Tag Archives: Standardized test

Funding Homeschools

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

School choice has become an increasingly important issue as parents observe the overall unacceptable academic performance of public schools and the exposure of their children to socialist indoctrination inconsistent with their values. School choice includes public, charter, private, and homeschools. Most clear thinking people applaud school choice and recognize that competition in any endeavor leads to improved performance. It is also important to recognize that parents, like the rest of us, pay the taxes that support public schools that have been a monopoly.

In 2023, the General Assembly expanded the existing Opportunity Scholarship Program that allows parents to apply for funds to support attending private schools. This revision expanded the income eligibility requirement by raising the income limit. That is the good news. The bad news is that they did not include homeschools in the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Having homeschooled my youngest daughter, I am fully aware of the significant personal and financial sacrifice that parents make when homeschooling their children. The General Assembly needs to correct this error by making parents of homeschoolers eligible for this scholarship program. In truth, the solution is simple: the money should follow the student.

It is my understanding that some homeschooling parents are reluctant to accept government taxpayer’s money for fear that the government will impose restrictions and regulations on how they conduct their homeschools. This is a valid concern since that government almost always tries to exert control anytime they issue funds. However, we should not throw out the baby with the bath water. The law adding homeschools to the Opportunity Scholarship Program must be written in a way that preserves the independence of the homeschools In addition, homeschooling parents should always have the right to decline to accept a scholarship.

One final concern is the whole idea of an income limit that is part of the Opportunity Scholarship Program. When I was a senior in high school, I was awarded a N.Y. state four year college scholarship. It was awarded, not on the basis of my parent’s income, but rather based on the results of a standardized test. That was an example of meritocracy, where the scholarship was awarded based on achievement. We have come a long way in the wrong direction. The idea of awarding scholarship funds based on income is the Marxist idea of taking from the higher income people and giving to the lower income people. I truly wish that our conservative Republican legislators would see this for what it is and do away with the lower income requirement. The country would be much better off. We need to stop the slide towards Marxism before it is too late.

Good News About Admissions To Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Posted on by

On Friday, The City Journal posted an article about some changes being made in the admissions policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

The article reports:

This week, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced that it would once again require applicants to take standardized tests. “Our ability to accurately predict student academic success at MIT⁠ is significantly improved by considering standardized testing,” wrote the university’s dean of admissions, Stu Schmill. Parents and alumni largely hailed the decision.

Sanity, it seems, might be coming back. MIT needs the tests to remain MIT. Progressive critics of standardized testing say that a merit-based focus comes at the expense of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and they question the predictive value and objectivity of the tests. But the weight of the evidence shows that the tests indeed measure what they set out to measure.

The goal of any college should be to provide and education for its students and to work to help those students achieve academic success. If you are taking in students that are not able to learn at the level you are teaching, helping those students to achieve academic success is going to be an uphill battle.

Just for the record, this is the cost of tuition at MIT according to their website:

A term at MIT currently costs more than what my husband and I paid for our first house.

The article at The City Journal concludes:

Standardized tests are among the fairest assessment methods available. They not only predict academic talent across economic levels but also counter the mischief that holistic admissions allow. Schools can use holistic admissions to justify double standards on an individual level, or a wider range of biases against certain groups. As UC–Berkeley sociologist Jerome Karabel shows in his research on Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, holistic admissions were designed early in the twentieth century to limit the number of Jews at colleges. Later on, the targeted group became Asian students.

Standardized testing, with their emphasis on an objective measure, can be a tool of upward mobility. With holistic admissions, by contrast, wealthier families can shift their resources from test preparation—which even the poorest of families can pursue through public libraries—to purchasing edifying experiences, such as arts, athletics, summer programs, and unpaid internships. They can also purchase services, such as interview coaching and essay editing. These experiences and polished writing samples look good on applications, but they further punish those applicants who are qualified but lack such advantages. Grade inflation, too, benefits the wealthy: the Fordham Institute recently found that the phenomenon “worsened in schools attended by affluent students more than in those attended by lower-income pupils.”

Without standardized tests, American universities will confront obvious and difficult selection problems. MIT has decided on a better way.

The North Carolina Academic Standards Review Commission

Posted on by

The North Carolina Academic Standards Review Commission met today in Raleigh, North Carolina, to discuss the Common Core Mathematics Standards.

The Academic Standards Review Commission was established by General Assembly of North Carolina Session 2013 Session Law 2014-78 Senate Bill 812.

Section 2(c) of the Bill states:

SECTION 2.(c) The Commission shall:

(1)    Conduct a comprehensive review of all English Language Arts and Mathematics standards that were adopted by the State Board of Education under G.S. 115C-12(9c) and propose modifications to ensure that those standards meet all of the following criteria:

  1. Increase students’ level of academic achievement.
  2. Meet and reflect North Carolina’s priorities.
  3. Are age-level and developmentally appropriate.
  4. Are understandable to parents and teachers.
  5. Are among the highest standards in the nation.

(2)   As soon as practicable upon convening, and at any time prior to termination, recommend changes and modifications to these academic standards to the State Board of Education.

(3)   Recommend to the State Board of Education assessments aligned to proposed changes and modifications that would also reduce the number of high-stakes assessments administered to public schools.

(4)   Consider the impact on educators, including the need for professional development, when making any of the recommendations required in this section.

The Commission shall assemble content experts to assist it in evaluating the rigor ofacademic standards. The Commission shall also involve interested stakeholders in this processand otherwise ensure that the process is transparent.

Today was the second meeting of the Academic Standards Review Commission I have attended. The last one (last month) dealt with the Common Core Language Arts Standards. Today’s meeting dealt with the Common Core Mathematics Standards. The presentations at both meetings were done by people from the Department of Public Instruction (DPI)(a department that is strongly supporting Common Core). There has been (so far) no discussion of any alternate standards. It was also mentioned in today’s meeting that the Commission does not have any money allocated to it, and thus cannot call any experts who might refute the value of Common Core.

I have never been so disappointed in government. When the North Carolina legislature passed the legislation that created the Commission, they passed it in response to complaints by parents about the Common Core standards (and the curriculum that goes with them). The parents were not looking for a worthless commission that would do nothing but hear from supporters of Common Core, put a rubber stamp on it, and go home. (I do need to say at this point that there were some members of the Commission that were asking genuine questions and were trying to look past the one-sided promotional presentation they were subjected to.)

All in all, the meeting of the Commission was a well-orchestrated and controlled dog and pony show that accomplished nothing except to show the extent to which the North Carolina DPI supports Common Core. I would strongly suggest to the Commission (and to the DPI) that if you truly want to improve the education level of North Carolina students, you study the MCAS  (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System) program instituted in Massachusetts during the early 1990’s. Massachusetts has more than ten years of test scores that show that MCAS works. Common Core has no reliable test scores that show that has actually accomplished anything. Normally, I would never suggest North Carolina follow the example of Massachusetts, but this one time Massachusetts got it right, and they should be listened to. I would also like to note that many of the local school boards in Massachusetts have opted out of Common Core in favor of MCAS.

 

 

A School Board Doing Its Job

Posted on by

MetroWest Daily News (Massachusetts) posted an article today about the Lincoln-Sudbury School Board‘s decision to decline a chance to offer the PARCC to students next spring, sharply criticizing the standardized test that could end up replacing the MCAS in the state. The PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) is the testing that is part of the Common Core standards.

The article reports:

One board member equated the trial run of the exam as making “guinea pigs” out of students, whom he said wouldn’t see any worthwhile benefit from the dozens of hours they would put into practicing for and taking the test.

Lincoln-Sudbury, like all public high schools in Massachusetts, had a choice to administer the PARCC, short for Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, in ninth and 11th grade later this year. The new test, which was introduced in a small pilot roll-out this past spring, was developed by a consortium of states to closely conform to the new Common Core standards adopted by most schools in the nation.

…Several committee members also bemoaned the PARCC’s potential effect of putting increased emphasis on standardized testing, arguing Lincoln-Sudbury on its own is able to come up with much more effective measures of students’ grasp of learning standards.

According to greatschools.org, Lincoln-Sudbury schools are rated a 9 out of 10. The School Board in Lincoln-Sudbury is obviously doing a good job. The median income in the town is $142,614, the median home price is $625,000, and the population is 17,673.

The School Board in the town understands that the Common Core standards have not been tested and there is no proof that they will improve the academic performance of our students. MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System) testing is a proven product that has brought up the level of academic achievement of Massachusetts students. There is no reason to swap something that has proven to be effective for something that is totally untested.