banning words on tests

[tinylegacies]

Divorce. Dinosaurs, Birthdays. Religion. Halloween. Christmas. Television. These are a few of the 50-plus words and references the New York City Department of Education is hoping to ban from the city’s standardized tests

Comments

[kiwi_from_hell]

i think it's a good idea but taken way, way too far. like, not talking about child abuse on a standardized test is a good idea, it's definitely worth putting in an effort to not trigger someone. Not talking about 'rock and roll music' makes much less sense.

[spicytoys]

This.

[snooji]

This! Avoiding and misusing trigger words and prejudiced slang is a good thing, but "television"?

Edit: Removed my opinion on words like "slavery". I somehow took standardized tests to mean anything said at school. Whoops.

[merlyn4401]

From my (very limited) understanding, test creators work really hard to make the tests as standardized as possible. I assume that when they went back and looked at test results, answers to questions involving those words were skewed towards one demographic or another - it's not like they just pull this shit out of a hat. So I'm fine with it - the point is to make the test as neutral as possible. I don't really care WHY one word or another may skew results for some kids - I care that they correct it.

[guaparella]

Makes sense.

[coendou]

you would hope that that's the reasoning, but the people who actually know how to construct a good test are often not the ones controlling what goes on it.

[darth_snarky]

Yeah, I've heard of questions that had to do with stuff like sailing or fishing--kind of unfair for the kids who don't have any experience with those.

And I'm fine with testing kids actual skills, not their ability to pull through when presented with something upsetting.

[guaparella]

LAWSUITS FOR EVERYBODY!*

Off the cuff, which is my booju way, this is ridiculous.

Honestly after everything we went through with Alexia, I don't know that I would put another child through the public school system again.

*see also. MY HOUSE. MY RULES

[amyura]

For standardized tests? I have absolutely NO problem with this. If they were micromanaging individual teachers, I'd hit the roof, but the test makers are gouging taxpayers to make these things, make them work for their money. You want to force a Jehovah's Witness kid to take a test, don't make problems about Christmas and birthdays. If I had that kid in my class, I'd know automatically to avoid it, but for something that's being given district-wide, I think it's totally okay to be a little "too" politically correct.

[seriouscookie]

I think the term "traumatic material" should be enough to cover it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's neither useful nor nice to make standardized test questions about blood and guts and violence.

That said - if you can't tolerate a word mentioning a holiday you don't celebrate in the third grade, how are you going to tolerate the person the people that celebrate that holiday when you are an adult? These things that they are call "disturbing" are often things need to learn more about, not less. That's how you fight ignorance.

[mahsox_mahsox]

Is religious tolerance one of the things the tests should aim to test? I mean, we may think it is a great thing to be religiously tolerant, but it shouldn't be something a third grade basic skills test is testing.

[darth_snarky]

Seriously. Religious tolerance is wonderful, but it has nothing to do with your abilities in math or your understanding of basic grammar.

[seriouscookie]

I disagree. I think there is a certain amount involved when it comes to language and literacy. I know reading lists change over time but by the time children reach high school, they are expected to read a variety of books, plays, essays, etc. from different time periods and cultures. It is important that they demonstrate not just the ability to read but the comprehension of what they are reading.

Plus, it kind of seems like a bit of pearl-clutching to me.