Testing refusal rates in your district

[undertheradar]

This is the last thing we need. America's strength is the mosaic of different skill sets of its people. A national curriculum would marginalize millions whose strengths don't fall all along the lines of whatever the powers that be decide a national curriculum would entail and make us a nation of widget-people, all knowing and thinking the same things.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Depending upon where you reside, your requirements are based on the current college entry exams. We are in the Midwest, all is designed around ACT test scores. In SoCal, it was SAT first, ACT if needed.

There are far too many varied academic requirements and students who move around the country get stuck in the black hole of academic inequity. We need a national set of standards and requirements for high school graduation. There should be minimum benchmarks to attain a high school diploma.

 

[Ceila]

I didn't ridicule the blog, I said it was someone's opinion, which it is. If the PP wanted people to become informed, she did a piss poor job of it, just linking the blog and telling us to check out the comments. But, hey you guys can continue to to try to inform and change people's minds the way you are doing it here in this thread. I'm sure you'll do a bang up job.

Yes, it's someone's opinion. But lets be truthful here. It isn't just some Jane Doe. She has expertise on the topic. Would it have been helpful for the PP to mention the background of Ravitch and Slekar for people such as yourself who aren't familiar with them? Sure. But to many people, not bothering to do a quick Google search before trying to discount the blog just made you look rash.

 

[Ceila]

Its ironic you say that when here in this thread. Isn't the whole opt-out movement trying to get all people knowing and thinking the same thing about these tests..............................

No, and if you've done even a smidgen of reading on the topic you would be aware of that.

 

[sam_gordon]

This is the last thing we need. America's strength is the mosaic of different skill sets of its people. A national curriculum would marginalize millions whose strengths don't fall all along the lines of whatever the powers that be decide a national curriculum would entail and make us a nation of widget-people, all knowing and thinking the same things.

Sorry, I don't think you could be more wrong with this statement. IMO, HS should leave ALL graduates with a certain minimum skill set. Florida (for example) shouldn't be able say "HS graduates only need x" while Kentucky says "HS graduates only need y". Again, I'm talking MINIMUMS. This has nothing to do with making "widget-people" or forcing kids to think the same thing.

Adding to the confusion is when kids move across state lines. If they move to a "more advanced" school system, they can find themselves a year or two behind. Likewise, if they move to a "slower" school system, they can find themselves a year or two ahead. How does that help anyone?

 

[jodifla]

Sorry, I don't think you could be more wrong with this statement. IMO, HS should leave ALL graduates with a certain minimum skill set. Florida (for example) shouldn't be able say "HS graduates only need x" while Kentucky says "HS graduates only need y". Again, I'm talking MINIMUMS. This has nothing to do with making "widget-people" or forcing kids to think the same thing.

Adding to the confusion is when kids move across state lines. If they move to a "more advanced" school system, they can find themselves a year or two behind. Likewise, if they move to a "slower" school system, they can find themselves a year or two ahead. How does that help anyone?

I moved across state lines. Yes, they were in a different place than I was. So what? It was no big deal. I caught up shortly.

If the standards were less specific they might have been a good thing. But they are much too narrowly drawn.

 

[sam_gordon]

I moved across state lines. Yes, they were in a different place than I was. So what? It was no big deal. I caught up shortly.

Since everything was fine for you, it's fine for everyone? What if state 'A' teaches Algebra in grade 7 and state 'B' waits until grade 9 (or later)? Do you think a student moving between those would be able to catch up shortly?

If the standards were less specific they might have been a good thing. But they are much too narrowly drawn.

Again, I disagree. I think the standards show a "concept", and can't be too "loose" or they won't do any good.

 

[jodifla]

Since everything was fine for you, it's fine for everyone? What if state 'A' teaches Algebra in grade 7 and state 'B' waits until grade 9 (or later)? Do you think a student moving between those would be able to catch up shortly?

Again, I disagree. I think the standards show a "concept", and can't be too "loose" or they won't do any good.

When I was in junior high, you had a whole selection of math courses to take; preAlgebra, Algebra I, Alebra 2, general math, business math. Everybody did not take the same thing. So that class would be available to you in the curriculum.

 

[nugov2]

I moved across state lines. Yes, they were in a different place than I was. So what? It was no big deal. I caught up shortly.

If the standards were less specific they might have been a good thing. But they are much too narrowly drawn.

Well by that philosophy my kids did fine on PARCC so all kids should. What's the big deal. Those who don't this year will catch up, right?

 

[IDoDis]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Depending upon where you reside, your requirements are based on the current college entry exams. We are in the Midwest, all is designed around ACT test scores. In SoCal, it was SAT first, ACT if needed.

There are far too many varied academic requirements and students who move around the country get stuck in the black hole of academic inequity. We need a national set of standards and requirements for high school graduation. There should be minimum benchmarks to attain a high school diploma.

College entrance exams are the same, but you are missing some key facts:

1) Colleges have different thresholds of acceptance based on ACT/ SAT scores. College A will accept a minimum ACT score of 22, while College B will only accept a minimum ACT score of 33. Not everyone can get into an Ivy. The passing cut scores for a passing grade on the high school tests are also going to vary by state. So it's still going to be a mixed bag of achievement. These expensive tests aren't going to change that. They are just costing a lot of money.

2) Taking the ACT/SAT and going to college are not a requirement. These tests are optional. Not everyone goes to college, can afford college, nor has the intellect for college and may be better suited for a different type of career where they attend a trade school.

The CCSS is based on the assumption that every student has to pass the rigor to go to college. This is as unrealistic as No Child Left Behind. Kids are not all cut from the same cloth. We graduated from high school without all of this nonsense and turned out just fine. The elephant in the room that isn't being addressed is poverty. Education is actually way better now than when I went to school, but the kids who come through the door don't have the supports in place to thrive in school. I think if any of us sat in a classroom back in the Beaver Cleaver days of the 50's where we recited our times tables and diagramed sentences each day in a room full of well-fed children from stable homes who could listen and focus and had consequences at home when they misbehaved, we'd find that school curriculum nowadays is much harder and students have much less family support.

Harder tests are not going to fix public education because public education is not the problem. Unfortunately, BILLIONS are being spent to get the same results.

 

[jodifla]

Well by that philosophy my kids did fine on PARCC so all kids should. What's the big deal. Those who don't this year will catch up, right?

One of the several differences was the curriculum was age-appropriate. My education career didn't live or die on 8 or 12 hours of testing. And unless there is a national curriculum, not just standards, everyone will be at a different place anyway when they move. ELAs will be studying different books, there are many math curriculums, and no science standards yet or history CCSS.

 

[sam_gordon]

When I was in junior high, you had a whole selection of math courses to take; preAlgebra, Algebra I, Alebra 2, general math, business math. Everybody did not take the same thing. So that class would be available to you in the curriculum.

Can you make up your mind? Either every school should be the same (offering the various math classes), which you don't like, or every school should be different (and therefore the classes might not be offered).

 

[erin1715]

College entrance exams are the same, but you are missing some key facts:

1) Colleges have different thresholds of acceptance based on ACT/ SAT scores. College A will accept a minimum ACT score of 22, while College B will only accept a minimum ACT score of 33. Not everyone can get into an Ivy. The passing cut scores for a passing grade on the high school tests are also going to vary by state. So it's still going to be a mixed bag of achievement. These expensive tests aren't going to change that. They are just costing a lot of money.

2) Taking the ACT/SAT and going to college are not a requirement. These tests are optional. Not everyone goes to college, can afford college, nor has the intellect for college and may be better suited for a different type of career where they attend a trade school.

The CCSS is based on the assumption that every student has to pass the rigor to go to college. This is as unrealistic as No Child Left Behind. Kids are not all cut from the same cloth. We graduated from high school without all of this nonsense and turned out just fine. The elephant in the room that isn't being addressed is poverty. Education is actually way better now than when I went to school, but the kids who come through the door don't have the supports in place to thrive in school. I think if any of us sat in a classroom back in the Beaver Cleaver days of the 50's where we recited our times tables and diagramed sentences each day in a room full of well-fed children from stable homes who could listen and focus and had consequences at home when they misbehaved, we'd find that school curriculum nowadays is much harder and students have much less family support.

Harder tests are not going to fix public education because public education is not the problem. Unfortunately, BILLIONS are being spent to get the same results.[/QUOTE

Poverty is exactly the problem.

 

[nugov2]

One of the several differences was the curriculum was age-appropriate. My education career didn't live or die on 8 or 12 hours of testing. And unless there is a national curriculum, not just standards, everyone will be at a different place anyway when they move. ELAs will be studying different books, there are many math curriculums, and no science standards yet or history CCSS.

the educational career of the majority of the nation doesn't live or die on testing except for in a few states. That has nothing to do with what test is being administered.

I disagree the curriculum has to be the same. Having the same standards are what is important. It doesn't matter if one teacher uses one novel while another uses a different one. Even in out school in the same grade made different choices on lessons and often chose a different novel, but we still arrived at the same end point. Every school doesn't need to read from a prompt with identical lessons. That's ridiculous.

 

[nugov2]

College entrance exams are the same, but you are missing some key facts:

1) Colleges have different thresholds of acceptance based on ACT/ SAT scores. College A will accept a minimum ACT score of 22, while College B will only accept a minimum ACT score of 33. Not everyone can get into an Ivy. The passing cut scores for a passing grade on the high school tests are also going to vary by state. So it's still going to be a mixed bag of achievement. These expensive tests aren't going to change that. They are just costing a lot of money.

2) Taking the ACT/SAT and going to college are not a requirement. These tests are optional. Not everyone goes to college, can afford college, nor has the intellect for college and may be better suited for a different type of career where they attend a trade school.

The CCSS is based on the assumption that every student has to pass the rigor to go to college. This is as unrealistic as No Child Left Behind. Kids are not all cut from the same cloth. We graduated from high school without all of this nonsense and turned out just fine. The elephant in the room that isn't being addressed is poverty. Education is actually way better now than when I went to school, but the kids who come through the door don't have the supports in place to thrive in school. I think if any of us sat in a classroom back in the Beaver Cleaver days of the 50's where we recited our times tables and diagramed sentences each day in a room full of well-fed children from stable homes who could listen and focus and had consequences at home when they misbehaved, we'd find that school curriculum nowadays is much harder and students have much less family support.

Harder tests are not going to fix public education because public education is not the problem. Unfortunately, BILLIONS are being spent to get the same results.

What's your solution? Say oh well kids who live in poverty can't do it so leave standards low for them. Some will want to go to college too even though that isn't the path for all. Shouldn't they have the same opportunity to succeed?

 

[jodifla]

What's your solution? Say oh well kids who live in poverty can't do it so leave standards low for them. Some will want to go to college too even though that isn't the path for all. Shouldn't they have the same opportunity to succeed?

I think many of us don't see how these standards help students in poverty. CCSS just raises the standards, and tries to force kids to meet them with threats against them and their teachers and schools -- even if the standards are too narrowly drawn and too high for many to meet.

 

[jodifla]

Can you make up your mind? Either every school should be the same (offering the various math classes), which you don't like, or every school should be different (and therefore the classes might not be offered).

Actually, I see across the country that math variation is being eliminated. In my son's middle school, everyone is taking the same integrated math class. No variations, and no chance to excel in subjects like Geometry if you are a visual learner. It's all lumped together. The only variation is that some classes move slower.

 

[nugov2]

I think many of us don't see how these standards help students in poverty. CCSS just raises the standards, and tries to force kids to meet them with threats against them and their teachers and schools -- even if the standards are too narrowly drawn and too high for many to meet.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. If the standard roll out is done properly I think even children in poverty can have success with them. I disagree they are to high and narrowly drawn. Again those threats are in a few states not all those have nothing to do with the standards.

 

[nugov2]

Actually, I see across the country that math variation is being eliminated. In my son's middle school, everyone is taking the same integrated math class. No variations, and no chance to excel in subjects like Geometry if you are a visual learner. It's all lumped together. The only variation is that some classes move slower.

Where do you get that from? I disagree that is the case nationwide. There are so many more classes offered that engage all learners. We have all different modules offered for kids. Things that were never offered before. There are schools that don't offer these things, but that has always been the case. CC hasn't changed that.

 

[kimmar067]

....let's face it - we are stuck with PARCC until the 'new flavor-of-the-month' comes along....

 

[IDoDis]

What's your solution? Say oh well kids who live in poverty can't do it so leave standards low for them. Some will want to go to college too even though that isn't the path for all. Shouldn't they have the same opportunity to succeed?

No. You didn't get my point. Of course some will go to college, but these test will shut the door on many others because those students will no longer get a high school diploma if they don't pass the tests which are at a college level for high school juniors. Instead they will get a certificate of completion -- not the same thing. Don't try to tell me that won't happen because it is happening in some places right now. That is an undisputed fact. That initiative will spread as the year or two of a free pass with no repercussions in states like yours ends. That wasn't my point though, but thank you for reminding me. My point was that performing on a test at the college level should not be a requirement to graduate high school.

Using these billions of dollars to fund schools appropriately and to fund early childhood programs nationwide would be a step in the right direction. I can't discuss other ideas/solutions without this turning into a political debate which is not allowed here.