing when writing for papers and projects out of class. This may result in a student whose in-class, timed essays are C or D whereas their portfolio writing gets an A or B.

 

When a student doesn't test well there can be many reasons why, which if understood early enough in the high school career may allow a family to find solutions which improve the scores. Some students are simply better served at colleges that have a more holistic admissions process.

 

[8filltheheart]

And all those things...anxiety, processing speed, etc. etc. etc. impact the kids I know in their day-to-day school work. For the the kids I know, it isn't ONLY on SAT and ACT day.

In what testing situation Other than the ACT/SAT are students given 3 hrs of items that are meant to be read as quickly as possible and answered in a few seconds to under minute? (It would be a poorly designed college exam!)

 

Fwiw, my older 2 kids both graduated with their degrees with honors. Our current college student makes high As on exams where the class avg might be a 60 or lower.

[SKL]

Some people don't test well because they don't have the intelligence to remember or don't have the motivation to prepare.  So yeah, they would probably get poor grades in school.

 

And then there are intelligent, knowledgeable people who freeze over test anxiety, rendering tests worse than useless.  The more important the test, the more damning the results.  But I don't think this is all that common.  I don't agree that tests are a completely useless measure of ability / intelligence.

 

When I was in school, the kids who got high grades but meh ACT/SAT scores were reasonably bright, but they did what I considered extra stuff.  They would go to the teacher outside of class hours to get clarification / help or to "brown-nose" as we called it.  They would put in a lot of "face time" around the school, and their parents would also put in face time to influence the teachers to have a good impression.  They were punctual and had lovely handwriting and had not a rebellious bone in their bodies.  ;)  (Can you tell I was NOT in that club?)  They may not have had a clue what they were doing on the math test, but by golly look how nicely they wrote "step 1" and "step 2."  They would score just high enough on the tests to not bring their overall grade down to a B.  (They of course had an A for homework, projects, effort, conduct, and class participation.)

 

I should note that in those days, very few kids did test prep for ACT / SAT.  If they had, the meh scores might have been higher, because the kids with good grades were certainly motivated to score well.

 

I don't know how it is today in high school.  In my kids' elementary school, most kids have an A average, including some who struggle to read and do basic math.  I assume this is due to heavily weighting homework and class work (done with classmates / teacher), as well as giving accommodations to those who struggle with tests.

 

I would also note that a person can be great with essay tests and suck at objective tests, or vice versa.  For me, I loved when we had essay tests because I could always come up with some BS that would get me an A.  Other youngsters were horrified by essay tests.  Knowing this, some of us gravitated toward the subjective courses, others toward the technical courses, both in high school and college.

[unsinkable]

In what testing situation Other than the ACT/SAT are students given 3 hrs of items that are meant to be read as quickly as possible and answered in a few seconds to under minute? (It would be a poorly designed college exam!)

 

Fwiw, my older 2 kids both graduated with their degrees with honors. Our current college student makes high As on exams where the class avg might be a 60 or lower.

State Exams

[regentrude]

Some people don't test well because they don't have the intelligence to remember or don't have the motivation to prepare.  So yeah, they would probably get poor grades in school.

 

And then there are intelligent, knowledgeable people who freeze over test anxiety, rendering tests worse than useless.  The more important the test, the more damning the results.  But I don't think this is all that common.  I don't agree that tests are a completely useless measure of ability / intelligence.

 

Actually, it is more common than one would think.

 

I have a lot of sympathy for these students, because I myself experienced "blanking out" on a test - despite subject knowledge and studying. (It happened to me only in one single subject with one particular instructor and was a psychological response to the instructor's personality. )

[bettyandbob]

State Exams

 

Our state exams give more time than that.

[Paige]

My DS struggles with the bubbles. I don't know why. I have watched him do a computer based standardized test where he verbally told me the correct answer and clicked on the wrong answer repeatedly. It was very frustrating to him because he always thought he had pushed the correct answer. I imagine if he'd done a typical test instead of a practice test that he'd leave thinking he did well and be upset and confused when the results came back. He tested well when he was in school on regular paper and pencil tests but did horribly on AR and computer ones. 

[unsinkable]

Our state exams give more time than that.

Than 3 hours?

[SKL]

Actually, it is more common than one would think.

 

I have a lot of sympathy for these students, because I myself experienced "blanking out" on a test - despite subject knowledge and studying. (It happened to me only in one single subject with one particular instructor and was a psychological response to the instructor's personality. )

 

Yes, I blanked once or twice in college too, and I'm sure that happens to many of us once or twice.  But I don't think the phenomenon of extreme test anxiety is so common that it renders test scores meaningless across the board.

 

I think it would be a good idea to let some people request a different testing format while letting everyone else do the dot filling.  Actually I think dot filling is less intimidating as it is so impersonal.  But if I couldn't succeed with it, I'd be willing to try short answer, essay, or interview.  (Maybe not interview.  I would probably not have survived that as a teen.  I'd just work in a factory for my whole life if it came to that.  But that's just me.)

[bettyandbob]

Than 3 hours?

 

There are less questions on state end of course exams. Additionally, a student can request more time. I have yet to see a student do this, even a student with an LD.

 

I am referring to state exams required to graduate high school.

[FaithManor]

Than 3 hours?

I can't speak for all kinds of licensing exams, but dd's National.Registry exam for her paramedic license had fewer questions than the math and English sections of the ACT and nearly twice as much time.

 

When I was in college, professors were required to give three hours for the final and it was far more generous than needed for the number and type of questions. My essay, blue book exam for English lit was three essays and we had the full three h o it's if we wanted it. The ACT writing ok r tion, if memory serves, is only 35 or 45 minutes. I am not certain the exact time because ds didn't take it this time since the schools he is applying to require their own essays and do not require the ACT writing. At any rate, for the same amount of work, we had double or close to double the time that the SAT/ACT slots and t hat held true for dd at U of Michigan. She never had to rush calc or chem exams like standardized tests are rushed.

[unsinkable]

I think I got my answers.

 

To most people, "doesn't test well" only refers to the SAT and ACT.

 

And the implication is that if students don't do well on regular, ordinary high school tests and quizzes...then well, they are not college material.

 

Or it doesn't happen...

 

Or it doesn't happen to bright, smart, talented kids...

[unsinkable]

I can't speak for all kinds of licensing exams, but dd's National.Registry exam for her paramedic license had fewer questions than the math and English sections of the ACT and nearly twice as much time.

 

When I was in college, professors were required to give three hours for the final and it was far more generous than needed for the number and type of questions. My essay, blue book exam for English lit was three essays and we had the full three h o it's if we wanted it. The ACT writing ok r tion, if memory serves, is only 35 or 45 minutes. I am not certain the exact time because ds didn't take it this time since the schools he is applying to require their own essays and do not require the ACT writing. At any rate, for the same amount of work, we had double or close to double the time that the SAT/ACT slots and t hat held true for dd at U of Michigan. She never had to rush calc or chem exams like standardized tests are rushed.

Thanks but I meant high school.

[Joanne]

There are less questions on state end of course exams. Additionally, a student can request more time. I have yet to see a student do this, even a student with an LD.

 

I am referring to state exams required to graduate high school.

 

They are typically content driven, with less need for "test prep" in which you learn how to answer particular questions.

 

The College Boards are very test technique centered.

[wapiti]

I think I got my answers.

 

To most people, "doesn't test well" only refers to the SAT and ACT.

 

And the implication is that if students don't do well on regular, ordinary high school tests and quizzes...then well, they are not college material.

 

Or it doesn't happen...

 

Or it doesn't happen to bright, smart, talented kids...

 

No, I think there are too many different types of causes for not testing well, causes which may show up equally on high school tests and quizzes.  Anxiety, memory stuff, language processing, executive function/study skills, etc.  I don't know if processing speed (motor) is as much of an issue, but then again slow handwriting is slow handwriting - depends on the particular person and particular test/class in question.

Edited September 15, 2016 by wapiti

[Joanne]

I think I got my answers.

 

To most people, "doesn't test well" only refers to the SAT and ACT.

 

And the implication is that if students don't do well on regular, ordinary high school tests and quizzes...then well, they are not college material.

 

Or it doesn't happen...

 

Or it doesn't happen to bright, smart, talented kids...

 

Our current academic system does not have a developed trajectory for students who are bright in *different* ways from the formal academic system.

 

While I think that there are students who do poorly - academically - across the board, they are lesser in number because the learning benchmarks are varied enough to "catch" the learning represented in several areas.

 

You made a leap not supported by the answers in this thread.

[unsinkable]

No, I think there are too many different types of causes for not testing well, causes which may show up equally on high school tests and quizzes. Anxiety, memory stuff, language processing, executive function/study skills, etc. I don't know if processing speed (motor) is as much of an issue, but then again slow handwriting is slow handwriting - depends on the particular person and particular test/class in question.

 

(FWIW, an old high school classmate of mine - of ours - told me the other day that she performed much better in college than in high school. It seems that in high school, she thought she just wasn't a great student. However, there may have been potentially remediable issues that she didn't know that she had.)

I would tend to agree with you, given what I've really experienced.

 

But based on people's answers here, I guess I'm unique in knowing bright kids who can't get a 4.0

[unsinkable]

Our current academic system does not have a developed trajectory for students who are bright in *different* ways from the formal academic system.

 

While I think that there are students who do poorly - academically - across the board, they are lesser in number because the learning benchmarks are varied enough to "catch" the learning represented in several areas.

 

You made a leap not supported by the answers in this thread.

No, I didn't.

 

How many people in this thread wrote or implied their students ONLY did poorly on standardized tests but did fine in school. At least 6.

 

You yourself in another thread implied the same thing. So 7.

 

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR the bias that is displayed here.

 

It is almost a badge of honor to "not test well" but only if you mean certain tests. If you don't test well across the board, then too bad.

[SKL]

I would tend to agree with you, given what I've really experienced.

 

But based on people's answers here, I guess I'm unique in knowing bright kids who can't get a 4.0

 

My whole biological family is gifted and has never had a 4.0 overall in school.  :)  And not because we didn't care.

 

We are a disorganized bunch, with dyslexia and vision problems running through the family.  Spoiled by things being too easy, we assume studying will be a waste of time.

 

Most of the mistakes I made on tests (through high school and college) were because I kept mixing up 3*2 and 3+2.  Or I would drop a negative sign somewhere in the multi-step problem.  Always stupid stuff like that.  No amount of studying would have made a difference.  Actually, I figured out that sleeping 8 hours was always better than sleeping less for the sake of studying.

 

And then there was our stubborn streak.  We blew off arbitrary-sounding requirements and anything that could be interpreted as "sucking up."

 

But our ACT/SATs and other standardized tests pretty much reflected our abilities.

 

My eldest daughter has some problems with memory, perception, and processing.  Everyone who knows her says she is "bright."  (Not gifted, just bright.)  She also works hard.  However, her academic future is in question.  Time will tell whether she will be an A student in high school.

[8filltheheart]

No, I didn't.

 

How many people in this thread wrote or implied their students ONLY did poorly on standardized tests but did fine in school. At least 6.

 

You yourself in another thread implied the same thing. So 7.

 

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR the bias that is displayed here.

 

It is almost a badge of honor to "not test well" but only if you mean certain tests. If you don't test well across the board, then too bad.

 

You asked how we defined "doesn't test well."   I gave you my personal definition.   You made the leap from my posting that my kids have test scores that do not reflect their actual abilities (which, btw, does not mean that their test scores are extremely low.   It means exactly what I posted.   The scores do not reflect their actual abilities as students.) to .."then too bad."   I did not address kids that do not test well across the board at all.   I do not have children that fit that profile.  So I cannot comment.

[Paige]

I think your question is worded in such a way as to provoke that bias. You asked how someone could not test well and get a 4.0. People who have kids who don't test well but get good grades (which implies good grades on some tests) responded. As far as I saw, nobody tried to generalize their children's experiences. 

 

I also have a bright child who does poorly in most academic areas, but I didn't think you were asking about kids like her. I wouldn't say she doesn't test well because, well, she doesn't perform well in any area. She's been testing and while not testing in the gifted range, she tested as quite bright- much brighter than I expected. For her, she struggles with output, perfectionism, and anxiety. She'll do a page correctly, think it's wrong, and then turn in a blank paper. When I hear someone say a child doesn't test well, I think of it as them saying the child "only" doesn't test well. If I hear someone say their child doesn't do well in school, I think of a child not performing well in tests and other areas. But even then, I don't assume poorer than expected performance means the child is not that intelligent. 

[FaithManor]

I would tend to agree with you, given what I've really experienced.

 

But based on people's answers here, I guess I'm unique in knowing bright kids who can't get a 4.0

I know lots of bright kids'who do not get 4.0, and'lots.of not so great academicians that get 4.0 and higher due to rampant grade inflation and lowering o f standards in my area. I know really bright kids who do well on the ACT, do not do well, and fall somewhere in the middle. My dad ,use to his attitude about grades, had a 2.5 in high school and then aced his air force entrance exam. My boy with the 3.86 GPS threw up from nervousness before he entered the high school to take the ACT.

 

The big problem with the test is that it simply is not a very good predictor of future success. My nephew with a 2.0 gpa and a matching 17 composite on the ACT went to community college and at 23 years of age makes nearly a hundred grand a year he is so'good at his tech service job, and routinely has job.offers from around the country yet was a right off from the university, test taking standpoint.

 

Our academic system is rather broken when it comes to evaluating future success in college and life as well.

 

I was just speaking about my experience with my boy who struggles in the high stakes standardized department. As for high school exit exams, Michigan uses the ACT as part of it's evaluation process though preschoolers and private schools are not required to also do so. Thus, it is pretty high stakes for a lot of kids.

 

The scores just don't match around here because of the grade inflation and low standards. The last time statistics for the county were collected, the top 10% of each graduating class was averaging a 24 composite and only rarely did anyone top 30. Some of the ones that did >30 were not in the top 25% of their graduating class. So locally at least, the test just does not equate to ability and knowledge for a lot of kids.

 

Really, in terms of test taking anxiety, we can only post anecdotes because I doubt it has ever been studied seriously in the ACT/SAT context.

 

Then there is the whole money aspect. These two companies are well served financially to make sure the test is designed to make sure the bulk of the students will take it July I like Times to try to raise their score and buy a lot of test prep. A truly content oriented test that covered a variety of skills and not just testing technique, with a reasonable, ample time frame in which to contemplate the questions would allow for reasonably good students from decent schools to take the test only once or twice with no pricey online test prep, $40.00 books, or study courses, and schools would not be paying for SAT/ACT reps to come do teacher training - the local high school pays big time out the nose for this - and other such expensive items.

 

But, that aspect of the whole thing is a subject for another day! LOL

[FaithManor]

No, I didn't.

 

How many people in this thread wrote or implied their students ONLY did poorly on standardized tests but did fine in school. At least 6.

 

You yourself in another thread implied the same thing. So 7.

 

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR the bias that is displayed here.

 

It is almost a badge of honor to "not test well" but only if you mean certain tests. If you don't test well across the board, then too bad.

You asked. Why so offensive?

 

People related their experiences. Take it with a grain.of salt, don't believe it, whatever. Your response is quite puzzling given that no one was being rude to you.

[bettyandbob]

I happen to have a 2E kid who tells very well, but had terrible grades. He scored 2000 on the SAT with no prep. Reading and Math combined was 1350.  I don't even think he remembered he'd signed up for that day until we woke him early to go. Imagine if he'd actually prepped, thought about test structure, had a strategy, and got a good night's sleep.

 

Why couldn't he get good grades? Extreme executive function problems. He attended public high school. This continues to affect him. He's almost 20.

 

Albert Einstein was a poor test taker and a poor student, but I don't think that means he wasn't smart. He didn't fit the mold of the academic structure he had to deal with.

 

I think there are all types of learner profiles and you don't get a good sample just looking at anecdotes on this board.

[MBM]

Testing anxiety and performance anxiety have been studied extensively by Sian Beilock who is at U of Chicago still, I think. She's written a book called Choke if anyone wants to read about it.

[unsinkable]

You asked. Why so offensive?

 

People related their experiences. Take it with a grain.of salt, don't believe it, whatever. Your response is quite puzzling given that no one was being rude to you.

Joanne said I made a leap not supported by the answers in the thread.

 

..and many people had answered that their students only did poorly on standardized tests so when I said I concluded that most people who said "don't test well" means standardized tests ONLY,

 

I'm wrong? And offensive? By counting the people who said only standardized tests?

[8filltheheart]

Joanne said I made a leap not supported by the answers in the thread.

 

..and many people had answered that their students only did poorly on standardized tests so when I said I concluded that most people who said "don't test well" means standardized tests ONLY,

 

I'm wrong? And offensive? By counting the people who said only standardized tests?

 

No.  You were offensive when you stated, "then, too bad."

[unsinkable]

No. You were offensive when you stated, "then, too bad."

That's the attitude here that I'm reading from people.

 

Maybe people should think of how offensive that comes across.

[SKL]

I don't think the ACT / SAT are supposed to predict future life success.  I think they are just supposed to predict what the student will be ready to do in the first semester of college.

 

I don't disagree that there could be better measures for *some* students.  Why doesn't someone develop and market a couple of alternatives?

[Paige]

I really don't think ACT or SAT predict much of anything, and I say this as someone who scored well. I think extremely low scores may indicate that someone doesn't know the material well enough for college work. Anything from middling scores to superior scores could belong to someone who will do excellent in college. Standardized tests cannot show how hard you will work, if you'll skip class, turn in your paper, go to office hours for help or just to learn more, or if you'll participate in discussions. 

 

I understand why the system was developed, but I don't think it works. 

[hornblower]

We don't really have these standardized tests here, though I've heard of some Cdn homeschoolers taking them to gain admission to some of the Cdn uni's with stricter admission criteria. Regular Cdn students who have completed high school in Canada get admitted on the basis of the school  marks (+ possibly provincial exams), & possibly a brief bio/essay. 

 

We used to have provincial exams for some of the courses & the resultant overall grade is a blend of the exam & course work. One of the local universities turned that on its head by refusing to look at the provincial exam grade at all, unless you make a special request (presumably because it raised your grade substantially). It's an interesting twist, isn't it? A uni refusing to look at a standardized provincial exam result....

But I just checked & unfortunately this university still asks for SAT or ACT scores for US students. (what kind of score would this be: "SAT I score of 1550 out of 2400 or ACT Composite score of 22" High, or a good avg?)

 

[SKL]

Also - I think a lot of students who attend non-selective schools are very bright, including some who have high ACT / SAT test scores.  My family is an example of this, too.  We all attended the only higher education campus we could commute to daily, and that happened to be a non-selective school where the average ACT score was 19.  Yet we all ended up on different life paths - from skilled blue collar to multiple graduate/professional credentials.

 

I guess my point is that there is no reason to despair that going to a non-selective school is going to be a horrible or meaningless experience.  Bright students will meet other bright students there.  Social students will find a social life.  Most industrious students will come out with good job or grad school prospects.  Will it stoke one's ego, no, but I don't consider that important.

[Joanne]

No, I didn't.

 

How many people in this thread wrote or implied their students ONLY did poorly on standardized tests but did fine in school. At least 6.

 

You yourself in another thread implied the same thing. So 7.

 

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR the bias that is displayed here.

 

It is almost a badge of honor to "not test well" but only if you mean certain tests. If you don't test well across the board, then too bad.

 

 

Joanne said I made a leap not supported by the answers in the thread.

 

..and many people had answered that their students only did poorly on standardized tests so when I said I concluded that most people who said "don't test well" means standardized tests ONLY,

 

I'm wrong? And offensive? By counting the people who said only standardized tests?

 

The leap not supported is the "badge of honor" and "too bad." meme.

 

The level of hostility that emerges from you in this tread is elevated; I don't understand why.

 

And many people who may be able to provide a wider range of anecdotals and personal experience for your concerns in this thread are less likely to BE on the High School and College Board.

 

Finally, you didn't ask for help, really, just for answers and you asked for them with an established bias.

[Joanne]

I really don't think ACT or SAT predict much of anything, and I say this as someone who scored well. I think extremely low scores may indicate that someone doesn't know the material well enough for college work. Anything from middling scores to superior scores could belong to someone who will do excellent in college. Standardized tests cannot show how hard you will work, if you'll skip class, turn in your paper, go to office hours for help or just to learn more, or if you'll participate in discussions. 

 

I understand why the system was developed, but I don't think it works. 

 

I scored low math on the GRE, high verbal.

 

Graduated Summa Cum Laude in my Master's.

[Pronghorn]

I wonder if anti-anxiety drugs or supplements would help any of the poor test takers.

[unsinkable]

The leap not supported is the "badge of honor" and "too bad." meme.

 

The level of hostility that emerges from you in this tread is elevated; I don't understand why.

 

And many people who may be able to provide a wider range of anecdotals and personal experience for your concerns in this thread are less likely to BE on the High School and College Board.

 

Finally, you didn't ask for help, really, just for answers and you asked for them with an established bias.

No, you accused me of the "leap" before I wrote badge of honor and too bad. So now you're accusing of saying things before I even said them.

 

I got the answers...and your 2nd last line...so people with experience with those who *test poorly across the board* won't likely BE HERE on the College Board?!?!?!?

 

And I'm offensive?!?!

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Joanne]

No, you accused me of the "leap" before I wrote badge of honor and too bad. So now you're accusing of saying things before I even said them.

 

I got the answers...and your 2nd last line...so people with experience with those who *test poorly across the board* won't likely BE HERE on the College Board?!?!?!?

 

And I'm offensive?!?!

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I don't recall saying you were offensive.

 

As I understand your question, the kids who are bright but not in a way supported by the Western academic "path" are likely to be exploring other ways for that child to move into a successful adulthood that doesn't follow what is the current college protocol.

 

I've GOT a young adult like that. And I wasn't on the college board as he approached those years. ;)

 

Nonetheless, I seem to be missing something from your communication or needs in this regard, so I am going to bow out.

[unsinkable]

Well, my kids don't see a lot of tests or quizzes in high school...its a lot of portfolio/project/paper/discussion to make the grade. My older felt very unprepared for college tests, simply because of the lack of experience from high school. High school grading is a joke...for ex., it's quite possible to have a quarter's grade be based on things other than tests. Quite a few kids here get their butts kicked on Regent's exams...and I mean, walking in with a 100 class average, and feeling lucky to score a 65 on the RE...they simply do not have the test experience.

This is helpful. The kids I know who are struggling have classes where the tests and quizzes combined are like 60 to 75 percent of the grades.

 

So major chapter type tests are 50% and quizzes are 10%. Or to tests being 60% and quizzes 15%, which leaves just a smidge for homework and participation grades.

[Lolly]

It sounds like people are discounting the idea that the students I know who "don't test well" are actually NOT TESTING WELL in classes. And it is IMPACTING their grades.

 

:confused:

 

Only, you asked for peoples interpretation of "does not test well". Their interpretation does not discount your idea. It just shows that to most who are responding it means does not test well on standardized tests.

 

I would tend to agree with you, given what I've really experienced.

 

But based on people's answers here, I guess I'm unique in knowing bright kids who can't get a 4.0

No, you are misinterpreting what they are saying.

 

No, I didn't.

 

How many people in this thread wrote or implied their students ONLY did poorly on standardized tests but did fine in school. At least 6.

 

You yourself in another thread implied the same thing. So 7.

 

It is CRYSTAL CLEAR the bias that is displayed here.

 

It is almost a badge of honor to "not test well" but only if you mean certain tests. If you don't test well across the board, then too bad.

 

You are reading something into the replies that is not there. They are just stating their own experiences. I think people who do not test well across the board are not surprised at their standardized test results. People who tend to test well on regular tests can be a bit surprised and overwhelmed with low scores. They are used to having academic success and find it unfair for one test to define them. In my experience, people who tend to have trouble with all testing don't rail so hard when they don't do well on a test. They are used to it. 

 

My eldest dd does not test great on multiple choice and TF tests. Give her essays and she rocks. She can do just fine on the multiple choice tests, just not as well as she should knowledge wise.Until thi semester, she has had a remarkable number of college teachers who weight essays heavily. She is not happy this semester because it is all multiple choice/TF. For the first time in 4 years, she will probably not be getting the A's she is used to. Did I mention how unhappy she is? Dd20a does not do well on any written tests. Orally, she can do okay. TF are impossible for her. She does have extra time on all testing (only not the ACT!!!) in college which allows her to get by most of the time. So, I do have experience with not testing well across the board.

 

The "too bad" if you don't test well is slightly problematic. There isn't much that can be done about it. Colleges putting such huge emphasis on a single test score for entry and placement something can be done about. Colleges are starting to realize that these scores are not as valid as they once were. (The boom in test prep has caused this phenomenon.) They are now testing to see who has prepped. They are starting to give more weight to grades and essays. In the classroom, it is hard to use measures other than tests. Testing is time efficient. You can easily grade it and make sure it is not subjective. You can watch to make sure cheating is not occurring. That is much harder to do with other forms of measuring learning.

[unsinkable]

I don't recall saying you were offensive.

 

As I understand your question, the kids who are bright but not in a way supported by the Western academic "path" are likely to be exploring other ways for that child to move into a successful adulthood that doesn't follow what is the current college protocol.

 

I've GOT a young adult like that. And I wasn't on the college board as he approached those years. ;)

 

Nonetheless, I seem to be missing something from your communication or needs in this regard, so I am going to bow out.

Well, I guess when you "liked" Faith's post calling me offensive, I assumed you were down with the description.