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.