F*ck 'em. Raise the bar, don't lower it. Last thing this world needs is more people learning that you can screw up something so incredibly simple and still get by.

Kome: F*ck 'em. Raise the bar, don't lower it. Last thing this world needs is more people learning that you can screw up something so incredibly simple and still get by.

Agreed. Do we really need a nation of Floridas?

Um, these are not SATs -- Scholastic Aptitude Tests, as are given here in America -- subby. These are National Curriculum Assements, akin to the kind of standardized tests mandated by the No Child Left Behind program, which manage to bring our educational system to a standstill a couple of times each year.

That actually makes some sense. Yes, improving the schools should always be a goal. But if you create a test that a large majority cannot pass, when they could pass the exam previously, you probably haven't created the new test correctly.

I think that they should give me a prize and an A+++ with a gold medal made from chocolate just for putting on my shoes on the right feet.

/hooray for standardized tests! They make it easier for the rest of us.

Grade on a curve...

Ryan2065: Grade on a curve...

That's still lowers the bar, y'know...

And if too many of them pass, the test is too easy and must be made harder. There is no win.

The reality? Standardized tests are a worthless crock of shiat, good for only one thing: enriching test-making, test-scoring, and test tutoring companies, all of whom rely on stupid politicians and the lemmings who buy into their feel-good drivel to accept that something as complex as education can be reduced to a simple number.

Unright: Ryan2065: Grade on a curve...

That's still lowers the bar, y'know...

But you won't have problems with too many people failing or too many people passing.

You don't 'pass' or 'fail' the SAT any more than you 'pass' or 'fail' an IQ test.

Solution: Lower the passing grade.

"No dumbass left behind." Has a nice ring to it.

Didn't they already make the SAT easier back in 96? Maybe they just boosted scores... I remember when a 1300 was enough to go just about anywhere you want.

Lighting: Didn't they already make the SAT easier back in 96? Maybe they just boosted scores... I remember when a 1300 was enough to go just about anywhere you want.

Yes. Yes they did Link (new window)

Lighting: Maybe they just boosted scores...

This. I remember when my 1480 meant I was good at taking standardized tests.

/got all the analogies right

Hillary's education plan would do nothing to help this. Universal Pre-K is nothing but government daycare. If we're going through all the expense of adding another year of education, how bout 13th grade?

Pocket Ninja: The reality? Standardized tests are a worthless crock of shiat, good for only one thing: enriching test-making, test-scoring, and test tutoring companies, all of whom rely on stupid politicians and the lemmings who buy into their feel-good drivel to accept that something as complex as education can be reduced to a simple number.

I think I know SOMEONE who didn't do well on their SAT/ACT... :-)

thenateman: Hillary's education plan would do nothing to help this. Universal Pre-K is nothing but government daycare. If we're going through all the expense of adding another year of education, how bout 13th grade?

We already have that. It's called being a college freshman.

thenateman: Hillary's education plan would do nothing to help this. Universal Pre-K is nothing but government daycare. If we're going through all the expense of adding another year of education, how bout 13th grade?

And only for those kids that want it - those that feel short changed after entering the work-force and realizing their Bs and Cs in HS mean nothing in Life except to politicians (school employees included) who can brag about passing rates.

Our Nation's Education System = Paying for Daycare so the Parents don't have to, while talking about making sure everybody learns the exact same amount, but still having discrepancies based on income, areas, race, and teacher conditions, even though most kids don't care to learn and disrupt class beyond any teacher's control to the detriment of the remainder of the students, and stifling any student that shows extra potential because there's no time for a teacher to stop "teaching to the tests" to develop any talent.

that was quite a sentence.

iawai: Our Nation's Education System = Paying for Daycare so the Parents don't have to

Indeed.

Shostie: Pocket Ninja: The reality? Standardized tests are a worthless crock of shiat, good for only one thing: enriching test-making, test-scoring, and test tutoring companies, all of whom rely on stupid politicians and the lemmings who buy into their feel-good drivel to accept that something as complex as education can be reduced to a simple number.
-

I think I know SOMEONE who didn't do well on their SAT/ACT... :-)

I'd agree with him about the tests being narrow-minded in questioning, at best, and inaccurate in many cases, and I don't consider Intelligence to be able to be measured in any less than 5 dimensions.

I did rather well on both of them, without studying or practicing one bit for either.

ThatGuyGreg: Lighting: Maybe they just boosted scores...

This. I remember when my 1480 meant I was good at taking standardized tests.

/got all the analogies right

Hey, I have a SAT score buddy. I took mine the last year before the new score system.

LAUSD: High School Curriculum revamped (2007-08 school year)

1 Outsourced to the U. of Pittsburgh for it's curriculum. (Mandated lessons covering Persuasion, Exposition and Literary Analysis in separate units, each covering about 12 weeks in a pair of 20 week semesters.)
2 Outsourced to the Princeton Review for the Assessments based on the curriculum. (Each assessment given over three days, with scores available about a month after the assessment was taken.)
3 The Assessments don't match the curriculum.
4 Teachers complain repeatedly and the complaints are given the "We didn't design the curriculum or the assessments...sorry!" response.
5 "Scores continue going up."
+__________________________________________
???

In any case, teh District can't be blamed since U. Pitt has " research data backing up the effectiveness of their educational practices."

:S

Speaking of the "all shall have prizes"...

A coworker was telling us the other day that his 10 yr old son asked him how many trophies he won when he played football as a kid. He told the kid 3. His son said "Man, Dad. You musn't of been very good." He said "No. It's just that when I was a kid you actually had to win the championship to get a trophy." Then his kid said "So you didn't get a trophy for playing? That's stupid. Why'd you even play?" He was like "How the hell am I supposed to explain to him that you don't get something for doing nothing when that's how it works in everything else he does?"

Public Education: Molding democratic voters of the future.

Public Education: Molding democratic voters of the future.

Then why aren't they preparing kids to live in a democracy?

Duh limbo stick of edumacashun haz not bin berry good to me...

Didn't they do the same thing about six years ago?

F*ck 'em! They're probably the ones who make fun of the SMART kids!

This kinda crap just tests my patience and I usually FAIL those tests.

The most annoying thing about the article? The fact that I read the rest of the page and now know that Bob Geldof named his two girls Peaches and Pixie. S'rsly? WTF?! How do you unlearn crap that that? anyone?

/Maybe if I just beat my head into this desk fer a couple of minute that information will just go away.

thenateman: Hillary's education plan would do nothing to help this. Universal Pre-K is nothing but government daycare. If we're going through all the expense of adding another year of education, how bout 13th grade?

Just out of curiosity, have you ever been in a Pre-K classroom?

mdfitzsimmons: Just out of curiosity, have you ever been in a Pre-K classroom?

I went to early entrance Kindergarten, but that was a long time ago, and I don't remember much.

Kome nailed it in the Boobies.

I've used all those words in the same sentence before, just not in that order.

I scored a 1502 on the SATs.

Instead of trying to make the dumb kids feel better, shame them. Make them wear dunce caps, put them in classes, in the same schools, and label them remedial classes. Make them wear different uniforms so the other kids will know who the dumb ones are.

mild7: Public Education: Molding democratic voters of the future.

Well, you have a democratic system; not a pure democracy, no, but the system itself is still very democratic.

I know SAT's in the US aren't the same, but we did the same shiat when the numbers in the US started to fall off.

We are always doing better if we keep moving the bar.


Why do people keep saying the average IQ keeps going up?

It's been said before, but here it is again.

These are not the Scholastic Aptitude Tests you took to get into college in the US or Canada. You can tell because of the word 'failing'. You don't 'fail' the college board SAT, they just set the difficulty barely high enough to get a decent gaussian-style distribution around 1300 or 1400 (well, probably more like 2000 since it's a 2400 point test last time I checked, but it was out of 1600 when I took it) and then Colleges use it to check where you fall on the distribution.

From the article, my impression is that the british SAT is a minimum competency test designed basically to make sure you can read and write and add and multiply. Like the TAKS or the ITBS (state competency exams). As such there's a hard line for 'pass' and 'fail', and that line needs to be occasionally reset to make sure it's really testing for the bare minimum. It's to see wether you're a moron or not, not wether you're smart or not.

Jim_Callahan: It's to see wether you're a moron or not, not wether you're smart or not.

Can I buy you an "h"? Or maybe a couple?

/It's "whether" or "weather"
//You mean "whether"