I've tried to explain to Governor Dennis Daugaard that the fact that South Dakota teachers and students have managed to maintain consistent, better-than-average student achievement even as schools are asked to do more work is pretty impressive. Obviously the Governor isn't listening. To protect his school-wrecking political agenda, he says all those good ACT scores you South Dakota kids keep getting don't mean jack:
In 1986, South Dakota's composite ACT score was 21.7, and it has remained remarkably flat since then. It dipped as low as 21 and edged up as high as 22, but has not shown steady gains or losses over the past 26 years.
This year, South Dakota's average composite score is 21.8, exactly the same as the past three years. In other words, the knowledge and achievement of our students is still good, but it is not improving in the short or longer terms. The national average composite score is 21.1.
We must always look for ways to improve outcomes in education, ways to improve student achievement [Governor Dennis Daugaard, "Interpreting the ACT," press release, September 7, 2012].
You lazy kids! How dare you consistently perform to high standards! Work harder! Count on the Governor to light up next spring's commencement addresses with that line.
Improvement is not infinite, especially not when the state piles more demands on schools. More credits to graduate, higher legal age to leave school, state funding set back five years, doubling administrators workloads with complicated state-mandated evaluation procedures... dang, Dennis, you should be happy people are still showing up for work, let alone producing the same good results they did without all those requirements.
The Governor tangles up his own argument that interstate ACT score comparisons are invalid. In South Dakota, he says, 81% of high school graduates take the ACT. In Maine, only 9% take it. That's in part because kids in other states are more often aiming at coastal schools that require the SAT, not the ACT. Governor Daugaard contends that the small percentage of kids in other states taking the ACT are the top students gunning to attend out-of-state universities.
But wait a minute: if a broad sample of South Dakota kids can still keep up with or outscore narrow, skewed-upward samples of out-of-state kids, isn't that all the more reason to crow that South Dakota's schools are doing a better overall job than schools elsewhere?
Governor Daugaard slips in some more of his own gravy as he tries to shoehorn in a dig to boost his STEM-obsessed policy-making:
A second note should be made that the "˜science and reasoning' test does not test knowledge of biology, chemistry, physics, or any other natural science. Instead, it tests students' abilities to read charts and graphs, and to use reasoning in solving problems [Gov. Daugaard, 2012.09.07].
Yeah, right... because who needs charts and graphs?
The Daugaard Administration thinks it can justify any education policy, no matter how unproven or disproven, by shouting "Math and science! STEM STEM STEM!" But even on science, South Dakota students beat the national average.
Governor Daugaard, get off the kids' backs. Just like their teachers and administrators, they're working hard. They're good at reading and writing, charts and graphs, and math and science. They're better prepared for college than their national peers.
Now just stand aside and let us do our work.
Daugaard needs to go take a basic statistics course. The guy is hopelessly inept at understanding standardized tests.
I don't think he is fooling anyone who knows statistics, so his target audience has to be those who don't score well on the ACT. When you're public statements depend upon your target audience not having basic education, you're heading in the wrong direction, Governor.
Speaking of not doing well on the ACT, it should be "your" not "you're."
Doesn't Gov. D. realize that many schools in other states only encourage the top 50% or so to take the ACT, and that too can scew the results-against us!
So, does Daugaard also think then that the "students’ abilities to read charts and graphs, and to use reasoning in solving problems" are not important? Hmmm...pretty sure everything I do in life requires me to use reasoning in solving problems. Perhaps Daugaard should go back to school so he can learn to reach charts and graphs, and to use reasoning in solving problems. Then he might not get himself into these pickles.
Here is an interesting side note: if 81% of SD kids take the ACT, why don't we use the ACT as an exit exam, required of all students as several other states do? It is a recognized, valid test of potential student achievement. What could be the motivation to bring in another company to administer a junior test to all SD students - a test that no other state takes so cannot really measure SD students fairly against a norm? Testing is big business and big money. Pearson (a testing company) lobbies and spends heavily in places like ALEC and state and federal legislatures, to ensure states find ways to require standardized tests to keep their corporate pockets lined.
"But wait a minute: if a broad sample of South Dakota kids can still keep up with or outscore narrow, skewed-upward samples of out-of-state kids, isn't that all the more reason to crow that South Dakota's schools are doing a better overall job than schools elsewhere?"
You betcha. So you had better kill off any notions that Gov. Daugaard might get into his head to the effect that our schools should get more funding, before he does something really stupid like increase the education budget at taxpayer expense.
So far the funding argument, as it relates to student success, has cut schools both ways: 1) Schools/students are underperforming so they do not deserve more money; or 2) Schools/students are doing great on the low funding we give now, so why would we need to increase funding if our level now is so effective?
Once you decide the conclusion is to not fund, it is then a simple matter of warping the evidence to that conclusion.
The irony comes when we see success like this and an administration that touts merit pay doesn't see that as a mandate to immediately reward teachers, principals, and support staff for the remarkable, measurable, meaningful success of their students. If outperforming the nation's top on the ACT is not a warrant for giving merit pay, then what does qualify?
Conclusions chosen ahead of time, evidence warped to fit—spot on, Steve. Alas.
I guess what we are seeing here is that Daugaard is setting himself up as knowing far more than the people who make up the ACT and SAT. What a complete and utter fool this guy is.
There is a reason why ACT and SAT use scientific reasoning as more indicative of potential success. If you're actually doing science in a specific field it not that important that you know a lot of facts from a field of science that is far removed from your field. Duh! It's nice from a general knowledge standpoint, but not critical to doing science.
Also, such data do not add anything that college admissions staff and advisors can't get from looking at high school transcripts, AP tests, etc. Why duplicate data? It makes no sense.
Intro college courses in scientific fields are going to cover all the basic knowledge in that field. If you have that knowledge, as indicated by AP tests or testing out, you can skip those courses in college. If not, you get stuck in huge lecture halls with hundreds of students, where you get to listen to hours of lectures on these subjects.
If Daugaard is serious, he would fund more advanced courses in high school and accelerated math courses. Why waste that money on tests that are not needed.
Daugaards coments are stupid, nothing more, nothing less. These test do change, so its not like something that should generally improve over time. They should stay pretty much the same.
I've argued time and time again that South Dakota should use the ACT as their Dak. Step test. I've had teachers who wonder the same thing. Would make way more sense for both the students, teachers, and everyone else associated. On Dak. Step Test day. you bring in the ACT folks, they administrate the test for the juniors. When they are done, they leave. That simple. If you plan on going to college, you can use that score, if you don't its not a big deal. The school pays for this one. If you want to do it again, go and pay for it yourself and go another time at the location of choice.
JoeBoo,
But then how will Pearson make any money from all that lobbying they do?
I'm glad you mentioned Pearson, Steve. Nobody seems to give much press to the cozy relationship there.
Dr. Jill Biden talking education in Minnesota today and reminding students that they helped to elect President Obama: MPR.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as part of the P3-People, Prosperity and the Planet Award Program, is seeking applications proposing to research, develop, and design solutions to real world challenges involving the overall sustainability of human society."
Funding Opportunity Numbers (FON) and Associated Research Areas:
EPA-G2013-P3-Q1 – Energy
EPA-G2013-P3-Q2 – Built Environment
EPA-G2013-P3-Q3 – Materials and Chemicals
EPA-G2013-P3-Q4 – Water
http://www.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/2013/2013_p3.html