It seems ironic that those men who worked so desparately hard to create an elite society were outted by those they served, i.e. Clark Kerr. I had heard mention before while in high school that CA offered free higher education. I thought that was such an impressive thing especially knowing how much I'd have to invest in my education to earn my degree. What I didn't realize was that the "free" education really came at a price. The kids were tracked into different vocations, regardless of their desires. Higher education should be available to all, in various forms, to benefit the individual. However, our society has always been one that appears to value persistence and ability to reach the top. I'm concerned about the idea that higher education will create an elite society that will serve our country. We've always had choice in our career paths. Is this why the Ivy League continually had access to the more advance finance occupations, keeping it "in the family" so to speak? I guess that I'm confused as to how, truly, the elite that graduated from the Ivy League went into service for our country.

Hi Lisa,
After reading Book Two this weekend, my thoughts go back to Clark Kerr and the Master Plan. He invented a free higher education that would create a fair opportunity for all. California appeared to be the leader in assessing and sorting students. I wonder about the other states. Were they watching and evaluating California on their educational performance to help them with their higher institutions? I remember in the mid-80's I took the CAT (California Achievement Test) in elementary school. After learning about the testing history of California, it seems clear as to why we were taking the CAT. Does anyone else know about the CAT? I had completely forgotten about the test until I read this book.

It is funny that you mentioned the CAT because when I was reading this section I thought about it as well. When I did my student teaching in Pennsylvania that was one of the only tests that they were required to take. I adminstered it to the students, but never really knew why they took it or what it determined. In Pennsylvania they never had to take the EOG. I believe they are just starting to get on board with that.

What I also recently heard about the SAT was that Pennsylvania always out performed NC. The teachers there get paid on average $9,000 more than we make. Then this year NC did better on the SAT than PA. It is just interesting that getting paid more does not mean you are a better teacher.

Lindsey,
So you didn't receive data/results from the CAT? That sounds odd--why give a test if you are not going to receive some data to help guide instruction.

I took the CAT every year that I can remember in elementary school except for maybe kindergarten. It seems to have been the precursor to our ABC testing...eocs and eogs. It seems that California really is the leafing force in so many educational movements.

I think I took either the CAT or IOWA when I was in public school in Pennsylvania. (Lindsey, what part are you from? I'm from Erie.) I just remember it was an entire week in April devoted to the tests. Our parents were sent home letters encouraging them to put us to bed early and make sure we had breakfast. There was no homework during this week and we were encouraged to do our best. The problems were similar to what we do now with EOGs at the elementary level. My parents got the scores, but I have no idea what they meant. I believe the scores were used as a way to determine what track we were meant to be grouped with: high, middle, or low.

When I student taught in PA, I remember going to an inservice to discuss testing results. There were 8 kids (unnamed) who scored in the lowest levels. The EC teacher I was with assumed they were her kids. Having said that, at looking at my school's subgroups, my EC kids were NOT the lowest performing kids. So it is that we're doing a great job teaching here, we really do teach to the test, or the test taking strategies we teach make the difference??

I think test-taking strategies really do make a difefrence! the fine line we walk is that of boredom. We have to be careful to engage students in a way that they want to learn, and test-taking strategies aren't all that exciting. Of course, we're all good teachers here, so I'm just restating the obvious!

I, too, remember taking the CAT. I don't remember being so stressed out over it like the students are today over the EOGs. I remember getting a score that would tell what grade level you tested at.

I remember taking the CAT in elementary school. I don't remember how well I did on it. I wonder if our students will remember or care in ten or twenty years how well they did on the EOGs in elementary school.

I don't remember so much pressure to pass put on us. Those were the days.