Education

[muwarrior69]

I know we have some academics here and I was wondering if they think this is a good idea? I know it may be impossible to separate the politics, but I really want to know how do our children succeed in school and in life if you eliminate the metric for success.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/08/11/oregon-quietly-eliminates-all-standards-in-reading-writing-and-math-for-getting-a-high-school-diploma/

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I think the basic issue is whether or not the state should impose some sort of statewide "proficiency" requirement other than "passing your classes." 

For instance, in Wisconsin, the Department of Public Instruction outlines what classes a student needs to take to graduate.  When I was a kid, the public school district figured out what classes met those requirements...I took them....I passed them...I graduated.  There was not, and I believe still isn't, any sort of testing requirement to prove my proficiency.  It was assumed that I was proficient based on my passing of those classes.  And I did well enough in those classes that I was admitted to Marquette and was well prepared for my time on campus.

This has been discussed before, but we have reduced "proficiency" to testing.  Which IMO isn't how colleges and universities view proficiency.  And it isn't largely how the workplace views proficiency.

[Galway Eagle]

I think the basic issue is whether or not the state should impose some sort of statewide "proficiency" requirement other than "passing your classes." 

For instance, in Wisconsin, the Department of Public Instruction outlines what classes a student needs to take to graduate.  When I was a kid, the public school district figured out what classes met those requirements...I took them....I passed them...I graduated.  There was not, and I believe still isn't, any sort of testing requirement to prove my proficiency.  It was assumed that I was proficient based on my passing of those classes.  And I did well enough in those classes that I was admitted to Marquette and was well prepared for my time on campus.

This has been discussed before, but we have reduced "proficiency" to testing.  Which IMO isn't how colleges and universities view proficiency.  And it isn't largely how the workplace views proficiency.

But when you pose the "I passed so I'm prepared" argument it assumes all schools are created equal. Unfortunately that isn't the case, add no child left behind, where schools (at an admin level) are passing kids just to receive funding, then you have kids walking out with that same HS degree and same qualifications of passing HS but who are absolutely not prepared for university courses.

I agree that we've relied too heavily on tests but I think that it's better than putting faith purely in the schools to pass those who deserve it

[Pakuni]

Just to clarify, this is a temporary extension of something that was done last year because of the pandemic. It doesn't eliminate grade, credit or other graduation requirements. It just temporarily ends the standardized testing portion of the evaluation.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

But when you pose the "I passed so I'm prepared" argument it assumes all schools are created equal. Unfortunately that isn't the case, add no child left behind, where schools (at an admin level) are passing kids just to receive funding, then you have kids walking out with that same HS degree and same qualifications of passing HS but who are absolutely not prepared for university courses.

I have no doubt that is the case, but probably represents a significant minority of districts.

So how does administering proficiency exams as a graduation requirement help those students?

[Galway Eagle]

I have no doubt that is the case, but probably represents a significant minority of districts.

So how does administering proficiency exams as a graduation requirement help those students?

I don't think it does help them. Keeping them helps protect our higher learning institutions by ensuring some semblance of "quality control" of students that are going to be ready for college and likely to finish.

I'm not sure how uncommon or common it is but I know of at least two suburban Chicago schools (rougher ones, not your Napervilles or New Triers) and two MPS schools that were passing students who weren't ready.

I'm not sure what the answer is I just know what some of the flaws are on both sides and felt it warranted mention.

[Pakuni]

But when you pose the "I passed so I'm prepared" argument it assumes all schools are created equal. Unfortunately that isn't the case, add no child left behind, where schools (at an admin level) are passing kids just to receive funding, then you have kids walking out with that same HS degree and same qualifications of passing HS but who are absolutely not prepared for university courses.

I agree that we've relied too heavily on tests but I think that it's better than putting faith purely in the schools to pass those who deserve it

If you acknowledge that that not all schools are created equally, how can you expect a single test to evaluate all students equally?

FWIW, a study of No Child Left Behind's impact on graduation rates found there was some legitimate concern about schools lowering standards, etc., just to push kids through, but such instances are rare and not the reason behind rising graduation rates.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Is-the-Rise-in-High-School-Graduation-Rates-Real-FINAL.pdf

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I don't think it does help them. Keeping them helps protect our higher learning institutions by ensuring some semblance of "quality control" of students that are going to be ready for college and likely to finish.

You realize that many higher education institutions don't believe that standardized tests measure proficiency all that well, and that is why there has been a larger push toward "test optional" admission.  So they really don't need or want that "protection."

[Galway Eagle]

If you acknowledge that that not all schools are created equally, how can you expect a single test to evaluate all students equally?

FWIW, a study of No Child Left Behind's impact on graduation rates found there was some legitimate concern about schools lowering standards, etc., just to push kids through, but such instances are rare and not the reason behind rising graduation rates.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Is-the-Rise-in-High-School-Graduation-Rates-Real-FINAL.pdf

Again I'm not necessarily arguing pro standardized tests or against them. I just want to point out all sides and would like to trust the engineers, developers, architects, medical workers, etc that colleges are pushing out, if colleges are working with a lower caliber student and need to pass them to close budget issues then that makes me start to question the quality of our workers.

I have a meeting in 8min but I'll happily read the article afterward

[jesmu84]

Tough situation.

I think it comes from the viewpoint of trying to "level the playing field" for students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

But until the root causes of those backgrounds are addressed, there won't be much improvement if you're just eliminating the finish line requirements.

[Galway Eagle]

You realize that many higher education institutions don't believe that standardized tests measure proficiency all that well, and that is why there has been a larger push toward "test optional" admission.  So they really don't need or want that "protection."

I get that, so we take away the standardized tests (ok), then we're gauging two valedictorians, both played HS sports, multiple volunteer opportunities, etc. one is from let's say an unnamed HS on the south side of Milwaukee that I know for a fact forces teachers to pass students that aren't ready and at least the math program is forced to repeat basic math skills keeping even the best students from learning at the expected rate. The other kid is from a fancy suburban school meeting the national standards. How does admitting that unprepared kid to a school that's above their current level help them? Both the university loses a kid that will likely wash out, and the kid loses by getting into debt, wasting time, and confidence.

If you can't trust the schools and there's no standardized tests how can you ensure quality students?

[Pakuni]

Again I'm not necessarily arguing pro standardized tests or against them. I just want to point out all sides and would like to trust the engineers, developers, architects, medical workers, etc that colleges are pushing out, if colleges are working with a lower caliber student and need to pass them to close budget issues then that makes me start to question the quality of our workers.

I have a meeting in 8min but I'll happily read the article afterward

I very much doubt colleges are worried about pushing out "lower caliber" doctors and architects  based on standardized tests they took as 16-18 year olds. If so, that's a pretty harsh indictment on those universities' abilities to educate.
As Fluffy notes, many colleges - including some really good ones - don't require standardized tests as part of the admissions process any more. The reasoning may not be purely academic, but it also reflects the credibility these schools give standardized tests as a predictor of academic success.

Edit: Your concerns about needing to ensure students are prepared, etc., are completely valid. I'm just not convinced a one-size-fits-all standardized test is the best way to do that.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I get that, so we take away the standardized tests (ok), then we're gauging two valedictorians, both played HS sports, multiple volunteer opportunities, etc. one is from let's say an unnamed HS on the south side of Milwaukee that I know for a fact forces teachers to pass students that aren't ready and at least the math program is forced to repeat basic math skills keeping even the best students from learning at the expected rate. The other kid is from a fancy suburban school meeting the national standards. How does admitting that unprepared kid to a school that's above their current level help them? Both the university loses a kid that will likely wash out, and the kid loses by getting into debt, wasting time, and confidence.

If you can't trust the schools and there's no standardized tests how can you ensure quality students?

Most colleges and universities are able discern the difference between students from schools you mention without the need for standardized testing.

[Galway Eagle]

Most colleges and universities are able discern the difference between students from schools you mention without the need for standardized testing.

You would obviously know better than I so I differ to your expertise. Just some of my initial concerns when people get rid of something without a new plan.

[jficke13]

I get that, so we take away the standardized tests (ok), then we're gauging two valedictorians, both played HS sports, multiple volunteer opportunities, etc. one is from let's say an unnamed HS on the south side of Milwaukee that I know for a fact forces teachers to pass students that aren't ready and at least the math program is forced to repeat basic math skills keeping even the best students from learning at the expected rate. The other kid is from a fancy suburban school meeting the national standards. How does admitting that unprepared kid to a school that's above their current level help them? Both the university loses a kid that will likely wash out, and the kid loses by getting into debt, wasting time, and confidence.

If you can't trust the schools and there's no standardized tests how can you ensure quality students?

Isn't that non-objective, intangible, <something> the entire basis for reputational prestige? Like "oh this kid went to Harvard, therefore he's smart" but just filtered down to the HS level? "Oh this kid went to St. John's Military Prep, therefore he's smart." or "the schools in <known suburb> are good, therefore this is a strong profile?"

I mean it is the job of an admissions department to actually consider the applicants, so I'd hope some manner of evaluation occurs beyond putting everyone into a database and sorting by SAT scores, drawing a line at whatever threshold gives you the numerical probability of filling your freshman class, and dusting your hands off after a job well done.

[Galway Eagle]

I very much doubt colleges are worried about pushing out "lower caliber" doctors and architects  based on standardized tests they took as 16-18 year olds. If so, that's a pretty harsh indictment on those universities' abilities to educate.
As Fluffy notes, many colleges - including some really good ones - don't require standardized tests as part of the admissions process any more. The reasoning may not be purely academic, but it also reflects the credibility these schools give standardized tests as a predictor of academic success.

Edit: Your concerns about needing to ensure students are prepared, etc., are completely valid. I'm just not convinced a one-size-fits-all standardized test is the best way to do that.

It's not really an indictment i mean if you add too many people that need to get caught up from the get go, it inevitably means you don't have time to fill your curriculum with the necessary information to maintain or improve the status quo.

If I'm teaching geometry but none of the students have a real understanding of basic algebra and then we spend 6weeks just covering algebra before we get into geometry do you think that even the best and brightest of the students will be at their potential by the end of the semester when they didn't have time to learn what was planned?

It's the same situation, it's not really an indictment of that teacher or the best students it's just the situation that they're put in. And with moves to remove honors courses and AP courses in various HS's I think it's valid to address this concern more and more.

That being said, I differ to the experts in their field. Just stating my own concerns from the complaints of various teachers in my life.

[Billy Hoyle]

But when you pose the "I passed so I'm prepared" argument it assumes all schools are created equal. Unfortunately that isn't the case, add no child left behind, where schools (at an admin level) are passing kids just to receive funding, then you have kids walking out with that same HS degree and same qualifications of passing HS but who are absolutely not prepared for university courses.

I agree that we've relied too heavily on tests but I think that it's better than putting faith purely in the schools to pass those who deserve it

I see this quote as incredibly insulting to minority students: "Boyle said in an emailed statement that suspending the reading, writing and math proficiency requirements while the state develops new graduation standards will benefit “Oregon’s Black, Latino, Latina, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color.”  Especially for lumping in all Asian students into one homogenous group and ignoring the fact many have risen to the top of the educational ladder

But then again, the Oregon Governor is heavily influenced by the "math is racist" crowd who believes if a student of color believes 2+2=5 they should be told they are right. Math shouldn't be about getting "the right answer."  Is this who we want working on the much needed infrastructure projects coming soon?

https://katu.com/news/local/debate-emerges-over-racism-and-white-supremacy-in-math-instruction

The group claims white supremacy culture can show up in the classroom in various ways, including when "the focus is on getting the 'right' answer," and when "students are required to 'show their work.'"

As for the test optional admission, I see that as very problematic. If admission is based only upon GPA then kids with inflated GPA's from less rigorous schools are going to be set up for possible failure in college. I don't know about your experiences, but going from a rural public school where less than 30% of my graduating class went to college to MU was a major shock and I struggled. I know plenty of classmates from similar backgrounds who didn't make it (meanwhile, I always felt I was chasing the kids from urban private schools and suburban public schools like MUHS, SLUH, Tosa West, etc.). You also have kids who took easier curriculums and inflated their GPA's who were exposed by standardized tests. Standardized tests are a great equalizer. Is it better to admit lesser qualified kids to schools like MU and have them flunk out or have them go to a UWGB or Lawrence and see them graduate

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

No standardized tests are not a "great equalizer."  Most college admissions people would tell you that standardized tests are a poor indicator of higher education performance.  That the best indicators are.... where you went to school, what courses you took, and how you performed in those courses.

Studies confirm....

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/nail-biting-standardized-testing-may-miss-mark-college-students

[Pakuni]

It's not really an indictment i mean if you add too many people that need to get caught up from the get go, it inevitably means you don't have time to fill your curriculum with the necessary information to maintain or improve the status quo.

Yeah, I'm just not seeing this. At all.
I think you're very mistaken if you believe standardized testing - which we know is a poor predictor of academic success - is the one thing keeping the elite academic institutions of America from admitting hordes of unqualified students whose need for remediation will drag down the entire student body.
We agree that schools have an interest in admitting students capable of meeting their academic standards. But there's little evidence that standardized tests are the best, or even a good, way of doing that.

Look, we're not talking about C- students getting into Stanford and MIT because they no longer require SAT scores. They're getting exceptional students, regardless. And if the university over 4+ years can't properly educate those students, it is indeed an indictment of that school.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The basic problem with exit exams and college entrance exams, is that people want a simple objective point of data to make things simple.  But students and how they learn can't really be reduced to the simple and objective.

[muwarrior69]

Yeah, I'm just not seeing this. At all.
I think you're very mistaken if you believe standardized testing - which we know is a poor predictor of academic success - is the one thing keeping the elite academic institutions of America from admitting hordes of unqualified students whose need for remediation will drag down the entire student body.
We agree that schools have an interest in admitting students capable of meeting their academic standards. But there's little evidence that standardized tests are the best, or even a good, way of doing that.

Look, we're not talking about C- students getting into Stanford and MIT because they no longer require SAT scores. They're getting exceptional students, regardless. And if the university over 4+ years can't properly educate those students, it is indeed an indictment of that school.

..but we should be. Maybe these kids don't have the aptitude for college, but they should be able to at least be able to add, subtract, multiply and divide and have the reading proficiency to fill out a job application; and to know they have those skills they have to be tested. There are not enough mentors to teach/train kids  to be electricians, plumbers, welders or HVAC technicians. This is where our schools are failing. College is not for everyone and you can make a good living without a college degree with the right skill sets. I can remember taking woodshop in High School right before my AP calculus class.

[Galway Eagle]

Yeah, I'm just not seeing this. At all.
I think you're very mistaken if you believe standardized testing - which we know is a poor predictor of academic success - is the one thing keeping the elite academic institutions of America from admitting hordes of unqualified students whose need for remediation will drag down the entire student body.
We agree that schools have an interest in admitting students capable of meeting their academic standards. But there's little evidence that standardized tests are the best, or even a good, way of doing that.

Look, we're not talking about C- students getting into Stanford and MIT because they no longer require SAT scores. They're getting exceptional students, regardless. And if the university over 4+ years can't properly educate those students, it is indeed an indictment of that school.

1. I don't think it's the one thing that prevents universities from admitting these kids. I agree it's a poor indicator and agree with Fluffys statement about where, what, & how are clearly better indicators. I think that before repealing things that add to consideration we should have a new plan in place for schools that don't have the manpower to consider all these well rounded aspects of a student (Ie I have heard Illinois' applications are mostly done via computer)

2. We definitely agree about schools having an interest in admitting qualified students. There are parts of me that wonder, given that schools are a business, if certain schools would admit HS students who aren't qualified upon increased scrutiny but on surface are. This would allow them to say they admitted a top candidate from X High School, and then squeeze them for a year payment and when they likely fail out, do it again to another kid. But that's just the conspiracy theorist in me.

3. I'm not referencing the Ivys or the top tech schools, or the Ivy equivalents. I'm pointing to the 50-200 ranked schools. It's the MU's the Iowa's, the DePaul's, etc that I'm more worried about. Again if there's a new plan in place then I'm all for it, I just don't like repealing things because it wasn't perfect and then in a couple years thinking "oh we had that extra step for a reason"

[jesmu84]

I see this quote as incredibly insulting to minority students: "Boyle said in an emailed statement that suspending the reading, writing and math proficiency requirements while the state develops new graduation standards will benefit “Oregon’s Black, Latino, Latina, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color.”  Especially for lumping in all Asian students into one homogenous group and ignoring the fact many have risen to the top of the educational ladder

But then again, the Oregon Governor is heavily influenced by the "math is racist" crowd who believes if a student of color believes 2+2=5 they should be told they are right. Math shouldn't be about getting "the right answer."  Is this who we want working on the much needed infrastructure projects coming soon?

https://katu.com/news/local/debate-emerges-over-racism-and-white-supremacy-in-math-instruction

The group claims white supremacy culture can show up in the classroom in various ways, including when "the focus is on getting the 'right' answer," and when "students are required to 'show their work.'"

As for the test optional admission, I see that as very problematic. If admission is based only upon GPA then kids with inflated GPA's from less rigorous schools are going to be set up for possible failure in college. I don't know about your experiences, but going from a rural public school where less than 30% of my graduating class went to college to MU was a major shock and I struggled. I know plenty of classmates from similar backgrounds who didn't make it (meanwhile, I always felt I was chasing the kids from urban private schools and suburban public schools like MUHS, SLUH, Tosa West, etc.). You also have kids who took easier curriculums and inflated their GPA's who were exposed by standardized tests. Standardized tests are a great equalizer. Is it better to admit lesser qualified kids to schools like MU and have them flunk out or have them go to a UWGB or Lawrence and see them graduate

Not everyone has the same starting point. But we want everyone to finish at the same spot in the same time period.

It's just not possible.

I don't know what the solution is. But we can all acknowledge there is a problem to be solved.

[Pakuni]

..but we should be. Maybe these kids don't have the aptitude for college, but they should be able to at least be able to add, subtract, multiply and divide and have the reading proficiency to fill out a job application; and to know they have those skills they have to be tested.

The Oregon Essentiual Skills requirement began in 2008.
How did they ever manage to know whether kids could add, subtract, multiply, divide and read before then?

[Pakuni]

As for the test optional admission, I see that as very problematic. If admission is based only upon GPA then kids with inflated GPA's from less rigorous schools are going to be set up for possible failure in college.

Good thing, then, that admission isn't based only upon GPA.
Boston University, for example, recently went test optional. Among the things they do require, in addition to GPA, are full high school transcripts, a counselor's recommendation, a teacher evaluation, and a supplemental essay, in addition to the application form that seeks info about a range of academic, extracurricular and outside school activities and accomplishments.
 

[Billy Hoyle]

Yeah, I'm just not seeing this. At all.
I think you're very mistaken if you believe standardized testing - which we know is a poor predictor of academic success - is the one thing keeping the elite academic institutions of America from admitting hordes of unqualified students whose need for remediation will drag down the entire student body.
We agree that schools have an interest in admitting students capable of meeting their academic standards. But there's little evidence that standardized tests are the best, or even a good, way of doing that.

Look, we're not talking about C- students getting into Stanford and MIT because they no longer require SAT scores. They're getting exceptional students, regardless. And if the university over 4+ years can't properly educate those students, it is indeed an indictment of that school.

Nobody said C students at elite schools. But, I know my professor friend at DePaul has talked about having multiple students admitted solely on GPA under a program DePaul has for CPS students barely being literate and flunking out immediately. Working in higher ed myself I've seen too many situations where students are not prepared coming out of high school and can't make it beyond the first or second year.

The Oregon Essentiual Skills requirement began in 2008.
How did they ever manage to know whether kids could add, subtract, multiply, divide and read before then?

That's why the standards were put in place. And the whole idea that dropping the requirement is all about helping minority kids because they can't attain them further shows just what woke progressives really think of minorities.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Nobody said C students at elite schools. But, I know my professor friend at DePaul has talked about having multiple students admitted solely on GPA under a program DePaul has for CPS students barely being literate and flunking out immediately. Working in higher ed myself I've seen too many situations where students are not prepared coming out of high school and can't make it beyond the first or second year.

Ahh....

I see we've reached the "I'm going to ignore studies and only focus on my anecdotal experience" part of the debate.

[Pakuni]

That's why the standards were put in place. And the whole idea that dropping the requirement is all about helping minority kids because they can't attain them further shows just what woke progressives really think of minorities.

Does everything you write have to be filled with the latest Fox News catchphrases? Think for yourself, man.

Anyhow, it's been well established that standardized tests discriminate against minority and lower income students (something that often goes hand-in-hand in this country). This isn't because they are a minority or poor. It's because they often attend schools with less resources and worse teachers, are more likely to come from families with less educational attainment and focus, and are exposed to fewer education activities and resources outside the classroom.
The Oregon leaders recognition of this is not an insult to those students. It's a recognition of their realities.

[Pakuni]

Ahh....

I see we've reached the "I'm going to ignore studies and only focus on my anecdotal experience" part of the debate.

Also, the "I know a guy who just so happens to work in that field and he totally agrees with me" phase of the discussion.

[muwarrior69]

Does everything you write have to be filled with the latest Fox News catchphrases? Think for yourself, man.

Anyhow, it's been well established that standardized tests discriminate against minority and lower income students (something that often goes hand-in-hand in this country). This isn't because they are a minority or poor. It's because they often attend schools with less resources and worse teachers, are more likely to come from families with less educational attainment and focus and are exposed to fewer education activities and resources outside the classroom.
The Oregon leaders recognition of this is not an insult to those students. It's a recognition of their realities.

So eliminating the proficiency exam allows those schools with less resources and worse teachers to now graduate students with less educational attainment. Not sure how that fixes anything.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

So eliminating the proficiency exam allows those schools with less resources and worse teachers to now graduate students with less educational attainment. Not sure how that fixes anything.

How does testing fix anything?

[Galway Eagle]

So eliminating the proficiency exam allows those schools with less resources and worse teachers to now graduate students with less educational attainment. Not sure how that fixes anything.

They were doing that anyways really.

[StillAWarrior]

I see we've reached the "I'm going to ignore studies and only focus on my anecdotal experience" part of the debate.

Also, the "I know a guy who just so happens to work in that field and he totally agrees with me" phase of the discussion.

In fairness, we often reach both of those points within the first three posts in any given thread.

[Galway Eagle]

In fairness, we often reach both of those points within the first three posts in any given thread.

In my anecdotal experience we do not

[StillAWarrior]

In my anecdotal experience we do not

Well, I know a guy that is very active on 'Scoop, and he said that we do.

[UWW2MU]

Most colleges and universities are able discern the difference between students from schools you mention without the need for standardized testing.

How do they discern this?    I've often wondered, especially since more and more schools are dropping the ACT/SAT requirements.   Perhaps in state schools who get mostly in-state applicants kind of know I suppose.  But if that's not the case, how would they know a kid who has a similar GPA, class load, extracurriculars, etc but from a school with lower standards who might not be ready for the rigors of college classes without some sort of introductory/remedial level courses?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

How do they discern this?    I've often wondered, especially since more and more schools are dropping the ACT/SAT requirements.   Perhaps in state schools who get mostly in-state applicants kind of know I suppose.  But if that's not the case, how would they know a kid who has a similar GPA, class load, extracurriculars, etc but from a school with lower standards who might not be ready for the rigors of college classes without some sort of introductory/remedial level courses?

I feel like the way you are phrasing this is that schools are choosing between two people.  The vast majority of public and private schools don't do that.  They require students to meet some minimum standard of credits and GPA, with extracurriculars and other recommendations from teachers, counselors, etc.  So the answer is that they are going to admit all of those students who meet those qualifications. 

But if you talking about students who are marginally qualified, most schools have a fair understanding of the quality of the school districts in their general footprint.  They may not admit, or they may admit under the condition they take some placement tests to see where they would fit.

Remember though that schools these days admit a TON of people who don't eventually enroll.  Back in 2019, Marquette got something like 15,000 applications, admitted 12,500, and only eventually enrolled about 2,000.

And look, no school wants to end up enrolling students who can't cut it academically.

[forgetful]

I think the basic issue is whether or not the state should impose some sort of statewide "proficiency" requirement other than "passing your classes." 

For instance, in Wisconsin, the Department of Public Instruction outlines what classes a student needs to take to graduate.  When I was a kid, the public school district figured out what classes met those requirements...I took them....I passed them...I graduated.  There was not, and I believe still isn't, any sort of testing requirement to prove my proficiency.  It was assumed that I was proficient based on my passing of those classes.  And I did well enough in those classes that I was admitted to Marquette and was well prepared for my time on campus.

This has been discussed before, but we have reduced "proficiency" to testing.  Which IMO isn't how colleges and universities view proficiency.  And it isn't largely how the workplace views proficiency.

I'm not sure how you can say this. Universities need to be accredited. Maintaining your accreditation is dependent upon "Assessments" of learning outcomes. Every year these become more and more rigorous in their expectations, where essentially Universities have to ask their professors to construct "proficiency tests" to assure that they are meeting their learning outcomes.

Although it is up to the University to design these, they are essentially the equivalent of the state-wide standardized tests to assess whether students are achieve the learning outcomes dictated by the State.

Notably, the push towards these learning outcome assessments being more robust, costs more and more money every year, where you now have huge staffs in "assessment" departments, and immense expenses being doled out for 10-year plans to "enhance quality" based on requirements from these accreditation institutions.

Now towards the original post:

I see this as no different than what has occurred in many states, where they froze "assessments" of learning outcomes due to the widespread transition to online learning.

Frankly, I find all these "assessments" useless as it simply creates a cost burden on good schools, and bad schools can simply beat the system by teaching strictly to the assessment. We need a way to keep predatory schools at bay, but the current systems only increase the cost of good schools, while having no effect on predatory schools.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I meant that colleges and universities don't utilize standardized tests in admission like they used to.  But yes, you are correct that learning outcome assessments have become more strongly used in accreditation, but I am not sure if that is valuable and some think it is.  We will see.

[Galway Eagle]

I meant that colleges and universities don't utilize standardized tests in admission like they used to.  But yes, you are correct that learning outcome assessments have become more strongly used in accreditation, but I am not sure if that is valuable and some think it is.  We will see.

Can you shed some light on how larger universities do it? I mean a school like MU May review all the well rounded student app but a flagship state school like Madison? How do they view extracurriculars, essays, HS rank, etc?

[NCMUFan]

Let the state do what it wants.
Up to the student and parents to make sure they are learning.
It will become apparent immediately to the prospective employer by giving a reading comprehension and/or math test or higher education institute via SAT or other test if the person doesn't know squat. 
Unless the Feds or State eliminates allow doing that.
But then again, maybe the USA wants to live in blissful DipSh!tdom.

[Galway Eagle]

Let the state do what it wants.
Up to the student and parents to make sure they are learning.
It will become apparent immediately to the prospective employer by giving a reading comprehension and/or math test or higher education institute via SAT or other test if the person doesn't know squat. 
Unless the Feds or State eliminates allow doing that.
But then again, maybe the USA wants to live in blissful DipSh!tdom.

They are already outlawing the ACT and I believe some schools are going SATless as well

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Can you shed some light on how larger universities do it? I mean a school like MU May review all the well rounded student app but a flagship state school like Madison? How do they view extracurriculars, essays, HS rank, etc?

No different than schools like Marquette.  They just have a lot more people doing it.

And these schools have software to help as well.

[21Jumpstreet]

In the process with our rising senior, sitting in California as we speak after touring schools from UCSD to Berkeley. The admissions process is very complex, each school weighs criteria slightly differently, most highly selective schools are not requiring ACT scores, actually even less selective are moving away from it.

My son is smart, lots of APs, 36 ACT, robotics kid, LAX player, volunteer, works with his Montessori school over the summer, great kid. He is looking at highly selective schools and is finding it stressful to prove himself in a 500 word essay, to prove he is the kind of kid for a particular school. Schools like this take a holistic view of a prospective student, which is great. It seems like it’s less build a resume like we did and more deep dive into a couple areas. He is still going to submit his scores, but it is written that they are not necessary. Personally, I like the idea that schools are taking a wider view of students even if it means my son doesn’t get into MIT or Stanford. He will have plenty of options and has had a tremendous head start with Montessori education 3 yo through middle school and a well regarded private, Jesuit high school.

On a tangential note, I think the entire public school system and our next generation would benefit from changing our entire learning/teaching philosophy from basic curriculum and standardized testing to a fully Montessori philosophy which promotes student driven learning and the ultimate curiosity. Let the kids learn at their own pace, with kids of their same social age (three year blocks), feeling independent and in control, learning life skills, learning how to learn, learning respect and compassion. I’m biased, of course.

[JWags85]

On a tangential note, I think the entire public school system and our next generation would benefit from changing our entire learning/teaching philosophy from basic curriculum and standardized testing to a fully Montessori philosophy which promotes student driven learning and the ultimate curiosity. Let the kids learn at their own pace, with kids of their same social age (three year blocks), feeling independent and in control, learning life skills, learning how to learn, learning respect and compassion. I’m biased, of course.

One of my good friends/associates in Belgium has his pre-teen daughters in Montessori school there and I couldn't be more impressed with them.  They are intelligent and inquisitive and composed in a way that doesn't seem overly precocious or quirky.

[warriorchick]

One of my good friends/associates in Belgium has his pre-teen daughters in Montessori school there and I couldn't be more impressed with them.  They are intelligent and inquisitive and composed in a way that doesn't seem overly precocious or quirky.

Which may or may not have anything to do with their attending Montessori school. 

[NCMUFan]

IMHO, stimulate a child's mind when they are young and probably a good chance that they will be always an above intelligent kid and adult.
Even before school age.
Do the opposite and well, results may be the opposite.

[warriorchick]

IMHO, stimulate a child's mind when they are young and probably a good chance that they will be always an above intelligent kid and adult.
Even before school age.
Do the opposite and well, results may be the opposite.

True, but having met two children who attended a particular school is not enough to draw any conclusions about that type of school.

I have a very good friend who attended a very rough inner-city high school. He is intelligent and inquisitive and is now a senior executive at a nationally recognized organization. Should I assume that it was a great school?

[dgies9156]

This discussion is fascinating and exposes many of the frontiers the education system has tried to address during the 50+ years.

That said, the proof is not whether a state or local government says you "meet the standards" for high school graduation. Rather, it is whether the student is ready for the next step, be it college, vocational training or the work force. You can get rid of the tests, admit everybody. Those whose education and commitment caused them to study, work and think, will function at the next level. Those who either were cheated or didn't make the effort won't.

In Illinois, we had a debate with teachers about one of our children. A smart ass, middle school bureaucratic nitwit who had as much business running a school as I did splitting atoms told us what the standard for graduating high school in Illinois was. And about how they made sure they didn't have to deal with "problems." I reminded her that all she was doing was pushing the problem down the road and proudly creating a ward of the state. She didn't give a damn.

The fact is, in Illinois almost anyone with a pulse can earn a high school diploma. That means you have a nicely printed piece of paper.