PARCC Testing doesn't create robots. If schools are choosing to teach to the test or are doing rote memorization and drill-and-kill, that's by their own choice, and they aren't doing a good job of educating. Look, PARCC isn't testing kids on obscure or random stuff that would be taking away from normal curriculum and learning. It's not testing kids on their knowledge of Old Church Slavonic or Underwater Basketweaving, it's algebra, grammar, reading comprehension - stuff that kids should be learning anyways.

Someone posted Mrs. Randall on youtube. YOu need to look it up and listen.

Anonymous wrote:

Sticks and carrots. As opposed to the tests previously being of no consequence. Basically your argument fails because you're making the case that the tests were previously completely worthless and a waste, as opposed to actually trying to achieve some sort of outcome now.

Quite the contrary. The tests of the past were used by teachers for diagnosis of weaknesses and strengths. They served a true purpose. Didn't lead to turning out robots.

PARCC Testing doesn't create robots. If schools are choosing to teach to the test or are doing rote memorization and drill-and-kill, that's by their own choice, and they aren't doing a good job of educating. Look, PARCC isn't testing kids on obscure or random stuff that would be taking away from normal curriculum and learning. It's not testing kids on their knowledge of Old Church Slavonic or Underwater Basketweaving, it's algebra, grammar, reading comprehension - stuff that kids should be learning anyways.

Sticks and carrots. As opposed to the tests previously being of no consequence. Basically your argument fails because you're making the case that the tests were previously completely worthless and a waste, as opposed to actually trying to achieve some sort of outcome now.

Quite the contrary. The tests of the past were used by teachers for diagnosis of weaknesses and strengths. They served a true purpose. Didn't lead to turning out robots.

Anonymous wrote:

Standardized testing has been around for decades. This sudden freakout over it is ridiculous.

Also, if schools have to spend any significant amount of "prep time" and "teaching to the test" then that tells me their curriculum probably sucks in the first place.

Schools with good curricula don't spend a lot of time on prep and don't "teach to the test" - they get good test results by virtue of putting in place solid foundatonal learning.

Sorry, the expansion of standardized testing is ridiculous--and has almost nothing in common with the tests of the past. In the past, jobs didn't hang on tests. Or money.

Sticks and carrots. As opposed to the tests previously being of no consequence. Basically your argument fails because you're making the case that the tests were previously completely worthless and a waste, as opposed to actually trying to achieve some sort of outcome now.

Just my opinion, but the elimination of analogies from the SAT was done in order to get more people to make better scores--instead of weeding out the thinkers from non-thinkers.

Standardized testing has been around for decades. This sudden freakout over it is ridiculous.

Also, if schools have to spend any significant amount of "prep time" and "teaching to the test" then that tells me their curriculum probably sucks in the first place.

Schools with good curricula don't spend a lot of time on prep and don't "teach to the test" - they get good test results by virtue of putting in place solid foundatonal learning.

Sorry, the expansion of standardized testing is ridiculous--and has almost nothing in common with the tests of the past. In the past, jobs didn't hang on tests. Or money.

Standardized testing has been around for decades. This sudden freakout over it is ridiculous.

Also, if schools have to spend any significant amount of "prep time" and "teaching to the test" then that tells me their curriculum probably sucks in the first place.

Schools with good curricula don't spend a lot of time on prep and don't "teach to the test" - they get good test results by virtue of putting in place solid foundatonal learning.

Of course there may be more foreign students who can also pay for college (full pay). Especially Chinese. That's another problem.

Anonymous wrote:

If the SAT becomes just like PARCC, look for colleges to put more emphasis on other factors in recruiting students. If the SAT does not help colleges to judge students, either the colleges will force the College Board to change it or other tests will be developed and College Board will lose money fast. The colleges might start their own consortium to develop a test based on what they consider important to be ready for college. Or they could seat kids for a test when they come for their college visits and interviews (which more colleges are doing ahead of acceptance). All of this is probably already being studied. If you think you can micromanage the best universities in the world, think again. Scott Walker is trying it, but he's not the brightest bulb in the box.

And, with standards that confuse, look for more and more foreign students in our colleges and universities as they become the real "college ready".

Agreed.

If the SAT becomes just like PARCC, look for colleges to put more emphasis on other factors in recruiting students. If the SAT does not help colleges to judge students, either the colleges will force the College Board to change it or other tests will be developed and College Board will lose money fast. The colleges might start their own consortium to develop a test based on what they consider important to be ready for college. Or they could seat kids for a test when they come for their college visits and interviews (which more colleges are doing ahead of acceptance). All of this is probably already being studied. If you think you can micromanage the best universities in the world, think again. Scott Walker is trying it, but he's not the brightest bulb in the box.

And, with standards that confuse, look for more and more foreign students in our colleges and universities as they become the real "college ready".

If you don't believe this will happen, look at what is happening with the GED tests.

If the SAT becomes just like PARCC, look for colleges to put more emphasis on other factors in recruiting students. If the SAT does not help colleges to judge students, either the colleges will force the College Board to change it or other tests will be developed and College Board will lose money fast. The colleges might start their own consortium to develop a test based on what they consider important to be ready for college. Or they could seat kids for a test when they come for their college visits and interviews (which more colleges are doing ahead of acceptance). All of this is probably already being studied. If you think you can micromanage the best universities in the world, think again. Scott Walker is trying it, but he's not the brightest bulb in the box.

And, with standards that confuse, look for more and more foreign students in our colleges and universities as they become the real "college ready".

The SAT is optional and is administered on the student's own time (Saturday). PARCC is not optional and impacts the schedule of everyone in the school, even those who don't have to take the tests (high schooler juniors/seniors who are above the level of the tests).

Totally different. The SAT is an optional test. The PARCC is not optional and is given during school hours. The SAT is on a Saturday morning. The SAT is generally only taken junior or early senior year. The PARCC is given every year starting at a much younger age.

They're 2 very different tests. The PARCC takes away from instructional time and benefits the school more than the child. The PARCC is also administered to young kids.

Seems like lots of parents bend over backward to prep their kids for the SAT, and even want the schools to prep kids for it.

Why the double standard (pun intended