Yeah, there ya go. Limit the child's exposure to the actual/real world.

Cuz, God forbid that you actually raise your children.

Assimilate! The Government will educate your Children, please stand back! We will tell them what to think as we re-write history.

Since when do standardized tests have anything to do exposure to the real world?

The idea of standardized tests is to test all students on an equal level. If certain words gives some students a disadvantage, even subconsciously, then the test isn't standardized.


I'm sorry but this one actually makes sense.

Because sitting at a desk, in a silent room, filling in hundreds of bubbles with a number 2 pencil for hours... that's the ideal environment to expose the child to the actual/real world. :rolleyes:

They shouldn't have to take the test. But if they do, they shouldn't have to take an unfair test.

How is setting guidelines for their OWN TEST possibly overreach? You can disagree with it without it being overreach, you know. If they were telling the public not to use those words, that would be one thing. They are announcing that they will no longer use those words.


as for the motion itself, I support it. It seems a little silly to me to ban, say, birthdays, but fair's fair. There is clearly something broken about our standardised testing system. Minorities and less wealthy Americans consistently score worse on standardised tests even when all other variables are accounted for. "Standard" shouldn't mean "for middle class white people" - it should mean a test calibrated to be accessible to ALL students equally, to asses ONLY their academic progress and potential, not their socioeconomic group or anything else. Without standardised testing, it's too easy for students to be learning nothing at all, without oversight institutions being able to assess why, how, and who. But so far, almost all standardised testing systems used on a wide scale work badly for almost everybody and even worse for the rest.

Why do minorities score worse? Is it the academics, the questions, the cultural factors, what? I think that the facts indicate that ONE of MANY factors involved is that structural biases and flawed assumptions have led to a standardisation system that unfairly adds a cultural dimension to exams that shouldn't be culturally affected. The same way that an IQ test that only tests maths can leave behind people who are intelligent without being mathematical, or a blood pressure exam that only gave your diastolic pressure would leave you blind to systolic issues, an "academic" test that picks a "standard" that does not apply to some of the population, those parts of the population will not be accurately examined and assessed.

So: solve it! how can we effectively ensure that all students are meeting basic educational benchmarks, in a way that provides oversight of failed teachers, in a way that does not EITHER hold back from the curriculum being taught (instead of teaching to the test) OR unfairly introduce limiting or handicapping non-academic factors on the assessed?
I think that standardised testing in some form is REQUIRED for a schooling system that works. Some teachers just suck - its not always the students' fault when they don't perform well. There has to be a way to separate out bad teachers from bad classes. We just haven't written an effective test yet. This might be a step in the right direction, to remove at least a few potential handicaps from the potentially-culturally-biased or overly normative in a way that detracts from those outside the norm.
I dunno how many of you had modern standardised tests in school. Usually at least half of the tests are short stories, persuasive nonfiction, academic nonfiction, and historical nonfiction articles, followed by multiple-choice questions on the piece. If one of the sections was about Rap, or sports, or computers, and you had neither the experience nor the interest to adequately process, parse, understand, and respond to the article, that would be a terrifically unfair thing to test you on, when your language skills are what is being assessed.

edit: also note how many of the words on the list are things potentially triggering to New York City public school students suffering from ptsd, abuse, neglect, or poverty. If you're a 10-year-old hard-knocks impoverished inner-city kid suffering from abuse or neglect, living with violence and a lack of safety at or near home or in your neighborhood, the last thing you need is for your stupid awful test in the hot stuffy classroom to trigger potentially extreme emotional responses. Some people can shrug that kind of "twinge" off - some can't, so well, and when they soldier on and keep taking the test, their scores are negatively affected.


Please, opponents of this move... read all of that. I know, tl;dl, but really - respond to it. I'm just throwing out the logic that makes sense to me - i'm really curious what the response to those concerns is, and how better to deal with them.

I was completely confused. I thought the thread was about the banning of words, not, whether children should be tested.

You know, as in: "NYC Dept. Of Ed. Wants 50 ‘Forbidden’ Words Banned From Standardized Tests "

No, I have no children.

As an addendum to E's post, rather than a contradiction, I'd love to see the same test applied across national boundaries.

I know it won't happen just on a single Dwellar request (thank FSM, too much power etc) but I wonder how US children would fare if it was global and whether it would even be important. Bill Bryson writes about a humiliating defeat of an American team on University Challenge back in the ?1970s? but despite being an Anglophile, admits that the four contestants probably have FAR higher salaries now than the victors.

Self esteem, driving ambition, positive thinking, chutzpah.
Not all Americans have them.
Not all Brits lack them.
But you see what I'm getting at.

WHERE are they banning the words? On their own tests. That's the story here. That the NYC Dep't of Ed. wants to stop using those words on their tests, in an effort to be more fair.

American students prior to college (university) are taught zero about global affairs and cultural issues. I got more exposure to modern Europe through my Spanish language classes.

Sometimes I think we ought to do it the way the Japanese do. Education is only compulsory through junior high age, and high schools must be applied to, the way our colleges are. The way I see it, the application process serves as a type of standardized testing, except it examines the whole student, including essays and extracurriculars, not just multiple choice scores.

What age does that correspond to Clod? 'Cause in the UK it's only compulsory to age 16. After that education happens in colleges by application.

In the US, education is compulsory until 18 (Kindergarten plus 12 years.)

Except only sort of, because you can be a high-school dropout and no one really cares. Or you can get your GED (take a test and get a certification that is in theory equivalent to a diploma, but won't get you into most colleges,) or you can attend any of a number of weird charter schools that let you graduate early but are still technically a real diploma and not a GED. That's what my brother did: flew to California to enroll in a charter school that graduated him a week or so later.

Well, the alarmists win:

I agree with Clodfobble and Ibram.

I think standardized tests are a necessary evil. There are some truths about larger populations that cannot be perceived without some kind of uniform measurement, like a standardized test. This is not to be confused with the idea that a standardized test can tell everything about an individual, or even a lot about an individual. It is a tool. In this case, because it engages the intellect of the test subjects, it requires some careful consideration for the state of mind of the test subject. In my opinion, suggestions like this are valid.

We have standardised testing here in years 5,7 and 9. It gives schools a guide as to what they need to focus on, and also, since the results are available for all to see, gives parents and the community and idea of whether a school is doing the best it could be doing etc.

While these tests are traumatic for kids, the results should be used as a guide by parents and teachers because everyone has a bad day now and then, so the results aren't always a true indication of a child's skills or knowledge.