Group Writing for June 11: Six Things to Love About the Common Core (English Language Arts)

 

There are two categories of opposition to the Common Core. One can oppose the Common Core on principle: it’s seen as a top-down imposition of standards that further burdens local districts, increases schools’ entanglements with the federal bureaucracy, and once again expands the government’s powers . Although the states’ process of adopting the Common Core was different from that of No Child Left Behind–the Common Core was not straightforwardly federally legislated–the objection to its adoption is consistent with conservative values.

Americans on both sides of the political spectrum have also opposed the Common Core (for English Language Arts) based on its content. However, often the proffered evidence of this damaging content do not hold up as effective indictments of the Common Core. These samples do not reflect the statements of the document usually for one of three reasons, all connected to implementation: 1.) publishing companies rushed to produce materials ostensibly aligning with the Common Core and some of the resulting textbooks and other materials lacked the quality we want to see in our schools; 2.) the resulting testing systems that were rolled out, again by private companies, had some defects that needed addressing by both the company and the schools administering them, forever creating an association in the minds of teachers, kids, and parents of Common Core with “awful days in the computer lab;” 3.) school districts could interpret the standards through their own lens of non-traditional instructional approaches, continuing to teach in the way they thought best no matter what the standards actually said, at times to the students’ detriment.

When I actually began reading the Common Core Standards for English/Language Arts, I found much to love. (I am intentionally leaving out the math standards–that’s a discussion for a math specialist–but you can start here for pro and here for against if you are interested.) Here are a few highlights:

  1. The standards team listened to E.D. Hirsch, including a sidebar that emphasizes the key role of content knowledge in a student’s ability to execute the sophisticated skills called for in the document. Hirsch, and Daniel Willingham, have been saying for years that if we adhere to an instructional philosophy that undermines subject area content in favor of critical thinking, creativity, and other soft skills, students will learn little to nothing. (Well, the students from stable, affluent homes will do okay. But without being taught a substantial, coordinated curriculum, students from less affluent situations will fall further behind.) If you’ve marinated for years in idealistic educational philosophies that disparage teaching facts and information, you will be most refreshed by this sidebar calling for a coordinated curriculum that systematizes the teaching of knowledge.
  2. The standards address the reality of college students’ lack of preparation. A college professor recently gave a talk to her colleagues, handing them a checklist of skills and asking them which ones they would, in an ideal situation, want their incoming freshmen to display. The checklist didn’t call for doctorate-level abilities, but skills one would need for success in a college course: “Read closely to determine what the text explicitly says,” or “Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.” The instructors in the audience could only dream of a class this prepared for higher education. Yet what they were reading was the text of the Common Core. Much of the Core’s purpose was to address this woeful lack of college readiness. Incoming students are not able to read complex text or analyze it coherently. They are not ready to research, write, or make evidence-based arguments. For college professors, the struggle is real.
  3. The standards call students back to the text.  American education has become student-centered to the extent that, when cognitive science recognized that the brain “makes meaning” by interpreting what it reads and fitting the material into its unique mental network, educators began deferring to students’ interpretations. However it happened, the reader became elevated above the text and personal impressions were encouraged. The Common Core reverses this trend, calling for teachers to direct students back to the text formally and purposefully.
  4. The standards call for attention to important historical and classical materials. Although the Common Core does not specify what curriculum or methods are to be used to build these skills, it does list examples of materials that might be used. It encourages classic stories beginning in Kindergarten as well as key historical documents such as “The Gettysburg Address.” A note explains: “Along with high-quality contemporary works, these texts should be chosen from among seminal U.S. documents, the classics of American literature, and the timeless dramas of Shakespeare.” Few of us would argue that our students should not have an education that immerses them in these historically and culturally significant materials.
  5. The standards address the need for more nonfiction text selections. Balancing out the prevalence of fiction in our schools with a selection of nonfiction is a good thing. Students need fiction to draw their interest, develop their reading, and expose them to important ideas; however, their diet should also include biographies, classic narratives and essays, and works of history and science. These contribute to their intellectual formation in ways that an exclusive focus on fiction cannot.
  6. In practice, the standards do have students performing high-level work. Reading through the standards can be intimidating, because they truly demand a high level of student output in various aspects of the language. They are challenging. Yet, in practice, it is possible to provide instruction that has students responding to the challenge, even students as entertainment oriented and literacy poor as our present generation. In some Kindergarten classes, you’ll find five-year-olds practicing persuasive writing. First graders are writing short research pieces on animals and loving the work. Rambunctious fourth graders stand to address the class, speak clearly, and re-state the prompt in their response. Dave Stuart Jr.’s ninth graders are passing the AP exam and learning to read, write, and debate. The Common Core standards succeeded in making teachers re-think instructional priorities, and we may see some good fruit from that in a future crop of college students.
Published in Group Writing
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 36 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    This is a wonderful summary.

     

    • #1
  2. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    If you’re a Galt’s Gulch, off-the-grid conservative who just hates anything Federal, I can see why you’d be against them in theory. I’m not, and anything that screws up the tyranny of state bureaucracies forcing textbook publishers to kowtow to their customized, tailored designer whims is OK with me. My kids went to elementary school in the Nineties, which is why I’m more inclined than most Ricochetti to see Common Core, at least for English, as an improvement over the status quo, in some aspects a big one.

    • #2
  3. dill Member
    dill
    @

    From my limited experience on the student’s side of things, Common core writing meshes well with AP English writing, which probably makes life easier for a lot of students and teachers.

    • #3
  4. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    The Department of Education was founded in 1979, since which time the test scores for students in America have plunged.

    So clearly the solution to our problems is to give them more power.

    Nuts.

    We did better when we had no Department of Education. Dump it.

    • #4
  5. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    If you’re a Galt’s Gulch, off-the-grid conservative who just hates anything Federal, I can see why you’d be against them in theory. I’m not, and anything that screws up the tyranny of state bureaucracies forcing textbook publishers to kowtow to their customized, tailored designer whims is OK with me. My kids went to elementary school in the Nineties, which is why I’m more inclined than most Ricochetti to see Common Core, at least for English, as an improvement over the status quo, in some aspects a big one.

    The federal government has absolutely no business having anything to do with education.  End of argument.

    Common Core is just another way of getting the central planners into schools.

    Public schools should be abolished, completely.

    • #5
  6. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    It is impossible to agree to a set of appropriate educational standards for a country of our size, diversity and in an age where change is so relentless.     We have a common core for medicine in Obama care it’s simply not a good idea and these bad ideas don’t easily vanish.    GM and Ford could come up with a common core to build cars which we could then impose on every US based auto manufacturers.   A deeper set of cafe standards.  They could sound great, make sense, we could agree that they’re technically sound.  But what would that do to innovation, creativity etc. in the auto business in the medium and long run.   Education is far more complex than manufacturing a car.  We’ve had growning centralized control for nearly half a century and the results have been disastrous.    Monopolies do not work out well and even sound rules imposed from above cannot undo the fact of monopoly, its lack of accountability, absence of self correcting mechanism, prices,  interests that grow up within and related to the monopoly, all the things that make markets work and government  fail, always.   The complexity of the economy and culture we’re trying to prepare kids for  changes almost daily.   Centralized control is  simply nonsense we’ve come to accept.    Our schools need more freedom, fewer controls less centralized direction, more market solutions.  Any sensible content in a  common set of educational principles, and educational knowledge that we actually can verify can be abopted should schools choose to do so and should parents choose to send their children to a schools that adopted them.

    • #6
  7. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    I Walton (View Comment):
    It is impossible to agree to a set of appropriate educational standards for a country of our size, diversity and in an age where change is so relentless. We have a common core for medicine in Obama care it’s simply not a good idea and these bad ideas don’t easily vanish. GM and Ford could come up with a common core to build cars which we could then impose on every US based auto manufacturers. A deeper set of cafe standards. They could sound great, make sense, we could agree that they’re technically sound. But what would that do to innovation, creativity etc. in the auto business in the medium and long run. Education is far more complex than manufacturing a car. We’ve had growning centralized control for nearly half a century and the results have been disastrous. Monopolies do not work out well and even sound rules imposed from above cannot undo the fact of monopoly, its lack of accountability, absence of self correcting mechanism, prices, interests that grow up within and related to the monopoly, all the things that make markets work and government fail, always. The complexity of the economy and culture we’re trying to prepare kids for changes almost daily. Centralized control is simply nonsense we’ve come to accept. Our schools need more freedom, fewer controls less centralized direction, more market solutions. Any sensible content in a common set of educational principles, and educational knowledge that we actually can verify can be abopted should schools choose to do so and should parents choose to send their children to a schools that adopted them.

    SAE publishes a lot of standards that seek to do just that, particularly with electronics that need to be interoperable.

    There is room in those standards for considerable customization.

    The proposals as stated sound okay. Nothing earth-shattering, but still okay. You don’t really need a cabinet-level organization for that.

    • #7
  8. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    The Common Core is completely voluntary. There is no coercion from the federal government involved.

    The federal government offers grants to states that devise and implement standardized testing to ensure that federal grant money is actually raising student performance. The feds say that if you don’t want to invest in developing your own standardized tests, you can use the ones we have written, that go with the Common Core curriculum on which the federal tests are based.

    The states don’t want to spend the money to write their own curriculum or their own tests, but their teachers’ unions want the money in the local school accounts so they can get raises.

    This is completely a local issue. It is not a federal issue. The federal government does not tell any state what to teach.

    • #8
  9. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    As you explain it, @sawatdeeka, the common core standards and goals for English make a lot of sense.  If the people who wrote the common core document would throw it in the trash and replace it with your explanation, I think there would be a lot less opposition.  Personally, I was not inclined to wade through the 65 page document to glean the few salient points which you summarize so well.

    I would, however, suggest the following introductory paragraph of the document as a perfect example of how students should not write:

    The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (“the Standards”) are the culmination of an extended, broad-based effort to fulfill the charge issued by the states to create the next generation of K–12 standards in order to help ensure that all students are college and career ready in literacy no later than the end of high school.

    Perhaps somewhere in the common core approach, someone should point out that effective writing relies on things like nouns and verbs, rather than piling adjectives on top of each other.  Especially not pompous and meaningless adjectives like “next generation.”  I would be more inclined to trust the authors of the common core standards to teach my kids how to write if I saw any indication that they knew how to do it themselves.

    • #9
  10. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    MarciN (View Comment):
    The federal government does not tell any state what to teach.

    That may be true on the surface. But follow the money.

    The federal grants are the coercive force, like a heroine dealer, schools line up to get their fix.

    My school gets few state or federal dollars. Except for special education.

    Funny how the classifications for special education have gone up…is it because they are tied to a revenue stream?

    • #10
  11. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    The aspect that I saw in the op that I connected with was balancing the subjective student response with the objective external texts.

    Creativity and free interpretation is great, but words have meaning and context and students need to be taught to look for that meaning.

     

    • #11
  12. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    I also hate the phrase college and career ready.

    I can’t explain why, other than it puts the focus of learning solely on a narrow target of college and career. My instincts tell me the purpose of reading and learning is much broader.

    We learn to communicate with each other. One component is college and career.

    • #12
  13. Illiniguy Member
    Illiniguy
    @Illiniguy

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    As you explain it, @sawatdeeka, the common core standards and goals for English make a lot of sense. If the people who wrote the common core document would throw it in the trash and replace it with your explanation, I think there would be a lot less opposition… I would be more inclined to trust the authors of the common core standards to teach my kids how to write if I saw any indication that they knew how to do it themselves.

    Demanding greater rigor in English and Math is never a bad thing. However, @iwalton is correct, an homogeneous standard for a diverse country creates a form of sclerosis that kills innovation.

    MarciN (View Comment):
    The Common Core is completely voluntary. There is no coercion from the federal government involved…This is completely a local issue. It is not a federal issue. The federal government does not tell any state what to teach.

    Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Common Core was rammed through with promises of exemptions under NCLB and “Race to the Top” grants.

    In conversations I’ve had with school administrators, the biggest issue they have with Common Core is the amount of time spent in testing. One superintendent told me that students are losing up to 6 weeks of instruction for testing, and the results aren’t reported to them in any kind of timely fashion, making them almost worthless when fashioning lesson plans for individual students.

    Back in 2015, I put a post on my blog talking about this. Here in Illinois, we’re trying to devise a new funding formula for education, but without timely and meaningful assessments, we’re steering a ship without a rudder.

    • #13
  14. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Illiniguy (View Comment):
    One superintendent told me that students are losing up to 6 weeks of instruction for testing, and the results aren’t reported to them in any kind of timely fashion, making them almost worthless when fashioning lesson plans for individual students.

    True.

    Our elementary students have testing window for the entire month of April 2018.

    Thus is one month of disruption and alternate routines 2 months before school is over June 12, and for data that is not delivered until fall, after school starts.

    As a teacher, if I were to use that timeline on assessment and delivery, I’d be drawn and quartered by admin and parents.

    Our HS students have testing Windows in December and May plus AP testing.

    I. N. S. A. N. I. T. Y. rules.

    • #14
  15. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    And icing on the cake, the data is part of professional performance review for all teachers. Because data is not available, 2016-2017 performance reviews are not complete until November 2017.

    And new goals are written in September.

    Nothing about testing administration or data delivery is smart or useful  it is a facade.

    As peter Drucker said, begin with the end in mind. But schools and testing companies ignore that sage advice.

    • #15
  16. dill Member
    dill
    @

    Jules PA (View Comment):

    Illiniguy (View Comment):
    One superintendent told me that students are losing up to 6 weeks of instruction for testing, and the results aren’t reported to them in any kind of timely fashion, making them almost worthless when fashioning lesson plans for individual students.

    True.

    Our elementary students have testing window for the entire month of April 2018.

    Thus is one month of disruption and alternate routines 2 months before school is over June 12, and for data that is not delivered until fall, after school starts.

    As a teacher, if I were to use that timeline on assessment and delivery, I’d be drawn and quartered by admin and parents.

    Our HS students have testing Windows in December and May plus AP testing.

    I. N. S. A. N. I. T. Y. rules.

    Is standardized testing always a bad thing? Sometimes, I kind of enjoyed it.

    • #16
  17. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    dill (View Comment):

    Jules PA (View Comment):

    Illiniguy (View Comment):
    One superintendent told me that students are losing up to 6 weeks of instruction for testing, and the results aren’t reported to them in any kind of timely fashion, making them almost worthless when fashioning lesson plans for individual students.

    True.

    Our elementary students have testing window for the entire month of April 2018.

    Thus is one month of disruption and alternate routines 2 months before school is over June 12, and for data that is not delivered until fall, after school starts.

    As a teacher, if I were to use that timeline on assessment and delivery, I’d be drawn and quartered by admin and parents.

    Our HS students have testing Windows in December and May plus AP testing.

    I. N. S. A. N. I. T. Y. rules.

    Is standardized testing always a bad thing? Sometimes, I kind of enjoyed it.

    Yeah, but six weeks? We did that Iowa Aptitude thingie every year. It only took half a day.

    • #17
  18. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    I think the point is not that the Common Core standards (for English) are bad, it is just that the Federal government has no power in education period. They should close the Department of Education and use the saving to reduce the deficit. That will do more for our future generations than anything else.

    • #18
  19. Illiniguy Member
    Illiniguy
    @Illiniguy

    Percival (View Comment):
    Yeah, but six weeks? We did that Iowa Aptitude thingie every year. It only took half a day.

    The Iowa Test of Basic Skills, I remember it for the assistant principal who administered it. We nicknamed him “Mole”, which was an apt description, and was best known for his announcement: “STOP! Time is up! Stop working and put your pencils down!”

    • #19
  20. Linguaphile Member
    Linguaphile
    @Linguaphile

    Having taught college students for nearly 20 years, I appreciate the skills the CC tries to build in all students.  These skills are sadly lacking in most college students:

    • Read closely to determine what the text explicitly says
    • Cite specific textual evidence when speaking or writing to support a conclusion.
    • Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development
    • Assess how point of view or purpose shapes the content and style of a text.
    • Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, including technical, connotative, and figurative meanings.
    • Analyze the structure of texts, including how specific sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions of the text relate to each other and the whole.
    • Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
    • Write informational texts to examine and convey complex ideas and information clearly and accurately.
    • Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects based on focused question, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation
    • Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, assess the credibility and accuracy of each source and integrate the information while avoiding plagiarism.

    I suspect that most of the Ricochet members are readers who do these sorts of things easily, but most college students are not readers or writers, so what we may have learned to do along the way, they need to be taught explicitly. Since these are skills, I don’t see how they are in any way limiting.

     

    • #20
  21. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Linguaphile (View Comment):

    I suspect that most of the Ricochet members are readers who do these sorts of things easily, but most college students are not readers or writers, so what we may have learned to do along the way, they need to be taught explicitly. Since these are skills, I don’t see how they are in any way limiting.

    How did anyone learn these skills before common core?  I think it’s ludicrous to argue that there is only one way and it’s their way.

    • #21
  22. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    dill (View Comment):

    Jules PA (View Comment):

    Illiniguy (View Comment):
    One superintendent told me that students are losing up to 6 weeks of instruction for testing, and the results aren’t reported to them in any kind of timely fashion, making them almost worthless when fashioning lesson plans for individual students.

    True.

    Our elementary students have testing window for the entire month of April 2018.

    Thus is one month of disruption and alternate routines 2 months before school is over June 12, and for data that is not delivered until fall, after school starts.

    As a teacher, if I were to use that timeline on assessment and delivery, I’d be drawn and quartered by admin and parents.

    Our HS students have testing Windows in December and May plus AP testing.

    I. N. S. A. N. I. T. Y. rules.

    Is standardized testing always a bad thing? Sometimes, I kind of enjoyed it.

    It is very disruptive. And younger kids, like 3rd grade get anxious.

    I don’t know whoever told a young child that how they do on a test affects their teacher. But that is a heavy load for a young kid to bear.

    I don’t teach core, so I’m always trying to calm their nerves and let them know we are measuring what they know from the year, the same way their parents measure on the door jam how tall they grew thus year.

    When I was a kid, we just showed up one day and found out it was test day.

    It was over before it began.

    Now, they schedule state tests for days on end: 4 days per week for 2-3 weeks,  practice and all kinds of convoluted stuff. And that does not count other assessments they do to get immediate feedback (since state results come back in October)

    my opinion: it is awful, and over blown, with a much bigger footprint than it should have.

    • #22
  23. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    dill (View Comment):
    Sometimes, I kind of enjoyed it.

    Students who feel successful, or are unaware of the meaning of the tests could care less.

    But any kid who perceives themselves to be unsuccessful, or who is a natural worrier can get worked up. It is not a pleasant experience.

    If it were just one day: different story.

    • #23
  24. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Percival (View Comment):

    dill (View Comment):

    Jules PA (View Comment):

    Illiniguy (View Comment):
    One superintendent told me that students are losing up to 6 weeks of instruction for testing, and the results aren’t reported to them in any kind of timely fashion, making them almost worthless when fashioning lesson plans for individual students.

    True.

    Our elementary students have testing window for the entire month of April 2018.

    Thus is one month of disruption and alternate routines 2 months before school is over June 12, and for data that is not delivered until fall, after school starts.

    As a teacher, if I were to use that timeline on assessment and delivery, I’d be drawn and quartered by admin and parents.

    Our HS students have testing Windows in December and May plus AP testing.

    I. N. S. A. N. I. T. Y. rules.

    Is standardized testing always a bad thing? Sometimes, I kind of enjoyed it.

    Yeah, but six weeks? We did that Iowa Aptitude thingie every year. It only took half a day.

    PA window is one month, start to finish.

    Some kids have 8-10 mornings of testing from 9 to 11:15. So 2+ weeks are turned upside down for gr. 3-4.

    Then makeups: those kids miss what goes on in regular classroom to makeup any part of the battery they missed.

    Battery really is a good word. Like assault and battery by test.

    personally I loved the IOWA battery, spelling tests, reading tests, math tests, any test. I loved tests.

    But I was in the upper 3% of the standardized score. What’s not to love?

    • #24
  25. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Linguaphile (View Comment):
    so what we may have learned to do along the way, they need to be taught explicitly.

    This. ^

    so many people, not just children, need explicit instruction, and close guidance.

    The kids who are naturally successful in school are either simply very smart, or well adapted to reading between the lines and being intuitive about how to learn and study when given information. They are independent, and seem to have a natural momentum.

    Others are willing to learn, but need a good amount of regular support and encouragement. They give up quickly, unless monitored.

    Then there is the cohort that is not independent and needs continual support.

    Unfortunately, the final cohort are those who flip the teacher the bird and refuse to learn or work, with or without support. Sadly, this cohort is appearing in kids as young as 3rd grade.

    • #25
  26. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Ever read liberal gripes about the criminal justice system? The punishment is so strict…mandatory guidelines can be indifferent to individual cases…prison doesn’t always straighten people out…we’re too quick to defer to authorities. Funny thing is, many of us now grudgingly agree with them on at least some of these points. But there’s a reason that things are tough today, and anyone who lived through the Seventies and Eighties can tell you why these policies were put in place–because before, there were no standards and punishment was, in too many cases, a joke.

    Same thing here.

    I sympathize with complaints about hard tests and rigid curricula, but if you’d seen what we had before, you might be slower to complain. We used to have tests like: “8 times 4 is 32. Circle the number 32”. We had no standards. There were plenty of well-publicized cases, many more even than today, of local school boards deciding they just didn’t need to teach history. At all. Yeah, the inner city griped about the tough new standards, because all of a sudden it pulled the rug out from under their excuses. I didn’t anticipate that so many conservatives would feel the same way. If the tests are too much, let’s fix that.

    • #26
  27. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    If the tests are too much, let’s fix that.

    I think the biggest problem is that the standardized test demand standardization of much more than the test.

    Think of things that influence student success, or community success, NOT in any specific order

    attendance

    facilities

    Number of staff

    class size

    Level of parent involvement 2 parents

    conflicts in parental involvement (divorced/separated)

    nutrition

    sleep

    School start date

    school end date

    staff training

    staff experience and competency

    administrative experience and competency

    any of these things could a single student or even group of students.

    When the score on a standardized test is not met, which if the above items influences? And which is the strongest influence, for the good, or the bad?

    I have no problem with tests, but there are too many, and the topics on which they propose to inform us are varied, and maybe irrelevant.

    These tests are not the simply the IOWA battery.

    • #27
  28. TheRoyalFamily Member
    TheRoyalFamily
    @TheRoyalFamily

    Jules PA (View Comment):
    It is very disruptive. And younger kids, like 3rd grade get anxious.

    I don’t know whoever told a young child that how they do on a test affects their teacher. But that is a heavy load for a young kid to bear.

    And when they get older (and don’t care about the individual teacher, because they are just one of six or seven they have), they learn that the test has absolutely not effect on them specifically, and either blow it off, or just don’t try (unless they are in that top five percent, and then try just to show they are in the top percentiles). Completely destroys the point of the test.

    I think in the next year or two Utah is scrapping its own standardized test for high school, and just using the ACT. Since (most) the kids are actually trying, and it’s standardized across the whole country, it’s a better assessment method. Plus, the state only has to pay for the test itself, not the entire implementation from conception to writing it (and all the lawyers and such to make sure it’s inclusive and stuff) to printing it, etc. And it only takes a day.

    • #28
  29. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    TheRoyalFamily (View Comment):

    Jules PA (View Comment):
    It is very disruptive. And younger kids, like 3rd grade get anxious.

    I don’t know whoever told a young child that how they do on a test affects their teacher. But that is a heavy load for a young kid to bear.

    And when they get older (and don’t care about the individual teacher, because they are just one of six or seven they have), they learn that the test has absolutely not effect on them specifically, and either blow it off, or just don’t try (unless they are in that top five percent, and then try just to show they are in the top percentiles). Completely destroys the point of the test.

    I think in the next year or two Utah is scrapping its own standardized test for high school, and just using the ACT. Since (most) the kids are actually trying, and it’s standardized across the whole country, it’s a better assessment method. Plus, the state only has to pay for the test itself, not the entire implementation from conception to writing it (and all the lawyers and such to make sure it’s inclusive and stuff) to printing it, etc. And it only takes a day.

    A day for each subject?

    mandated ACT for all students?

    • #29
  30. TheRoyalFamily Member
    TheRoyalFamily
    @TheRoyalFamily

    Jules PA (View Comment):
    A day for each subject?

    No, just one day. It’s just the normal ACT.

    Jules PA (View Comment):
    mandated ACT for all students?

    I don’t know about mandated per se, but yes, the ACT for all students (sophmores, right now – the rest of the kids get the day off). The state pays for it, but if the kids want to retake it later and do better, they pay for it themselves.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.