Talk:High-stakes testing

message: I admit that this:
* Tests reveal that some examinees do not know the material.  While failing these people may have many public benefits, the consequences of repeated failure can be very high for the individual.  For example, a person who fails a practical driving exam will not be able to drive a car legally, which means they cannot drive to work and may lose their job if alternative transportation options are not available.
sounds a bit silly at first glance, but at bottom this is one common "civil rights" argument against high school graduation exams.  There are actually people who think it's better to give a high school diploma to a kid who is functionally illiterate because the "stupid piece of paper" is necessary to get many jobs these days.  Some of these people oppose high-stakes testing specifically because kids who cannot read will actually be identified as not being able to read.  I'm open to a better example, but the general idea that a test can identify people with inadequate knowledge is important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Silly

message: This "article" is nothing but a dictionary definition of the compound "high-stakes" and "exam".  "High stakes testing" is not a topic. --Gronky (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? That comment is nonsense. It is a distinct type of assessment, of extreme importance in public policy, with many books and journal articles written about it, and even a organization devoted solely to its opposition.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we get some references to that group and its criticisms? 173.45.201.98 (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This nonsense should be deleted 

message: I reviewed this article based on a request at the NPOV noticeboard. It was indeed highly POV, and CONTINUES TO BE SO. 
I have removed the POV tag, however, because what is CAUSING the POV is that the editors involved are making assertions that have not been sourced to references. 
If the many  tags can be replaced with actual sources that confirm these assertions, then the article would probably get a low pass on a high-stakes NPOV review. 
Please note that simply citing a source is NOT sufficient. The citations in the "high-school diploma" examples removed (see above), for example, did NOT confirm the editor(s)'s assertions of fact. Thus the assertions are both POV and dubious. Please play fair. 
Editors should source the article, or FEEL ENTIRELY FREE TO REMOVE uncited statements after allowing a reasonable time for the statements to be cited. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking a look. I think it's pretty clear, as well, that this is a pretty controversial topic, so I figured for future reference, I'd add the controversial tag. It's just here on the talk page though. Hopefully it can help defuse any future problems. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So is there any particular reason why citation-needed tags were added immediately after existing citations?  I've removed them, on the assumption that these were careless errors.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did this in cases where the cited source either did not support what they were being cited for, or the citation went to pages that appear to no longer exist. I noted this above. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, thank you for helping me format some of those refs, I'm not used to the citation format here on Wiki. (What I wouldn't give for a BiBTeX like system...)173.45.201.98 (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be interested in .  Note that the mere fact that a webpage is no longer accessible is not considered an acceptable reason to declare something to be uncited.  If there was ever a valid citation (and we assume in good faith that editors supplying citations in years past got things right, unless we can prove them wrong), then the material is sufficiently supported for purposes of complying with the verifiability policy.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that tag would have been far more useful than the citation needed one. Also, please forgive me for the mistake on accessibility; I'm used to strict rules about any source needing to be available, and I had just kind of assumed that it was commonly done that way.173.45.201.98 (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing POV tag 

message: It seems to make sense to me, actually, that perhaps we should rewrite the criticisms section into two sections, one with criticisms, and the other with common arguments for HSTs. If done right, we could include both the common criticisms, the common support arguments, and each side's views of the other. This would describe the debate quite handily without pushing a particular POV. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dueling sections are a common way to screw up the balance of an article, so I'm skeptical of this proposal, but if you think it can be done, then I'm willing to reserve judgment.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's an ugly solution, but you seem convinced that HST-proponents' stereotypes on what the criticisms are (that critics want to ignore problems and pass poor students) be listed somewhere in the article. 173.45.201.98 (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand.  Why would the introduction of a "Proponents" section change the existing critics' section?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible balancing improvement 

message: I'm the IP user who has been debating stuff here, I've made a username and I don't want anyone to misunderstand my intents. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sock puppeting 

message: I can't imagine a good reason for deleting a properly sourced scholarly definition of a high-stakes test, but if you've got one, please let me know. 
Also, whenever you delete a named ref (<ref name=something>), you need to check the rest of the article to make sure that it wasn't being re-used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Breaking the ref was unintentional, but removing the CPE definition was. While it was a precise, and interesting definition, it seemed to be used only by CPE. The other definitions, including everything found on the first page of http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS333US333&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=definition+of+a+high-stakes+test, strongly suggests that CPE's definition is a fringe view. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a fringe view, and in fact there are other, more restrictive definitions.  (I ran across a seven- or eight-part definition the other day, but can't place my hands on it right now).  In general, I think you'll find that formal definitions by scholars are more precise than the definitions put forward by politicians and dictionaries.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes they are, but there's also the fact that the the only people using CPE's definition is CPE. I'm leaving the article alone for now, I think there's still issues, but I'll let other editors handle them. I don't have the patience. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know that CPE's definition is not used outside of CPE?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for deleting sourced material (definition) 

message: You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the  Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles 

message: 01:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on High-stakes testing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090111075836/http://www.ed.sc.edu/caw/definition.html to http://www.ed.sc.edu/caw/definition.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725152125/http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.lvIXIiN0JwE/b.5056891/apps/s/content.asp?ct=6857851 to http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.lvIXIiN0JwE/b.5056891/apps/s/content.asp?ct=6857851
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091014211209/http://www.dukegiftedletter.com/articles/the_debate_about_using_the_sat.html to http://www.dukegiftedletter.com/articles/the_debate_about_using_the_sat.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726174336/http://independenteducationreview.org/Review/Articles/vol2/v2n1-phelpscritique.html to http://independenteducationreview.org/Review/Articles/vol2/v2n1-phelpscritique.html
*Added  tag to http://answers.ed.gov/cgi-bin/education.cfg/php/enduser/popup_adp.php?p_sid=yzP1VeDj&p_lva=&p_li=&p_faqid=121&p_created=1118758585
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207055113/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c1/fig01-10.htm to http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c1/fig01-10.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727074218/http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/policybriefs/5993pi_pbhighstakestesting.pdf to http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/policybriefs/5993pi_pbhighstakestesting.pdf
*Added  tag to http://old.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=155734&secure=3598
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hmm... I wonder if the Imperial examinations count... If they do, they should be mentioned?
SomeDude! (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm... I wonder if the Imperial Examinations count... 

message: A Third Opinion was requested.  However, there does not seem to have been discussion on this talk page.  There was a lengthy request at the Third Opinion board, but the Third Opinion request should follow discussion on the article talk page.  I cleaned up the request at the Third Opinion board, and, it seems, in the process, deleted the substance of the request.  That is, there wasn't a question here, only at the Third Opinion board.  Please state the question here.  In the meantime, the request will be deleted from the Third Opinion board.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: From:  Richard at Nonpartisan Education
Seems Kafka-esque. So, the long request I wrote on the Third Opinion page has been cleaned up (i.e., deleted). Wikipedia has its own rules, culture, and software, and I am new to it and still trying to learn. I will try to reproduce the cleaned-up text here and this time I will save a copy. 
Thomas W. insists that a reference I object to--a reference that is, only ostensibly, to something I wrote--must be maintained. I assert that the reference should either be deleted or replaced. Some of the discussion over this matter can be found above. Thomas W. has accused me of "spamming" and of directing citations to my "company" (the Nonpartisan Education Review is a nonprofit online journal run by volunteers that loses thousands of dollars every year, if anyone chose to count). 
I deleted a reference and replaced it with one equally as relevant to the topical point but that leads to a publication that I actually intended to be published. I would be just as happy if the reference were deleted, or if the reference were to some publication I wrote containing the same topical point, but that is not associated with my "company". The reference Thomas W. insists must be maintained leads to a gifted education newsletter at Duke University. Years ago, I saw it there, requested that the reference be deleted and the newsletter editors agreed with me that it should be deleted. You cannot find it there today. Thomas W. has to employ an archiving service to resurrect it.
The document to which Thomas W. insists people be directed is located at an online journal I and a few dozen colleagues were associated with a decade ago. We all quit due to unethical practices. As retaliation, the person responsible for that journal, which hasn't published anything new since 2006, posts text intended to defame my reputation. One such is the document Thomas W. insists must be referenced on this Wikipedia page. Its base is a review I wrote of a manuscript submitted for review to the journal. Submitted reviews are supposed to be "blind", anonymous. Because he is pissed off, he has posted my "blind" review and is free to add to it and subtract from it. I have requested multiple times that anything to do with me be removed from that "journal". He has refused. Sure, I could sue him, but it would cost me, at the most conservative estimate, more than $20 thousand.
Thomas W. insists that I must "work this out" with him. But, the person in question happens to be a separate human being, one that I do not control. It happens that he can behave as he wishes.
Anyone can know my identity; I have made it obvious. One has no idea who Thomas W. is. By Wikipedia rules, as I understand them, I cannot add any references to my own publications because I might be biased. I happen to have conducted, over the course of 12 years, the largest meta-analysis on the effects of testing--including high stake testing--ever. But, I cannot add it. 
So, because I happen to know a lot about the subject at hand, I cannot add information to this web page. But, also, if Thomas W. is correct, I cannot delete my name from it either when the reference to me is defamatory. So, because I know a lot about this topic, my only possible fate is to be demonized?
That is my working hypothesis. If I am wrong, you are welcome to explain how. 
P.S. I would argue that the references Thomas W. has just added are very one-sided on the issue in general. But, I must be biased, and he must not be?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard at Nonpartisan Education (talk • contribs) 22:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion requested