How exactly does committing/signing work

[_MIA_]

Or serious grade deflation in college, depending on the school.

I would guess this is unusual even on a college level. There may be individual classes where this is true (sounds like you have specific ones in mind….)

 

[tim_s]

She did take the AP test for Euro History and got a 3. She hated the teacher and subject. Come to find out from my older son (who is smarter and she knows it) - AP Euro teachers are crazy everywhere and that class should have been avoided. She took that class her sophomore year. Since then she has taken all AP English classes but I have not made her test. She will test for AP Lit/English 12 this year. She has taken honors for other classes including science and history because we didn't see the value in AP for everything especially while she also trains daily for softball. I'm keeping it real here. She's smart - there is no doubt about that but she is not top 5% smart and I think her SAT proves that. There is a disconnect between grades and the test and it's not because "she is bad test taker". I am for the testing.

Editing to add - when my oldest took his ACT the first time (at the time we lived in Kansas) he got a 28. He knew he needed a 32 to get the highest level scholarship at K-State. That was the only place he wanted to go. We also got him a tutor. He studied for 8 weeks and 2nd time got a 34. So much easier and he was nowhere near the top 5% of his graduating class. He was probably closer to 20%. That was 5 years ago - again, in Kansas for him, we are in Virginia now.

to me this points to the silliness of placing much stock in standardized tests, when students can be taught how to take the test to improve their score.....and much of the prep courses are more about HOW to take the test than teaching WHAT the test attempts to measure

 

[nikkilugi]

to me this points to the silliness of placing much stock in standardized tests, when students can be taught how to take the test to improve their score.....and much of the prep courses are more about HOW to take the test than teaching WHAT the test attempts to measure

You read that it took my son one time to improve his score and say it's silliness - however, it took my daughter 6 (SIX) times to improve her score 120 pts which isn't the same as a 6 point increase on the ACT. It's different for different kids and my 2 are an example of that. If you can magically teach the kids how to take the tests and score high then the a 1300 would be a lot lower than 87% of SAT takers. Just saying.

 

[tim_s]

You read that it took my son one time to improve his score and say it's silliness - however, it took my daughter 6 (SIX) times to improve her score 120 pts which isn't the same as a 6 point increase on the ACT. It's different for different kids and my 2 are an example of that. If you can magically teach the kids how to take the tests and score high then the a 1300 would be a lot lower than 87% of SAT takers. Just saying.

you 100% can teach Ss how to take the test and see improvement.....that, along with a myriad of other reasons, is why high stakes testing is a flawed concept.....it's not a knock on your kids, it's a knock on the system that we created that puts too much stock in one test

back when the Feds were pushing the NCLB nonsense and ranking schools based on test scores, we as a district looked at the issue, and while we knew basing the worth of a school on one test score from one given day in May was such an educationally flawed concept, that we needed to continue to do our jobs and do them well by using best practices and teaching our students, we also knew that we were being judged on how students did on said test on one day in the month of May

so we attacked the test.......we gave students special breakfasts during testing time, we used released test items as "problems of the day" during the year so they got used to the format, we spent time in advisory on testing strategies......and it worked, especially for the middle kids

you can teach students how to take the test, get them familiar with the test and how it is set up, reduce anxiety AND teach them strategies and get them to improve their performance.....it's what most of the prep courses do......you aren't making them better students, you really aren't increasing their functional knowledge, you aren't increasing the chances of their success in college or in life......you're making them better at taking the test, and that's where most of the improvement comes from

that IS silly......i'm glad your students were able to work and improve.......but it's one of the big reasons why the big tests are going by the wayside, they just don't show much of anything other than, well, how you perform on that particular test

 

[Vertigo]

The one situation where I can see the test helping is in a poor school district where the academics/courses offered might not be very great. For the kid who has a high GPA and does well on the test it can actually help them a lot, as they wouldn’t have the same type of resources available to help boost their test score that are available to those who are more affluent. They would definitely stand out to admissions.

 

[Strike2]

Right.. what’s your point? You take 1000 kids who didn’t prepare for the exam, who have similar grades in the subjects the SAT tests, and the scores will have some positive correlation with IQ.

You have kids who spend thousands on tutors but cannot break 1300. You think that is only because they are not good at composite functions? No, they are not able to process information on the exam as quickly as the kids who score really high. That doesn’t mean they won’t go on and do great things in particular since most intellectual tasks are not so time limited. I did well in them but was certainly not exceptional and I did ok academically.

I believe my point is pretty clear, but I'm a bit confused about yours. A 1300 is a really good score...90th+ percentile.

Some apparently do spend lots of money on prep, but it's not necessary if the kid is a good or even a decent student. The vast majority of the time, it's about getting comfortable with the format and time constraints. A bit of "game speed" practice works wonders, as does taking the test more than once. Yeah, not everyone gets a top 10% score, but with the right focus of effort, it will probably be north of 1000.

It's an unpopular opinion for some, but the "doesn't test well" is a cop-out, and I suspect YOU wouldn't be very sympathetic to that argument in one of your ME classes. Given the types of exams my kids have dealt with in college, they'd tell you the ACT/SAT was comparatively easy.

 

[nikkilugi]

you 100% can teach Ss how to take the test and see improvement.....that, along with a myriad of other reasons, is why high stakes testing is a flawed concept.....it's not a knock on your kids, it's a knock on the system that we created that puts too much stock in one test

back when the Feds were pushing the NCLB nonsense and ranking schools based on test scores, we as a district looked at the issue, and while we knew basing the worth of a school on one test score from one given day in May was such an educationally flawed concept, that we needed to continue to do our jobs and do them well by using best practices and teaching our students, we also knew that we were being judged on how students did on said test on one day in the month of May

so we attacked the test.......we gave students special breakfasts during testing time, we used released test items as "problems of the day" during the year so they got used to the format, we spent time in advisory on testing strategies......and it worked, especially for the middle kids

you can teach students how to take the test, get them familiar with the test and how it is set up, reduce anxiety AND teach them strategies and get them to improve their performance.....it's what most of the prep courses do......you aren't making them better students, you really aren't increasing their functional knowledge, you aren't increasing the chances of their success in college or in life......you're making them better at taking the test, and that's where most of the improvement comes from

that IS silly......i'm glad your students were able to work and improve.......but it's one of the big reasons why the big tests are going by the wayside, they just don't show much of anything other than, well, how you perform on that particular test

First - sorry for hijacking this thread.

Do I think one test is the "be all end all" - no. Do I think that test does have some intrinsic value - yes. There are basic concepts on that test that high school students should know.

Valid question - as an educator how do you determine if someone has mastered the knowledge needed to pass the course? I'm not an educator so please know I'm asking this purely for my own knowledge. I know the experience my daughter has had at her school - it's not a rigorous school. It is what it is - we live in a very diverse area and I understand not every kid is invested in their education. I get it. So I guess my question is - how do you know kids are coming out of the school with the knowledge that was supposed to be taught. (we can argue whether what is taught should be taught another time lol). I don't care about ranking schools. I don't even care about ranking students (because my daughter's CLASS rank at her high school isn't indicative of what it would be at, say, my son's previous high school).

I know anecdotally one person's experience is not everyone's so I will stop with my opinions after my last explanation of daughters experience. That type of test prep you speak of didn't work that way for my kid. It just didn't. She doesn't have "test anxiety". She took it 6 times and was comfortable with the process. We did all that "extra" stuff. The first "tutor" we had - had a whole list of "tricks" and if the test says this then it is this answer. She actually did worse after working with that tutor for 8 weeks ironically. The second tutor heard through the "test prep" grapevine about daughter's first experience and took my daughter on for free. He actually taught her the math concepts she was missing. She has no problems with English and Vocab. Scored a 700 & if we had focused on that with her probably would have increased that a little. It was math that was the focus (she's going to a STEM college for goodness sake) and finally after all that work and ALL those tests and ALL that money (for the first tutor and $ x6 tests) she improved her score the last 20 points she needed. It took her 8 weeks of tutoring to get a 20 point increase.

 

[_MIA_]

I believe my point is pretty clear, but I'm a bit confused about yours. A 1300 is a really good score...90th+ percentile.

Some apparently do spend lots of money on prep, but it's not necessary if the kid is a good or even a decent student. The vast majority of the time, it's about getting comfortable with the format and time constraints. A bit of "game speed" practice works wonders, as does taking the test more than once. Yeah, not everyone gets a top 10% score, but with the right focus of effort, it will probably be north of 1000.

It's an unpopular opinion for some, but the "doesn't test well" is a cop-out, and I suspect YOU wouldn't be very sympathetic to that argument in one of your ME classes. Given the types of exams my kids have dealt with in college, they'd tell you the ACT/SAT was comparatively easy.

My point is some kids could study for 4 years and never get a perfect score (or even close to it) and it has nothing to do with how well they know the subject matter or how much they prepped as there is some aspect of the exam which correlates to IQ (which was my original statement/point I made in Post 43 which I have continued to argue and everybody seems to be missing/ignoring) and not everybody has the same IQ. I agree, most reasonably intelligent kids should be able to score fairly well if they put in the time, I never said otherwise.

 

[nikkilugi]

My point is some kids could study for 4 years and never get a perfect score (or even close to it) and it has nothing to do with how well they know the subject matter or how much they prepped as there is some aspect of the exam which correlates to IQ and not everybody has the same IQ...

I really needed to hear your POV on this and know I appreciate it so much. I kind of bypassed your statement that just because someone gets XXX score doesn't mean they won't go on to do great things. That is a big takeaway. I realize there is a disservice to the kids who aren't those "1500+ high achievers" I honestly know my daughter will go on to do great things. Easy high school or not lol - and please don't get me wrong - she has had exceptional teachers at that school which is one reason why I know she will do great things.

 

[_MIA_]

I really needed to hear your POV on this and know I appreciate it so much. I kind of bypassed your statement that just because someone gets XXX score doesn't mean they won't go on to do great things. That is a big takeaway. I realize there is a disservice to the kids who aren't those "1500+ high achievers" I honestly know my daughter will go on to do great things. Easy high school or not lol.

I got a 740 in Math and a 6-something in English. I am very good at beating a problem to submission but tend to make dumb mistakes on exams. In college I would help all my classmates to understand the subject but then they would score higher than me on the exam oftentimes. I chose research as a path because you can take your time with problems..