After thinking a little about the problems we have with our current education system in the United States, I believe that I've come up with a simple solution that would not only revolutionize the education system, but would also result in significant economic and social progress in any country that adopts it. The solution would be to simply separate the testing process from the education process. In this plan, schools and universities in a country would continue to educate their students, but the testing of those students would be controlled and regulated by the government of that country.

The government would establish multiple computerized testing centers throughout the country that would test any individual, in almost every subject, for free. The individual tests, which would be approved by the government, and created with the help of professional organizations, would rate a persons knowledge in a subject from the first grade to the Ph.D. level. After an individual takes one of these tests, he/she will receive a government approved legal document certifying his/her level of knowledge in that subject, and all public schools and public universities in that country will legally have to accept the score on this document as an equivalent number of educational credits. Also, all government employees would be required to take these tests to confirm their knowledge in those specific fields that are required for their positions.

If you think about it, you'll understand that this plan offers many benefits over our current education system. Here are some of them:

1) It will level the playing field.

Children in poor neighborhoods won't have to go to underachieving and under-financed local schools . Instead, they can gain knowledge through multiple sources, and then just take tests to receive educational credits. The education gained in the most important years of a persons life should not be determined by the property tax rate in their community.

2) Competition will force education to get cheaper.

Since a person won't have to attend college to get educational credits, colleges will be forced to lower their fees in order to compete with other sources of education. Also, since alternative methods of education can be cheaper than the traditional style, taxpayers would be paying less to support the public education system.

3) Educational software can accelerate the education process.

Under this system, educational computer software would flourish. The visual and audio capabilities of computer software can educate a person at a far faster rate than the traditional method.

4) Individuals can learn at their own rates.

A person can read a book, do research on the internet, or use educational software at a speed that they are comfortable with. Gifted students won't be slowed down by the other students in their class.

5) Standardized test results can be used to compare the knowledge of different individuals accurately, and they offer a true picture of an individual’s knowledge, irrespective of all of the possible corrupting factors.

Did someone get into Harvard or Yale because of their abilities, or their connections? Their scores on the standardized test will answer this question.

Employers can use the scores of the tests as a tool in the hiring and promotion process in their companies. This will help more knowledgeable people advance in the companies, thereby resulting in more profitable companies and a stronger economy for the entire country.

As governments use the test results to hire public employees, it would eventually lead to a smaller and more efficient government as a result of more qualified government employees.

Even voters can use the test results to decide whether political candidates really know what they're talking about before they elect them into office.

6) Standardized tests results can be used to objectively rate and compare private universities, public schools, and alternative methods of education.

Which universities are the best at teaching law? Which software programs are the most efficient at teaching math? The government can compile information from multiple tests to determine which sources of education are cheapest and most effective. People can use this data in deciding which education sources to choose.

7) Individuals will be able to retake these tests if they wish, or if it is required.

If an individual attended a university twenty years ago, do they still remember what they were taught? Is their knowledge in a specific subject up-to-date? They can retake the tests to confirm for themselves, or they may be required to retake the tests by their employer to confirm that they still have the required knowledge, and that it is up to date.





I want to stress that this system is not intended it completely replace the current education system. Physical activity, social interaction, and hands-on experience are all things that cannot be replaced by books and computer software. The object of this system is not to create unsocial drones, but to accelerate learning so that people have more time to spend on other things. For example, if some of the extra time that children have is spent on sports, this will not only help in their social development, but would also help reduce the obesity rates in countries like the US.

Also, let me state that I don't have all the details worked out on this new system. For example, will parents get vouchers to pay for alternative sources of education for their children? Will those children that don't get satisfactory grades on their tests be forced to attend traditional schools? I don't have everything worked out yet, but tell me what you think about this system so far. Thanks.

The most revolutionary thing to improve the education system? Admit that the system is broken, and go back to the old system, no more consolidated school systems, get the Federal Government out, and take it all back to local control, hell even back then the Dumbest kid in the school could read the comics books.

Buffalo Roam,

The most revolutionary thing to improve the education system? Admit that the system is broken, and go back to the old system, no more consolidated school systems, get the Federal Government out, and take it all back to local control, hell even back then the Dumbest kid in the school could read the comics books.

I think that competition is needed to improve the system. And you can't have competition if the public/private school system has a monopoly on giving you credit for your education.

BETTER SOLUTION
Standardized testing is great idea independent of the classroom is a great idea. In fact, class participation should be completely voluntary, and not graded. All grades should be based on these standardized tests. Kids go to school, and simply get unofficial progress reports for their own benefit. Meanwhile, it all comes down to the tests.

The classes are spceifically catered to getting the kids to pass the standardized test using game techniques and other advanced forms of interactive education that laugh in the face of primitive lecture education.

Standardized tests are developed to the best ability to certify that the test taker knows the subject thoroughly.

Several posts not contributing to the discussion have been deleted.

lixluke,

The classes are spceifically catered to getting the kids to pass the standardized test using game techniques and other advanced forms of interactive education that laugh in the face of primitive lecture education.

I agree. The reason that alternative education techniques have not developed as they should is because people that would use them can't get credit for the knowledge that they gain by using them. What use is it to me if I become a math expert by reading books and using educational software if I can't get any credit for it? If everyone knows that they can get credit for any, and all, of the knowledge they have without having to dish out a lot of money, they would be much more motivated in gaining knowledge.

Standardized tests are developed to the best ability to certify that the test taker knows the subject thoroughly.

The tests should also consist of a large pool of questions developed by experts in that specific subject. The larger the pool of questions, the less likely that someone can cheat.

I would also have the scores on the test between the range of 0 and 20. For example, if someone gets a grade of 12.69 on their test, it means that their knowledge in that subject is equivalent to someone in twelfth grade.

Scores should be pass or fail. Either they have a thorough knowledge of what is being tested at hand, or they do not. Partial knowledge means you have failed the test of wits.
The grading system is a joke.
A passing grade = a certification that you have thorough knowledge of the subject. Anybody does not have thorough knowledge cannot get certified.

lixluke,

Thorough knowledge in a subject relative to what? A fifth grader? A junior in high school? A Ph. D.?

So elementary school kids should never take the tests because they really don't have thorough knowledge in any subject, right?

lixluke,



Thorough knowledge in a subject relative to what? A fifth grader? A junior in high school? A Ph. D.?

So elementary school kids should never take the tests because they really don't have thorough knowledge in any subject, right?
Relative to objective standards of whichever particular test.
Either you know the material or you do not.

Do you not know how to create a test?
Here is whatever particular set of knowledge.
We devise a test to according to that particular.
The test is well constructed to show if that individual really has this particular knowledge or ability.
It's as simple as that.

There is no relative to anything other than to itself. That is just illogical.
Which is exactly what the current grading system is. Total lack of logic.
Relative grading against a total illusion.

lixluke,

Do you not know how to create a test?
Here is whatever particular set of knowledge.
We devise a test to according to that particular.
The test is well constructed to show if that individual really has this particular knowledge or ability.
It's as simple as that.

I'm still confused. Let's say you have a history test and you score a 98% percent on it. What does that score mean? Does that mean that you have the knowledge of a high school student in history, or is your knowledge in history equivalent to a college grad? If you have to be an expert in history to get 98% on the test, wouldn't that mean most people would fail the test? If you knew that you would fail, would you take the test? Or are you implying that there would be a separate test for each grade level?

The point is that if you want to make a single test that can be taken by everyone, kids and adults, then you can't have pass/fail score.

I'm still confused.
You are confused.
You are clearly not talking about tests. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but I do know it has nothing to do with whatever a test is.
One thing a test is not is subject to anybody taking it. In other words, child, adult, whatever.
Whatever you are describing is certainly not a test.

1) & 2) are contradcictory. You can't simultaneously level the playing field and make it competitive. Competition has winners and losers. Education is socialized because we've decided that when it comes to educating the young, we can't afford to have losers.

1) & 2) are contradcictory. You can't simultaneously level the playing field and make it competitive.
So football isn't competitive ? (they play on a level playing field).

Roman,

1) & 2) are contradcictory. You can't simultaneously level the playing field and make it competitive. Competition has winners and losers. Education is socialized because we've decided that when it comes to educating the young, we can't afford to have losers.

What about a combination of a competitive education system with a socialized safety net? The standardized tests would enable a child to get an education from various sources and still get credit. But if the child fails to get the appropriate score on those tests, he/she would be forced into the traditional socialized system until his/her knowledge is deemed satisfactory.

I'm not suggesting that we abolish the traditional education system. I just get upset when I think of all those kids in classrooms that can learn at a much faster rate than their teachers can teach. As those kids are held back, waiting for their fellow students to catch up, the whole society is held back as well. Just imagine all of that lost potential.

As for leveling the playing field, I was referring to colleges and universities. I would want a poor self-educated person to get the same educational credit as a rich person who attended Harvard if they both have the same level of education. In our current education system that's impossible since the sources that are providing the education are the same ones that are giving credit for it.

lixluke,

You are confused.
You are clearly not talking about tests. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but I do know it has nothing to do with whatever a test is.
One thing a test is not is subject to anybody taking it. In other words, child, adult, whatever.
Whatever you are describing is certainly not a test.

From dictionary.com:

"TEST–noun
1. the means by which the presence, quality, or genuineness of anything is determined; a means of trial.
2. the trial of the quality of something: to put to the test.
3. a particular process or method for trying or assessing.
4. a set of questions, problems, or the like, used as a means of evaluating the abilities, aptitudes, skills, or performance of an individual or group; examination."

All tests don't have to be pass/fail. For example, you can't fail an IQ test. You wouldn't be able to fail the standardized tests I'm suggesting either. However, others can use your test results to determine whether you passed or failed according to their standards.

a set of questions, problems, or the like, used as a means of evaluating the abilities, aptitudes, skills, or performance of an individual or group
This means that either an individual takes the test or a group takes the test.
The test evaluates them according to the design of the test.
Tests are objective. No age, gender, whatever makes a difference.

You either know what is on the test or not.
Test can measure degree of knowledge.
Tests can measure if the individual has a thorough knowledge.

HOW TO DESIGN A TEST
Of course I'm pretty much just repeating myself for the sake of ignorant morons.

1. Take a very specific set of knowledge.
For example: Baking Cake X defined by Recipe X.

2. The test can be either designed to test the degree of knowledge/ability or designed to test whether or not the individual has a thorough understanding/ability.
For example: How good are you at baking Cake X? Or these are the minimum standards you must achieve to porve your thorough ability to bake Cake X.

3. Academic tests should be measured on a pass fail basis. Either you have a thorough understanding of the specific set of knowledge presented in the test. Or you do not.

All tests don't have to be pass/fail.
Are you totally that stupid and ignorant. Presumptuous twad. Show me where I ever said something HAS to be pass/fail in order to be a test. When I specifically said tests should be based on pass/fail rather than measuring degree of knowledge. Retard. Show me where I said all tests are pass/fail or get lost.

1)No standardized tests anymore. Standardized testing rarely assesses comprehension of the subject with any kind of accuracy, only the memorization of facts, really. Standardized subjective questions suck, because it removes the individual attention that teachers can give to students. I agree with Lixluke, though. Pass/Fail should be the only marking in classes, and on tests administered by individual teachers.

2)Greatly reduce classroom size.

3)Give teachers more power to determine what is and isn't taught, and how it's taught. Just give teachers more power in their own classrooms.

4)Make sure that teaching certification is extremely rigorous, and increase the pay of teachers considerably. Make it a lucrative job, and what's more make it a highly academic job. Public schooling shouldn't be like an assembly line. People don't learn like that.

5)Just thought of this one, but it's a lot more fundamental than most of the other ones. Greatly reform the curriculum. Early on, children should be taught how to think (as in, the youngest children). Problem solving courses and mathematics should take precedence over everything else. As the child progresses through school (not at a pre-determined pace) he/she is introduced to more comprehension oriented rather than skill oriented subjects, like History, and the sciences. If a teenager is taking Physics, you shouldn't have to teach him Calculus at the same time. He should have learned all of the requisite mathematics when he was younger.

That's all I have for now. I guess I'll just respond to whatever people say to it.

Tests administered by individual teachers does not work.
Tests must be standardized objectively.
My cirriculum design does not teach anybody how to think. It teaches how to think for yourself. It is one of the most important parts of academics.

Tests administered by individual teachers does not work.
Yes it does. Tests are meant to gauge a students knowledge, and since the teacher is the person who most immediately needs to know they need to be the one's administering tests. I'm talking about things like your very simple knowledge quiz, not something like the SAT written and administered by a High School teacher.

Tests must be standardized objectively.
You mean there should be no subjective portion to tests? Don't you think essay writing is a very good way for teachers to gauge the ability of his/her students to effective dissect the subject? I think that subjective tests, i.e essay writing, is far superior to simple question/answer knowledge tests. Anyone can learn to memorize facts and regurgitate them on command. In fact, this is what most standardized tests actually consist of. It's the current system.

My cirriculum design does not teach anybody how to think. It teaches how to think for yourself. It is one of the most important parts of academics.
Um... you need to know how to think in order to think for yourself. I'm talking about teaching thinking skills, not brainwashing.

Thinking skills are exactly what learning how to think for yourself is.
Teaching thinking skills to students.


I definitely do not think tests should be subjective. The same thing goes for essay exams. Nobody is talking about memorizing facts to regurgitate on command. I am talking about tests specifically designed to test a person's knowledge of whatever specific set of knowledge.

Thinking skills are exactly what learning how to think for yourself is.
Teaching thinking skills to students.
Yes. Thus, it is necessary to teach children the skills they will need to know how to think critically, for themselves, later. The current educational system is woefully lacking in this respect. The current system tries to get kids to memorize facts, rather than learn how to dissect new information efficiently.


I definitely do not think tests should be subjective. The same thing goes for essay exams. Nobody is talking about memorizing facts to regurgitate on command. I am talking about tests specifically designed to test a person's knowledge of whatever specific set of knowledge.
Well, all tests are designed to test a person's knowledge of whatever specific set of knowledge. That's the reason why they are called "tests".

Also, you can't have an essay exam that isn't a subjective exam. You give your opinion in an essay. Otherwise, you're looking for a specific answer to a question. In such a case, essays are no longer necessary and can be replaced by multiple-choice, or fill-in-the-blank questions. The point of an essay is not to get a specific answer, but to exam the mental processes, the logic, which the student uses to come up with their opinion and then grade them on that. Think of an essay as running a diagnostic on the student's thinking skills by asking them a question and then watching which way the gears turned to come up with the answer. The answer isn't as important as how the student arrived at it. That's why it's necessary to have subjective portions to tests. The reason why we have both objective and subjective portions of tests is because we also want to test for memorization. Current objective tests are actually quite good at this.