Okay this rant is more towards real life than anything on a roleplay forum.

My state, like others I believe, has a test where you have to pass it to graduate it. Where I live its called AIMs. Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards or AIMS. Anyways, this test is something you're given when you're a sophomore, and you have at least two or three more tries after that to pass if you don't on the first try. Luckily, I passed, not like exceedingly or anything, but I passed it.

Lately however, they're wanting to remove the test because of the fact that students and parents are complaining, saying they're children are failing the test so there's going to be no way for them to graduate. If you really think about this, most of the reason students don't pass is because they don't study the materials, or they miss the date, its not really that hard of a test to pass.

Anyways, they are now thinkign to removing it, like I said, and this doesn't sit right with me. I mean, if you remove something that tells whether or not a student is ready to graduate, then aren't you just dumbing all of us down?

Source

If you can use your grades to pass anyways, then what's the point of getting all mad about the fact that the test is even used? I don't understand that and it really bugs me. This test has been around for five years, and its only now that everyone is starting to get all upset about it.

I know this really doesn't qualify as a rant, but it angers me and I needed to vent so I came here.

Is this part of the No Child Left Behind thing that the Bush Administration started way back when? I know that my state (Kentucky) has CATS (Commonwealth Accountability Testing System) and you take that throughout middle school and high school. It doesn't do anything to your grades, but it's emphasised to the school that...well, if you do well - we get money and if we get money - we get shiny new toys like a new school.

It's pretty much a two week testing where the students are treated like royalty and if we do well, we get presents. It's stupid and has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with money.

(Side rant on my part ^^ we do so much testing here.. CATS, IOWA, and ACT/SAT [which I think is the ones you are referring to])

The SAT is nationwide, I do believe - but here... you have to take the ACT because hardly any Kentucky Universities will look at your transcripts unless you have ACT scores on them. These you can take once you're a junior and you can take them as many times as you need to before you graduate. You have to get at least a 21 or 22 on them to graduate.

This, however, as a requirement doesn't mean it's given as a grade. As long as you take the ACT and pass with a 21 or 22...you graduate. It doesn't factor into your GPA or anything.

I dunno. It really does seem stupid to take them out of the testing system for Arizona... I had a friend who lived there and while she absolutely hated AIMS... she saw that there was no point in complaining... it's just something they do and you can't really fight it and it's not really harming anything if you can graduate without it...unlike the ACT.

Ahh - five years. I take it it was started as part of ole Bushies No Child Left Behind scheme? I'd agree that America is dumbing down, but I don't think the tests or the removal of them is the cause. More a symptom. The focus, legislatively, should be on the education, not the weeding out of kids that didn't make through our abysmal excuse for an education system in this country (the US of course). So, I guess, I'd agree with doing away with the test if the money saved from the costs of the tests were redirected towards improving the education system, teachers' pay raises, that sort of thing. It's a shame parents are complaining that the test isn't letting their child graduate rather than complaining that they have a school system that isn't adequately preparing students to pass the tests.

There has always been a question as to the effectiveness of standardized tests - most of the time, they test one's ability to take those tests not the material on them. The SATs are more about one's skills in taking standardized tests than one's knowledge of the material. I'm not really sure what benefits are to be had from all these tests that came from the no child left behind act - in fact, we never really thought they'd do much when good ole Bushie presented the idea in the first place. It seemed likely it'd be a waste of tax-payers time and money.

*giggle fit* Ole Bushie. Love it.

NCLB really does nothing but give money to the schools if the test scores are high; hence why my HS puts huge emphasis on the stupid things...we need the money for the football team, the renovations, and such - but not for new material; not for an updated library or computer lab. It's dumb.

Perhaps if they made it so the money went to things education related...it wouldn't be so bad, but right now - it's just fluffy to make our country look like it's doing something... I mean, come "no child left behind" makes it sound like we're doing some amazing reforming over here...and we're...not... o.O

I have a huge issue with the No Child Left Behind system.

To my understanding, the way that it's set up is that the school or district has to continually do better every year. This is difficult, because there are students who learn at different rates. Additionally, other schools are only teaching what is slated to be on these tests, and not a general curriculum. Schools that do better are schools that teach a wide curriculum, not just what is going to be on those tests.

In my state of IL, a school can only screw up so many times before the state steps in and eventually closes the school down. While they say that the intent of it is for ALL schools to perform equally, low-income schools in poorer districts will NOT perform as well as upper-income schools. This is a known fact. The resources aren't there - and closing schools because they're not doing as well as the upper-income schools is unfair.

Also, if schools don't do as well, they may have to end up cutting programs. Usually, the first things to be cut are The Arts. This, particularly in my district, wasn't a good idea because many of the people in Arts programs were honors students. The NCLB does little for gifted students, and doesn't provide funding for them as well. They're being insulted and are being shortchanged.

Standardized tests also don't really teach you the material as much as you are merely taught how to properly perform on these tests. There are students that just properly know how to bullshit the tests, such as myself. I got a 26 on my ACT. Not great, but not bad either. Half of the stuff was things I really knew. The other half was me screwing around.

And, unfortunately, the areas where the schools never had a lot of money to begin with continue to suffer. I grew up in the deep South, in New Orleans, where there were neighborhood schools who had no money. My middle school, in fact, had 45 kids to a classroom in a portable building with no air conditioner because they couldn't afford it. Schools like that, especially when the testing started, never had a chance to do well. Kids are still coming out of those schools completely illiterate. And having few options for college and work which leads to crime. But, rather than give money to schools that really need it, ole Bushie (yes, it's the most amusing yet site-appropriate name I can use for him) claims he's making a difference in education when he gives it to schools who are, generally, doing all right. Really, it's the schools that do the poorest who should be getting the money, not the best.

Also, teachers should be teaching for the purpose of education and joy in the material not to pass a standardized test. From what I understand, a lot of schools are doing away with extracurricular classes like music and art because they don't contribute to test scores (ie, don't bring in money). Education has become focused on these state tests and not learning.

heh Candy - what a topic you've started.

I believe it was part of the No Child Left Behind thing, they just never really mentioned it to us.

@oreo - We have SAT/ACT as well, so no, its something totally different from that. We take those for college, or something like that, I don't really remember.


All I know, is the fact that all these students get to graduate even if they don't do well makes me feel bad because I did do well. I studying like heck for those tests, and it doesn't seem to show or anything towards these people who thinks its too much work.

Candy - I personally feel that a test should not dictate whether a student graduates or not. Some people perform better on tests that others. There were a lot of students that I personally know that kicked ass on the Prairie State Achievement Exam (again, I'm an Illinois girl), but their grades were so far down the crapper that I was surprised that they were even allowed to walk.

Your GPA should be your primary measure of your skill in terms of graduation. Your ACT/SAT test score and your GPA (as well as a personal statement) should be your consideration for Uni.

Antisocialist, that's all fine and dandy but I have a terrible GPA due to my grades because I missed school so much. That was mainly because of health issues. The AIMs was my one way of showing that I am an intelligent student, even if my GPA doesn't reflect it. Which is probably the same for a vast majority of students.

As for ACT/SAT, I think the last time I took an SAT was in 6th grade. I don't even remember what it was about anymore.

[quote]All I know, is the fact that all these students get to graduate even if they don't do well makes me feel bad because I did do well. I studying like heck for those tests, and it doesn't seem to show or anything towards these people who thinks its too much work.[/'QUOTE]

It does show and it will show - with or without the tests. I doubt NCLB has had enough impact that colleges really care what the standardized tests say. They care about GPA and SAT/ACT (yes, both are college admittance tests). And, it should be about you feeling good about what you accomplished, not what others think. Frankly, the kids that didn't to well wouldn't care about how you did whether the tests were there or not.

And, someone could turn around and say the same thing about GPA over these standardized tests. I didn't have these standardized tests when I was in school but, to me, even the SAT and ACT seemed pointless. THey didn't measure education at all. Just as your GPA doesn't reflect your education, I'm sure there's lots of kids who's AIMS don't reflect theirs. School accomplishment should be a combination of factors.

However, certainly, these standardized tests shouldn't be what determines how much money a school gets. That's...plain... stupid. Schools should get a set amount based on the number of students they have.

I am strongly against using standardized tests as a measure of competence. I don't even like how much importance is placed on SAT/ACT, but until something better comes along I won't knock them too much.

I think it's more than a little unfair to reduce all of someone's highschool achievements into one single test. You say that health related issues hurt your GPA, well, I know from experience that health issues and disabilities can really hurt your test scores too.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that the vast majority of students who have better test scores than GPAs are using their scores to show their intelligence like you are. You have a legitimate reason for being in favor of the AIMs test, but I'd bet my iPhone that there are many students who slack off and kick ass on the test to make up for it. That's not showing inteeligence, that's showing that you're horribly lazy.

Reading through this made me realize again why I am sooooooooooooooooooo bloody glad that I am out of high school, and in a private college. AKA my college answer to no one but it's students, and that means that educationally we get to do whatever the hell we please. And for people like me, who love school more than is healthy, it is completely awesome.

I did most of my high schooling in NC, where we never had one big "pass this test or you don't graduate." Rather we had stupuid minitests called the EOCs (End of Course). At the end of major required courses, (Chemistry, US history, Precalc, English 1-4, and a cra ton of other required courses) we had to take a test that we had to pass with a two (out of four) or better in order to pass the course. I would have gladly traded in those EOCs for one huge pass/fail test like the AIMS.

Then i made the mistake of going to Jersey for my senior year of high school. Up there, they have this test that tests everything you could have ever possibly learned in school from friggin pre-k. You take it as a junior, and if you fail it, you have one chance as a senior to pass it, or you have to repeat your senior year until you pass this dumb test. No bills to try to get out no matter how high your GPA is. Coming into that school, and that test, my GPA was a 5.1 (out of four. I took a LOT of advanced courses in NC), and despite that, if I had failed that test, I would have had to repeat my senior year. As it was, i already looked like a fool because I was taking the test with about two other seniors, and an auditorium full of juniors.

What gets me about the public school system in the US, is that nothing is comparable. A high school degree earned in North Carolina, is not the same as a high school degree recieved in New Jersey. The requirements are done on a state by state basis.

In NC, it's only required to take one semester of PE. In Jersey, you have to take four. One every year. That is a lame example, but that is the only one I could remember. I know that that move made me jump through friggin hoops to be able to graduate the year that I was supposed to graduate in.

I get that the states are all "rawr, we want our rights", but hey? Think about it. One of the super seniors (over four years in high school, that's what we called them) had done a similar situation to mine, only he was also hospitalized the day that that huge ass Jersey test was given, so he wasn't able to take it. Guess what. He was held back. An intellegent guy, forced to remain in school an extra year because of the fact that his appendix choose the crappiest day on the face of the earth to rupture.

Fair? I think not. :rawr:

From an education perspective, NCLB had good intentions. But, it was very poorly applied. I live in Florida and I graduated from high school around 2000 before FCAT (Florida Comprehension Assessment Test) became a requirement for different grade levels. Back during when I was in high school, all we had to do was take the HSCT (High School Competency Test). I was so glad to be out of high school. Then three years later, I end up working as a substitute teacher for the same school board that I had grown to loathe.

I have to admit, making $10 an hour is good pay when you're going to school. I had substituted in many classes and in various subjects. During that time, the FCAT became a mandatory requirement. Still, FCAT is pretty much about testing. In regards to NCLB, the Bush administration treated it as a one-size fits all policy. NCLB is pretty much a waste of time and money. The policy had made the education system even worse.

Everything looks good on writing. In application, that is not the case.

Bush administration had failed to account other variables. Students learn at their own paces. The problem I have with the Bush administration is that none of them have really stepped inside a classroom for a very long time. George W. Bush hasn't really stepped in and took a close look at the education system.

Like Hillary Clinton said, teachers should be teaching, not giving tests. From what I have seen personally, in order to prepare students for tests, schools have had to cut down on arts and sciences. They cut down on PE, they cut down on music, they cut down on recess, and so forth.

In an elementary school setting, that is not good. PE and recess are means for the students to get rid of the excess energy. Without being able to do that, it keeps students from paying attention to class. In that respect, Bush's NCLB Policy has been extremely counter-productive.

Bush administration also failed to account that upbringings of students are different. It failed to take into account the social impact of NCLB. There are various reasons and factors that students could be struggling. While NCLB had good intentions, it was terribly applied.

Then again, this policy was drawn out by a US President that said he didn't know that gas was at least $4 a gallon.

How could he? All he does is sit in his pretty swivel chair behind the desk in the Oval Office and play around with the important files.

...okay that was harsh.

But can't you just imagine him pulling his feet up and spinning around in his chair going "Wheeeeee"?

That's because he just see's what's on that pretty piece of paper. Granted, it sounds good. Hell the title (No Child Left Behind) itself sounds absolutely great to me. But it's really not doing what it would seem it was meant to be doing. They need to stop looking at those reports as if "this is what's going to happen" and start approaching these ideas as if "this is what's supposed to happen. That idea on put on paper may say its going to work and yeah it might have a bunch of percentages on there but that's not going to mean a hill of beans next to the reality of it when they put it in motion.



I see what you mean about the tests being required. In South Carolina. We had to take something called the HSAP. I was immensely lucky because my Junior year, we had to take it - Sophmore year we had practice tests for it - and we were the first class to take it. We were basically taking it for a test drive while our dependancy on graduated was still heavily measured by this stupid test.

I passed it, thought I'd put it out there. And to tell the truth it was pretty hard. Since then our testing scores in SC have been going down because they keep trying to make the tests harder than some of the states that get the really good scores, it makes us look bad. Best part is, these tests have nothing to do with what we are learning, it takes two weeks out of our class schedules. You can take it once for free, and then I think you have to pay to take it again if you failed the first time.

Our teachers have a bloody schedule to run by. They don't have time for these types of tests and the students can't afford to sacrifice their grades for it. Having those two weeks that are literally dedicated to testing and nothing else, teachers are left with having to play "catch-up." Its frustrating for both teachers and students because the teachers are trying to cram in the chapter(s) that were missed while also trying to remain on schedule, and the students are seeing spotts just trying to keep up.

People compare South Carolina's scores to another state who's scores are significantly higher - I hardly call that accurate when we don't have the same tests that are on the same levels. Our scores are lower... well yeah... we are being tested on a higher level when some of the leading states are not. That makes me wonder what the scores would be if we were all tested on the same level.

Not to mention SAT and ACT. We have a choice of either or both. I took both of them twice - both my Junior year and then both my Senior year. I'm really good at math, so I scored better on SAT because the test has a larger portion of math in it. ACT, if I remember correctly, has science put in - not to mention its scored differently also. And still, there are colleges that will look at both scores, or just accept one of them. Me i took both just to be safe and particularly if I scored better on one than I did the other.

As with everyone else, I don't see a problem with a standarized test if your grades are good enough for you to graduate, anyway. We had a state-administered test in high school, but I don't know if it was required for graduation; I've never really had to worry very much about those things. For me, having to take it was mostly just a nuisance.

The ACT and SAT we took for college applications/admissions. In our area, most of the colleges will accept scores for either test -- so I took both. I took the SAT once and the ACT twice, and never studied for either. (Hey, this was the year that we were required to take the shiny new SAT! 8D) I ended up getting a 33 on the ACT, but my GPA was too low for me to get into my first-choice college (yeah, I'm a bit of a slacker). I was really bummed out and my parents were reeeaaally pissed, since lots of people who took easier classes and had higher GPAs got into it.

Edit:
But in the end, I guess it didn't matter that much. I mean, I got the benefit of all the APs, and it's not like I worked really hard anyway. I could've had a higher GPA, but I didn't; it was my own fault.

Oh yeah. I can totally see him doing that. There's this great quote about Bush that someone wrote on a bathroom wall: "If Bush were captain of the Titanic, he'd say we were stopping for ice." Accurate, much? He tries very hard to be optimistic and pull the country together, but ultimately, he goes about it the wrong way.

Like with NCLB. My mom is a kindergarten teacher and my sister just started teaching 2nd grade; it's a HUGE problem, all of this standardized testing. They're inaccurate and slanted towards a certain social group, they restrict things like art, gym and recess, and music programs because all the money needs to be dumped into areas that are tested, it causes 'teaching to the test' in the curriculum, school districts waste weeks of education time and who knows how much money giving the students these tests, the kids are stressed out and terrified of 'failing,' even in K, and ultimately, it sucks even more joy out of education by threatening the public schools to reach a certain arbitrary number standard. (Video, #2)

Bah. Ultimately, I think standardized tests are one of the most idiotic things ever created, and I would be happy to see that less of them were given.

Really? You had to take a trst to graduate?? That's so weird, I've never heard of that.

I mean, I had standardized testing throughout my school years (CATs, TerraNova and then the SATs which I took twice) but they were more like to see where everyone was at in grade school at least. Later on in middle school the CATs were used as a placement for tracking in high school.

Then there were the TerraNovas in high school which were used for seeing where everyone was at and what schools needed to be looked at if their scores were lower than everyone else's.

The SATs, well, pretty much everyone knows about them, right? They didn't have any effect on graduation where I was at, it was just understood that if you didn't take them then you probably weren't going to get into college or have a really really hard time getting into anything other than a community college.

I would really think that would be terrible for people who do well in school but just don't do well on standardized testing for whatever reasons. I would think that just passing all of your classes would be enough proof that yes, you do know at least something and have learned things while in school to the point where you could be a functioning member of society.

I completely agree AshBeanNun. All my friends who are teachers hate having to teach to these tests.

I swear school is becoming less hands-on and more ditto and busy work. It’s important that people learn but do we have to force this learning into a bunch of multiple choice questions?