No Child Left Behind goes to college?

Parents Forum
1

<p>February 9, 2006
Panel Explores Standard Tests for Colleges
By KAREN W. ARENSON</p>

<p>A higher education commission named by the Bush administration is examining whether standardized testing should be expanded into universities and colleges to prove that students are learning and to allow easier comparisons on quality.</p>

<p>Charles Miller, a business executive who is the commission's chairman, wrote in a memorandum recently to the 18 other members that he saw a developing consensus over the need for more accountability in higher education. </p>

<p>See New</a> York Times article.</p>

2

<p>If my h.s. senior daughter sees this, she will sit down and cry. She is sick to death of being tested. (We live the Texas, where they test you to determine in which lunch period to place you.)</p>

3

<p>so even in college, they want to force the professors to "teach to the test"???</p>

<p>I can envision a whole new business of prepping for these tests, competition and anxiety for college students on how well they do.</p>

<p>A whole other level of college confidential -- this time the test will determine where you work (since you know if they ever implemented standardized testing in college, it would be requested on job applications).</p>

<p>Kids taking certain classes to "do well on the test" instead of exploring new educational opportunities. Forgoing extracurriculars to study, students with excellent grades and EC's bombing the test, colleges marketing themselves based on the average test scores.</p>

<p>In other words -- turning college into an extended high school.</p>

<p>Hopefully it will never, never happen -- haven't they figured out by now that a score on a test does not determine whether you have learned and whether you will be successful??????</p>

4

<p>This makes me sad to see. As a teacher myself, I have seen the effect that all of the "high stakes testing" has had on kids. Sure, there are many benefits, but you can really see how it affects the kids. When I was in school we took the Stanford Achievement Test and the BSAP. However, other than the weeks we actually took them, there was little reference to them throughout the year. We showed up, took the test, and then went back to learning. I actually looked forward to testing week because it broke the monotony of a typical school day.</p>

<p>This is no longer the case. It's not quite as bad in the school where I currently teach, but I used to be in a lower performing district. Those kids heard about "the test" on a daily basis. At my school district in Mississippi we took three days to take benchmark tests throughout the year to simulate testing mode and to check the kids progress. While this provided very useful information, it interfered with instruction and it completely burned the kids out on testing. By the time they took the actual MCT in May, they were so tired of being tested that I think they probably didn't perform as well. We also had a Test Pep Rally to encourage kids to attend on the testing dates and to do their best. It seemed like all we heard about was test, test, test and it really took the joy out of learning. One of my friends taught science at this middle school where I was working at the time and she had a kid walk in on the first day of school and say, "Science isn't on the state test so I don't care about your class." It's pretty hard to motivate a kid with that attitude. No, I don't have a solution for a better way to monitor progress, but I hate the way this testing focus has changed the culture of many schools.</p>

5

<p>Quote (ldmom06 #2)
"(We live the Texas, where they test you to determine in which lunch period to place you.)" </p>

<p>Hahaha!</p>

<p>Yes, I'm afraid we have a lot to thank [-NOT] Texas for when it comes to high-stakes standardized testing, public-school textbook selection, etc. Please, ldmom06. Would you talk to some of your compadres down there and convince them to take a long, long vacation for a while? ;)</p>

<p>Quote (gnusasaurus #1):
"When Ms. Spellings, the education secretary, named the commission, she said that choosing a college was one of the most important and expensive decisions families make and that they were entitled to more information."</p>

<p>When exactly did the Republican party adopt the dogma that the state is better qualified to make informed decisions about individual outcomes than the individuals themselves? [Yes, Virginia. There really is a Republican-poseur Party.]</p>

<p>Quote (gnusasaurus #1):
"Part of what is driving the demand for accountability is money."</p>

<p>Bingo. Money lining the pockets of companies (like Kaplan Inc.) who stand to benefit from selling to colleges, as they now sell to public primary and secondary schools post-NCLB, tutoring programs, remedial software and textbooks, assessment packages, and consulting services.</p>

<p>Fool me once with NCLB, shame on you. Fool me twice with the post-secondary version, shame on me. Accountability is not a bad thing. Let the accrediting organizations, licensing boards, or professional associations decide how to determine what their members should know. And let them figure out how to make their professional designations carry enough cachet to encourage their members to attain such.</p>

6

<p>This is ridiculous - how do you test an art major versus a physics major? Many college graduates do not go into the field they majored in (a friend's recently graduated daughter who majored in psch. is working in PR, for instance). What do you test them ON? The ACTs and SATs measure the ability to read, write, and do as much math as anyone will need in life in a non-math career, so what more do they need? This is not how I want my tax dollars used.</p>

7

<p>February 9, 2006
Panel Explores Standard Tests for Colleges
By DIGMEDIA</p>

<p>A jobs commission named by the Bush administration is examining whether standardized testing should be expanded into corporations and government entities to prove that employees are performing up to current productivity standards and to allow easier comparisons on quality.</p>

<p>A business executive who is the commission's chairman, wrote in a memorandum recently to the 18 other members that he saw a developing consensus over the need for more accountability in corporations.</p>

<p>"What is clearly lacking is a nationwide system for comparative performance purposes, using standard formats," he wrote, adding that employee productivity was a main component that should be measured.</p>

<p>In an interview, the Chairman said he was envisioning a corporate version of the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires standardizing testing in public schools and penalizes schools whose students do not improve. "The new program will be called, No Company Left Behind" he said.</p>

<p>But he said public reporting of corporate and government productivity as measured through testing "would be greatly beneficial to the employees and employers" and that he would like to create a national database that includes measures of productivity. "But the results of the study would remain classified, 'We can't tell you what the results are; you would just have to trust us,' " he said.</p>

<p>When he offered in a speech to make the White House the first government or corporate entity to undergo testing, there was a withdrawal the next day. Apparently, a "signing statement" had already been prepared by the White House in advance of the program exempting the Administration from involvement in the program.</p>

8

<p>One of the posters above has inadvertently quoted gnusasaurus. I am not the author of the article. And offered it for discussion without comment of my own. </p>

<p>The author is Karen W. Arenson, New York Times</p>

9

<p>This brings up my biggest beef with higher education standardized exams...</p>

<p>The GRE's imho are a waste of time and shouldn't be coorelated with what a student learns in college and their ability to succeed in graduate level work. They expect college graduates to develop the vocabulary of an english or linguistics major, but maintain the same math level as they had in high school (highest level is a little bit of trig...). (though ironically I did better on my GRE's than my SAT/ACT's....go figure!)</p>

<p>How does this evaluate the skills of a science major?</p>

<p>It is true there are GRE Subject exams...but what if your science doesn't offer a subject exam (or in my case it was eliminated about 5 years back)?</p>

<p>Also, what is to say you need to know all of the topics covered on your subject exam?</p>

<p>For example, when they did offer the Geology Subject exam, it included topics ranging from Groundwater Geology to Geophysics to Paleontology...</p>

<p>The advantage of the curriculum in post-secondary education is being able to specialze your interests, within your field and out of it...</p>

<p>Take me for example...my reserach interest is Metamorphic Petrology...</p>

<p>Taking my research interest into consideration, if there were classes offered at my undergraduate institution to better prepare me for research at that level (i.e. taking required undergrad level classes along with advanced grad level classes to support my interest), there would be no time to fit in all of the "basics" that would be taught on the exam (i.e. Paleontology since it has little to nothing to do with metamorphics).</p>

<p>Standardizing post-secondary curriculum would be a travesty for anyone wanting to specialize their interests as undergraduates to gain an edge in the graduate school admissions process. It has been proven time and time again that standardized testing is not the "be all to end all" in evaluating ones intellect or abilities...</p>

<p>One test that is in the works for undergraduate students that I think has some merit is computer literacy. I forget exactly who is developing this test and what stage of development it is in currently (last I heard it was being tested on students)...but it actually tests practical knowledge such as how to tell if an internet source is a valid source and which sources can be trusted more than others. I believe this test will be more practical in testing real-life skills students should be learning (or already have learned) upon entering college and the work-force. </p>

<p>Any test that can effectively gauge real-life skills would be beneficial to employers. A hard and conscientious (not necessarily the cream of the crop academically) worker will always outweigh a highly intelligent lazy worker in the long run. I'm not sure what the best approach would be to test these characteristics...but researchers in education should think about it....</p>

10

<p>That would be me. </p>

<p>I wasn't quoting you but quoting from your post, identified as "gnusasaurus #1." My comment was specific to Ms. Spellings, who was appointed by -- and has been a long-time educational advisor to -- the current Republican administration.</p>

<p>I apologize for the confusion.</p>

11

<p>What?! They want to put me through all that again?! I hated those standardized tests! One of the reasons why I was glad to come to college was because I knew that I wouldn't be taught on a national system anymore. I would be taught what Michigan offered to me. Plus, not every kid in college is taking the same courses. How are they going to compensate for different majors? To me, this is silly. The government can't and shouldn't control the universities. Whatever happens, I hope my school opposes it. (Please?)</p>

12

<p>The diversity of college classes is certainly an issue. Engineers, music majors, and archaeology majors would have rather different measures of accomplishment.</p>

<p>One benefit of testing of this type would be to put some substandard colleges out of business. A few years ago 60% of newly minted Massachusetts teachers flunked a high-school level exam. Clearly, some so-called "teachers colleges" aren't doing much in the way of teaching.</p>

<p>There are plenty of people out there with college degrees who can't put a coherent sentence together or do simple math. These people were cheated by the colleges that gave them passing grades and awarded them diplomas.</p>

<p>One really interesting result from such testing would be to see which colleges have the highest "value add" in terms of learning. I suspect there are some schools that would really shine, i.e., take a mediocre set of incoming freshmen and graduate a better-educated set of seniors than more selective schools.</p>

13

<p>I just cannot wait to follow this........and the funding to support it. Oh and if you have the loans but cannot pass do you still have to pay back the loans????</p>

14

<p>I really hope this gets the axe. Kids going in with good scores will be the same kids coming out with good scores. Colleges are not there to teach the basics, but to build on it with more specialized learning.<br>
Why can't we put our eduational tax money where the NEED is!</p>

<p>It also occurs to me that mandatory testing will help the government track our kids in terms of specialization and proficiency. I was wondering how they were going to find the kids that they want to recruit for the military who speak foreign languages and have advanced skills, medical training and so on if they do what the selective service claims will happen if a draft is instituted. According to their website, IF a draft is necessary, it will targeted to those with specialized training in the areas of need. A madatory college testing program would certainly help locate those with the desired skills and abilities.</p>

<p>My biggest objection is the enormous expense that we cannot afford. Lets put the money into helping our less advantaged students get into college by improving the intermmediate and high schools - paying teachers in poor areas to attract the best. Our higher educational system is one of the best in the world, while our secondary system needs much improvement.</p>

15

<p>Considering the quality of people in the Bush adminstration, who lie about their own college credentials, I can jsut IMAGINE what they think would be good to learn</p>

<p>Remember this is the administration that wants Intelligent Design</p>

<p>If every student was tested on the same one hundred novels, jsut imagine how bad that would be</p>

16

<p>"There are plenty of people out there with college degrees who can't put a coherent sentence together or do simple math."</p>

<p>Too bad so many of them hold elected office.</p>

17

<p>yeah, if yale had the test back in the day....hmmmm</p>

18

<p>I would think that Dick Cheney's company, Haliburton, will create a new sub company to prep these kids and test them. Go Dick! More $$$ in your pocket.</p>

19

<p>PLEASE!~!!! My son is a music major. He had to take the SATs and yes, even for the conservatories. He will probably need to take the GRE for grad schools if he chooses to apply to any university/conservatory programs (he is considering Rice and Northwestern...)....I can't even imagine what kind of test the government would deem appropriate for a music major that would assess the quality of their work. It's absurd. So...NCLB would be "No College Left Behind". I don't think I can stand it. Interestingly, private schools do not have these testing standards. Would the testing for colleges only apply to public institutions??</p>

20

<p>No more tests...please. For the past 4 years (I'm a senior in high school) my school has done 6 "practice essays" each year for the state writing test...plus I had to take the real thing junior year. That is 25 uneccessary essays that took up class time...heck, the topics even repeated several times! The most annoying thing about it that, even though the real test is taken at the end of the junior year, seniors are still required to do the practices. How dumb!</p>

<p>We were trained since our freshman year to write these persuasive essays. I have even been penalized and lost points for straying from the 5-paragraph method. Now, when I sit down to write a paper for English or a research paper, it's a struggle to write any other way than that. I feel like a programmed robot...seriously...</p>