Lowering Testing Standards is not an Effort to Help Poor Kids. It's a Way to Screw Them.

[TexasTowelie]

Story in The New York Times this morning about efforts in the Texas Legislature to cut back testing and course requirements for graduation from high school. If you sort through, most the alligator-tears for poor kids supposedly being pushed to learn too much stuff come from tea party types like state Senator Dan Patrick in Houston, while advocates for poor and minority children are fighting to keep high standards.

Kati Haycock, president of a nonprofit advocating for minority and poor children, tells the Times: "What we all know is when you leave it up to kids and schools, the poor kids and kids of color will be disproportionately not in the curriculum that could make the most difference for them."

Representative Jimmie Don Aycock, the Killeen Republican who authored the Dumb and Dumber bill that just passed the House, frames it as freedom of choice for poor children: "I don't want them to have to choose up or choose down, but choose what's right for them," he tells New York.

Yeah, right. When did middle class white people start believing in freedom of choice for children? I thought the rule was always, "Because I said so." Oh, wait. This is freedom of choice for poor black and brown children, isn't it? We need to let those kids choose to be less competitive with our own, don't we?

More at http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/04/lowering_school_testing_standa.php .

[Sanity Claws]

1. Testing is a way for the owners of the testing companies

to get taxpayer money.

Politicians are a funnel for directing public money to private companies.

This is true whether testing standards are high or low.

I am not against testing whether students have learned their work. I am against standardized testing, the testing mills.

[antigop]

2. One of the biggest scams, imo, is the AP test

The score distributions for 2011 are listed here:
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/AP-Student-Score-Distributions.pdf

Even though a "3" is considered "passing" a lot of schools won't give you the credit for a "3".

Take a look at the score distributions for each test and you'll find how many students get a "1" or a "2".

Example:
English Language exam
412,466 took the test (it was the most popular)

252,262 (61.2%) got a "3" or better.

Median score 2.92

Look how many students who took the test that didn't even get what is considered a "passing" score.
And even if you get a "3", a lot of schools require a minimum score of "4" for credit.

The fee is $89 PER EXAM.

http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/exam/calendar/190165.html

[mbperrin]

3. Well said.

Our current instructional calendar calls for 45 days of standardized testing and 135 days of instruction, and that's with the required 3 TAKS exit level tests to pass for graduation.

The new standard will have 4 tests, so the only decrease is from the insane 15 tests put in last year, which would have essentially eliminated instruction in anything but test-taking skills.

Kids are already segregated in schools - AP and IB classes share no classmates with "inclusion" classes. But special ed has many resources, including tutors, classroom co-teachers and so on.

Know who's really getting screwed? "Regular" students. No enrichment like AP or IB, no extra resources like special ed. Yet these are the kids who will care for us all our life - fix our cars, repair our homes, be with us in the nursing home at the end. Instead of funneling test money to private companies, let's use some of those funds for what used to be called vocational terminal certificates - turning out trained electricians, paint and body folk, mechanics, welders, carpenters, chefs, you name it, all the things that make our lives better and pay good wages, too.

Well, I can dream.