It looks like the proposed statewide graduation testing plan in Pennsylvania is not going to be gaining any traction any time soon now. The politicians want the power to institute testing, taking it away from the state board of education.
Pa. senators advance bill to block graduation testing
MARTHA RAFFAELE, The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. - A state Senate panel has advanced a bill to effectively block a proposal to require new state graduation tests for Pennsylvania high school students.
The Senate Education Committee voted 10-1 Monday to approve a measure that would give the Legislature the sole authority to impose any new statewide high school graduation requirements.
The State Board of Education has proposed creating a series of 10 final examinations covering math, science, English and social studies. Students would have to pass six to graduate, starting with the class of 2014.
Education Committee Chairman James Rhoades opposes the new tests. The Schuylkill County Republican says money the state would spend on developing the exams would be better spent on other strategies to boost student achievement.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I don't know which side of the fence I am on with this issue.
I heard someone make a very good point yesterday. Students spend 13 years passing tests of varying (and supposedly increasing) difficulty. Sometimes students are tested multiple times in multiple subjects each week. This adds up to thousands of tests of a student's abilities and knowledge. This should account for something with respect to a student's right to graduate without it hinging on just 6 out of 10 more tests.
I understand your point, Borows, but those thousands of tests are not standardized so one kids' education may be very different from that of a kid in another district. And that, I think, is the point of standardized testing, to set a common goal for all.
Honestly, I believe this is one of the major flaws to NCLB -- the rules vary from state to state. If the feds want to impose national requirements, then the benchmarks cannot be set by individual states.
The problem I have with this is that, once again, bureaucrats want to tell educators how to educate, instead of letting the experts (the PDE in this case) lead the way. Sound familiar?
The other problem here, besides the whole "unfunded mandate" thing is that the graduation test is supposed to level out the disparity of 12th graders who didn't necessarily have the same curricula. The state proposes that with the exit exam, colleges can be sure that the students are all on the same level and school districts statewide will have a goal to set their curricula to. I think it's the easy way out. Instead of PDE implementing a statewide curriculum, they have a test that districts have to figure out the directions to. There, that's two hanging prepositions for you. I fail the test.
Yes, all too familiar.
But I'm still not sure that I am in favor of "standardization". Why have standardized tests when the education everyone is receiving is not standardized? You are right Peter when you say that one kids' education is very different from that of a kid in another district.
Each district chooses its own curriculum, its own text books, its own remedial tools. Why then should there be a standardized test to determine if the students have all come out of the same mold?
In the grand scope of things, is the end goal to provide the exact same education to every child in the Commonwealth (or the country, for that matter)? And, is this an achievable goal?
Joeyouknow,
Aren't the SAT and the ACT tests used by colleges and universities to determine student education levels? Why another test, AND why the same test for everyone, when not everyone will be going on to higher education?
Further, what purpose does a statewide test, implemented in only one of 50 states, have with respect to providing information to colleges and universities across the country?
Many universities are doing away with SAT scores altogether. They recognize the inherent flaws with such standardized testing.
Who needs stinking tests? Then we might know if teachers are doing a good job. That's not fair to the teachers and could damage the fragile self esteem of the children. Give me a break!!! As a taxpayer paying 20k per student, I want to know how my investment is doing. How about testing all students twice a year, once at the beginning and once at the end to see how well they advanced under that teacher for that school year. Then, wouldn't we know about our strengths and weaknesses and where to apply more resources?
Give me a freaking break! "As a taxpayer paying 20k per student, I want to know how my investment is doing." You haven't been caring about your investment so far. Why are you so interested all of a sudden?
In theory, I agree with the arguments against standardized testing, but with the significant numbers of functionally illiterate kids graduating, something more needs to be done than is happening now. There are kids who believe Wikipedia is a valid source of research, who can't construct a grammatical sentence, who can't identify parts of speech, who can't perform basic mathematical functions. These kids are graduated from grade to grade and then out of HS and they are ill-prepared to function in the real world. Their inadequate education all too often damns them to a life of sub-standard wages in menial jobs. So, if you're going to condemn standardized testing, offer a better solution, or you're just another part of the problem.
To "stinking tests" Anonymous;
So the tests then are not for the STUDENTS, they are for you? There are plenty of other ways to determine the value of your taxpayer dollar without hanging 13 years of education on 6 out of 10 tests. Let's call it what it is, it is not a student achievement (or "graduation") test, it's a teacher assessment test. And in that case, shouldn't we punish the teachers if the students don't pass, not the students?
To "In theory" Anonymous:
You are right, some kids do lack the basic skills necessary for success post High School. On the other hand, some kids have double what is necessary, and maybe then some. Why treat them all the same? Why should a student who is in honors classes, has already taken some college courses, and is getting high marks throughout her HS career be subjected to the litmus test of passing 6 out of 10 tests in order to graduate. What if she has a bad day? Does her HS career come down to that?
I concede there are problems in MANY schools with regards to student achievement and our expectations. I STILL am not convinced that the solution resides in standardized testing.
And back to "Stinking tests", with an attitude that you want to see results for your tax money, you had better be prepared to put that money where your mouth is and INVEST in the areas where public education is deficient. If these so called "standardized tests" indicate that we need to hire more and better qualified teachers, YOU sir, had best open up your wallet.
Borows, I understand what you are stating about the high-stakes nature of standardized testing, however, one would expect that the uber-achiever and even the average student would ace these tests with ease. Such a test should be a basic skills test, not an SAT or other achievement test. These are different things. A student should be able to write an intelligible short essay, demonstrating a basic grasp of grammar, usage and the ability to use written language to make a point. Rather like what we sometimes do here. I also think such a basic skills test should include basic arithmetic, algebra and geometry skills. I don't believe it should be anything like an achievement test, but rather a test that demonstrates the student has acquired sufficient knowledge to graduate and function as a literate and capable member of society. Handing a diploma to a kid who is unable to read, write or perform basic mathematical functions is a travesty. How would such a test punish anyone? It would merely be a demonstration that the school and the child met the minimum standards. Perhaps the high achieving students you cite would be deemed exempt, just as colleges exempt some students from basic requirements. As I noted above in the "theory anon" posting, There has to be a better alternative than doing nothing.
To "stinking tests" Anonymous: there are tests that are given a couple times a year called the 4site test. This is taken at the beginning of the year to get a benchmark of what the kids know and where they need some work. It is not meant as a measure of how much they remembered over the summer but is instead used as a tool to help the teachers know where the kids need help. This test is then repeated, I believe, mid-year and at the end of the year. This test is also used, for better or worse, as a predictor of how the kids will do on the PSSA test. (yes, this opens the "teaching to the test" can 'o' worms -- that would be a whole other blog thread, I'm sure).
As for standardized testing and knowing "if teachers are doing a good job" I'd like to recommend the book Freakonomics, chapter 1, "What Do School Teachers and Sumo Wrestlers Have in Common." (yes, that's seriously the name of the first chapter.) The whole book is an interesting read; that chapter is relevant to this conversation.
Actually, I agree with anonymous on measuring teacher performance, but that can be a real challenge to do fairly and accurately since every age and each group of kids is different. I am a believer in measuring performance, comparing to some kind of goal, and rewarding for exceptional output. I wish it were as easy as measuring how many widgets per hour a factory can produce but it's just not that simple. And then there's the union to contend with... unions like equal pay for equal work, regardless of whether one outperforms another. They both show up for 8 hours, then they both get paid for 8 hours of work. We can grumble about it, we can fight it, but it's nearly impossible to change. Unions are powerful. The folks in Pennsbury are still sore about the teacher strike a couple years ago (just ask Simon). And Morrisville came extremely close (probably closer than most realize) to a strike during last year's contract negotiation.
Post a Comment