Posted on 07/07/2002 9:16:11 AM PDT by attagirl
July 5, 2002
The SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) has been used by colleges for many years to predict the success of students in college. Colleges have found SATs to be an effective tool in measuring college aptitude, that is, the ability to do college work. Since colleges are interested in admitting those students who will be successful in post-secondary work, the SAT has been one of the most widely used college aptitude tests in the nation.
An aptitude test is different from an achievement test. An achievement test looks at what a student has accomplished. An aptitude test tries to predict what a student will accomplish, that is, graduate successfully from college. An achievement test looks at the past. An aptitude test looks at the future.
Last month the Trustees of the College Board for the SAT voted to change the SAT from an aptitude test to an achievement test ("College Board to Vote on Overhauling SAT I, Adding Writing Section," Washington Post). The changes are described as "the most significant overhaul in the 76-year history of the nation's most widely used such test." With these changes, the SAT will be redefined as something entirely different from what it has been.
David Jacob, spokesman for the College Board, the nonprofit higher education association that owns the SAT, said:
"The overall objective is to align the test more closely with what is taught in school today..."
In other words, the SAT will now test a student's achievement in K-12 school. That is, it will measure how well the student has absorbed the curriculum the school system has provided.
The SAT Board is also dropping the entire SAT analogies section of the test because of criticism that word analogies "are not taught in school." The word analogies are being dropped because they measure aptitude, not achievement.
Why would the SAT, which has been highly accurate as a college aptitude test, entirely redefine itself?
The answer to that question can be found by looking at the new federal curriculum, the "national standards" that all students in public K-12 schools must now, by federal law, know and be able to do." (See the federal No Child Left Behind legislation and its curricular mandates)
The National Standards for Civics Education, developed and distributed by the Center for Civic Education with funding and authorization granted by federal education law, under "Audiences and uses of the National Standards," state:
"Assessment specialists. Standards are essential to the development of assessment programs designed to determine acceptable levels of performance."
("National Standards for Civics and Government, Part VI," )
In other words, assessments will measure curriculum (civics education identifies itself as central to all other curriculum) that must match the new federal curriculum. The national norm- referenced tests, such as the Iowa Basics, are being required to align their content with the new mandated federal curriculum. All state assessments are being aligned with the new federal curriculum. The SAT is now also being aligned with the new federal curriculum. (See "How did We Get a Federal Curriculum?" February 13, 2002, )
The implications of this realignment of the SAT are profound. The new federal K-12 curriculum requires little more than minimum competencies in knowledge-based learning. Attitudes and beliefs are the core curriculum of the new federal standards. The federal curriculum is based on creating a new global citizen, not educating children with broad-based knowledge.
The realigned SAT will test for diversity and the acceptance of every value system and spiritual philosophy imaginable, while undermining the pride of our unique American heritage and respect for the Judeo-Christian worldview. Expect the SAT to take an approach to environmentalism that reveres the earth, but casts a hostile eye at individual ownership of private property.
The new curriculum does not admit to objective fact or "self evident truths," as our Declaration of Independence puts it. Don't expect students to know or be tested on unalienable rights of life, liberty and property as the foundations of our liberty; the basic rights have been superceded by the well-being of the group.
Required federal standards de-emphasize the knowledge that used to be considered education. Students are instead trained in skills for jobs. Such is the new alignment of the SAT.
As a consequence, the SAT realignment will recommend for advancement to post-secondary education those students who most thoroughly parrot the worldview of the now required federal curriculum. Private and homeschooled students who haven't picked up on the new curriculum will be at a distinct disadvantage.
Nonpublic educators have always prided themselves on their students out-performing public school students on the SAT. They have used high SAT scores as evidence of their success. The new SAT will dramatically change all that, because the new SAT will not be testing aptitude. It will be testing the new federal curriculum. Approximately 10% of U.S. K-12 students attend non-public schools. Unless nonpublic entities teach that curriculum, their nonpublic students will have a harder time being accepted into colleges (or qualifying for scholarships, advanced placement and the like). The new SAT will marginalize nonpublic students who do not comply with the federal curriculum.
Since the federal Goals 2000/School-to-Work laws were passed in 1994, restructuring education for ALL students in our country, the bringing of nonpublic students under its all-encompassing umbrella has been a top concern. This SAT realignment is one significant way by which the agents of change in this country will accomplish that goal.
Julie M. Quist MREdCo Vice President
In 94 folks laughed at me for suggesting this might happen. I'm not having the last laugh here.
What about the rest of the kids? And don't you think there were plenty who went along to get along in Nazi Germany?
That's the real tragedy.
The problem is, most of those same people get amnesia.
Read that again. Did I say anything about collaboration or did it sound more like subversion?
Especially on election day (which, by the way should be changed to April 15th IMHO).
Pick up a copy of your state's cultural, content, and performance standards and you will be shocked with all the global, multi-cultural, greenie, touchy/feely references. No joke. Way beyond simple academics for everyone who thinks just because their children can outspell the average bear they are safe.
National standards, teaching to these standards, and testing for these standards ; all the rage in education today and into the future. Teachers are forced to design their courses to fit into the parameters & attain these standards. This is just one method the ed industry will use to come after private education; with total govt support and backing of the law.
The NEA is light years ahead on this point. Liberal pro NEA teachers help write the standards. They cannot help adding their political/global worldview influences. They relish this sort of thing.
I worked with a great teacher that helped write our state's standards. Very dedicated guy that spends 12/13 hours/day at school. Being a teacher, I see both sides of the picture. The only thing negative I could ever say about this teacher was his political/social outlook on America. I am sure that you have teachers alot more liberal than my friend writing standards in many states. Do you see where this is going? Pick up a copy of your state standards.
Didn't mean to insult you... My only point was that paying lip service doesn't get you anything except saving your own skin (if that).. However, the quote "Whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will save it" comes to mind.
I don't know how subversion enters into this.
I'm puzzled by the term, although I can figure it out. Where does it come from?
I've seen the national standards of Science and what they are based on (Benchmarks of Scientific Literacy, put out by the Amer. Assn for the Advancmt of Sci), so I have no trouble knowing you are correct in your assessment. In that it talks about the advantages of a "planned society." Oh, I forgot to say, the social sciences would be classified as "science."
In the science stds. themselves on page 6 (I believe) it says: alignment with the Benchmarks constitutes adherence to the science standards. Benchmarks is much more explicit than the stds. themselves (showing beyond a doubt the real agenda) and urges evolution at every turn, the beginning of life to be defined as implantation, not conception, etc. You get the drift.
I will also try to see if I can get the state standards on-line. Please get your board of ed members to understand what is happening right under their noses.
The problem is every school district wants the federal funds. They will sell their soul to get those funds. You should see the push by the districts come October to get paperwork in for all the special ed students. I heard our district gets 24,000 per special ed student from the feds. Even conservative sch bd members look the other way at that point.
I have talked to my republican sch bd members (who I support) about this situation and they feel the only alternative would be to increase prop taxes. No way. Not in the cards.
I go around with fellow teachers all the time. Some I really respect, except their political views. We avoid such subjects.
Our district is on the verge of a strike. Lowest district in pay in my state, conservative area; understandable. The district is unable to attract teachers, any teachers; even the ones other districts will not hire. The best teachers are leaving and the sch bd will not raise taxes; do you think that the sch bd will turn down fed funds on principal? See what I mean.
Since the federal Goals 2000/School-to-Work laws were passed in 1994, restructuring education for ALL students in our country, the bringing of nonpublic students under its all-encompassing umbrella has been a top concern.
The timing of this is pretty coincidental - right around the time the SC says vouchers are OK.
The last time they revised the SAT they dumbed it down and changed it so that special groups might do better. In the process they effectively raised everyone's scores who would then take it because it was now easier. It also created a disconnect between old scores and new scores to make it much more difficult to verify the downward trend among government educated students.
This time they will accomplish three things - it will dumb the test down again so the "educators" can say "look how good we are doing", it will create another disconnect in the time series of SAT scores, and it will ensure the "proper" education of ALL children.
The last objective fits right into the Goals 2000 framework - particularly the OBE component. I will never forgive Lamar Alexander for latching onto Goals 2000 under Bush I (also Bush I for signing it). Goals 2000 is a hairbrained indoctrination scheme developed by Hillary Clinton and Ira Magaziner in Arkansas when the Shlickmeister was Governor. When Slick was head of the National Governor's Association he sold that plaid-shirt wearing dope Lamar on this boondogle, and here we are.
My own feeling is that government-run education is a total loss. Looking back at it even in the sixties when I was a kid, it was awful. I was in one of the [supposed] better school districts and I remember two guest speakers in particular that exemplify what the government run schools are all about. The first came to tell us how wonderful China was under Chairman Mao. How everyone was taken care of and what a happy paradise it was. No mention of the countless atrocities. And this little speech was right after the Cultural Revoltion. The other gave a presentation on the sweet adorable Khrushchev. How he had eliminated all the wrong that his predecessor had done, and how wonderful life was there. Lots of film of shiny red tractors of course. I wonder why they never mentioned he was the one that oversaw the collectivisation in the Ukraine that resulted in the deaths of up to 10 million people (he was also Ukranian which shows his depravity even more)? Since, at the time Brezhnev was the Soviet leader I wonder why they didn't praise him instead?
Of course the universities aren't much better today.
On a related tangent - I would hate to think that business leaders are driving the framework of skills over thought. They are using them as justification, but I wonder if companies would rather hire people that are teachable and can think or automatons to perform a task? Maybe they figure there is less of a sunk cost in training if they just find someone who has the skills to perform a required task figuring that they will just move on when they are bored with it and then they just replace them with someone else. If this is the case then this country is in bigger trouble than we think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.