I found it very interesting in reading, The Big Test, that the ETS downplayed Stanley Kaplan's test-prep courses for the SAT. In the book the ETS was very confident that one could not prepare for the SAT unless he or she chose to cheat. If that is the case why are all these publishers making money on test prep books and courses to prepare students for the SAT?

I don't think the book meant to imply that it was an over all opinion that the test prep didn't help, but rather it was downplayed by the testing advocates for sure.

I strongly believe these will help improve scores to some extent if for no other reason that to get familiar with the types of questions and overall test taking strategies for each type of test.

I think all the prep books did partly prepare a student for the SAT, although one would not be the best prepared for the actual upcoming SAT. In the prep books, there were a great deal of SAT tests of the past. Supposedly, studying all these tests could help prepare a student for the upcoming SAT.

I think that Kaplan's help was downplayed in order to maintain the integrity of the test. STudides show that reviewing does help in getting used to the types of questions and in general, the subject matter covered within the test.
I find it disturbing that the test favors rich kids, who have access to higher ed. test prep books, and all the faculties for this test while others do not. DOes that make it a fair trest? No, because it only teaches things that the rich WASP's know!
SAT is no worth the vice presidency (a cup of warm spit)!

Isn't that one of the problems with testing in general - there is always going to be some sort of bias. If there is something to be gained from scoring well on a test the people with the resources to prepare for that test will have an advantage.

I would like to see a test which can't be prepared for.

However, I don't think there is ever going to be a test that you won't be able to study for. Once the contents of a test are known, what will prevent people from preparing for it? The question is -Is anything taken away from a person that studies for a test? (Does this make sense?)

Not sure if this is the place to bring this up but.......................

Why do we feel the need to test in general? What is the purpose of assigning grades based upon learning at all? What justifies the negative emotions of assigning grades to kids?

In class we discussed a National Curriculum. I am not completely against the concept but why grade it? If we feel the need to have requirements in education why can't it be competency based? Either you meet the requirements and are allowed to move along or else you try again. Why not recognize that people learn at different paces and in different orders instead of assigning an arbitrary letter.

Interested in your thoughts?

The only reason I can think of to justify grades is for college admissions. I can't help but think we can devise a better way of selecting students than GPA.

I too question the necessity of grades. What does a grade really signify? Often times tests are taken and grades are given that may or may not reflect the true knowledge of the student. A student could easily study for a test and do well without ever really retaining indepth knowledge. There are those students who are great "test takers" and there are those who are not. Some students, no matter how they prepare, can not perform well on tests. Because of this I too feel that having students meet certain requirements to advance further would be the best assessor of knowledge.

You are looking at an SAT prep baby who gained two hundred points everytime I retook the SAT because my dad was neurotic about preparing for the dan'g thing (I took it three times). So, you can imagine what my take on SAT Prep is, beneficial. However, like anything, too much of a good thing can be harmful and I certainly felt the harmful side of too much preparation - mostly in being upset with Dad for taking up so many of my Saturdays. Yup, the end result was golden, but the path barefoot on cobblestone.

I think that we have grades because we as a society like to be able to quantify everything. It's kind of intertwined with the whole fair society deal, that if we use the same criteria to assign numbers, letters, etc. to people then we have a fair system. WHat is the alternative? DO we have pure subjectivity? Let the teacher assign based on personal bias? Or do we dispense with grades? If so, then what criteria should we use for applicants to college?
I personally don't care for the SAT, and I think grades in high school are given based more on conformity to school standards than on knowledge of content, and applicability.
I would like to see something better than a grade, or at least something more sunbstantial.

Well, let us hold on for a second and look at the other side of the testing issue. Testing is not inherently bad. There are legitimate reasons to test. The first one I think of is accountability. I think everyone would agree that schools should be accountable for what they teach, how they teach, and how well they teach it. How do you feasibly try to obtain a measure of the students' progress without some form of testing? A similar arguement can be made for giving grades. Grades are supposed to correlate with a student's mastery of an assignment, test, course etc...
They both provide us with a way to communicate with parents, and the community in general about students and our schools. I guess the point I am attempting to make is that there is a place for tests and for grades. Just playing devil's advocate here. What annoys me most about testing is that it is overly used and way too much emphasis is placed upon the results.

I think what ANdy got at, is the heart of the issue: Maybe testing is misused, or overused more specifically. FOr example, the IQ test being used for more than education, and I also think, the SAT maybe, carrying too much weight still (opinion).

I guess I cringe at the idea of no grades, but maybe that is my "beancounter" mentality - I was an accountant, but am now studying to be a middle school Mathematics teacher.

Would some students study if there were no grades? I know in my own case, I wouldn't have studied anywhere near as much if I weren't going to get the gratification of an A. Actually, until the ninth grade, it never occured to me that getting all A's was a possibility, so I hadn't tried. Then I noticed that my friends were on the A Honor Roll, and I knew I was smarter than they were.... So, I decided to try, and "lo and behold" I was able to get on the A Honor Roll most of the time.

However, to some students, like my son - grades hold little incentive. He won't even show me his grades, so i know they aren't good. He is an intelligent young man, but he isn't willing to go the extra mile to please the teacher. Yet, in high school, he received A's in honors courses, and C's in "regular" courses, the little stinker!

Also, I think that "no grades" sounds a little too "touchy feely" for my taste. It smacks of that school of thought that "it doesn't matter what they do or how much they learn, as long as they feel good about themselves." Won't those kids be shocked when they reach the "real world". I consider a child's self esteem to be a precious thing, and I would never intentionally do anything to harm it. However, if a child is behaving like a jerk, I will tell them that their conduct is not in their best interest, nor in anyone else's best interest. I am always wary when an educational theory goes too far. What does anyone else think about this "self esteeem" topic?

I am glad you guys responded. I don't mean to do away with accountability at all. The need to compare students based upon a standard scale just doesn't seem to be a necessity to me. Actually it seems more counterproductive to the things a school should be interested in doing.

I guess I just think it would be of interest to sit down and discuss what should we be measuring. Would it be better to focus on other things? Could we improve what we do by looking at our form of measurement differently?

Tests and grades give us a very easy way to have discussions and make decisions. I just think it’s interesting when we start to question what it is we are talking about. We just read a book about the SAT, is anyone convinced that the SAT is a good predictor of anything? There was very little talk in the book about anything the SAT actually told us. Wasn't it supposed to predict the success during the first semester? I would assume the only reason they limit ot to the first semester is because as time goes on its accuracy drops significantly. I would think that a student's grades during the first semester might not be the best predictor of their success over four years.

More importantly as educators do we think that SAT's are the best way to choose the best student body? It is easy to say those are the rules, there have to be rules, so you might as well live by them. But as people responsible for leading in education are their ideas of different ways to judge entrance qualifications?

I think I need to clarify my opinion on the concept of no grades. My background is in elementary so when I think of "no grades" I'm thinking more in the elementary mind frame. I am not against testing. I totally agree that students have to be held accountable. I just think that in the younger grades when such an emphasis is placed on grades and testing many children are set up for failure before they ever really get started. I agree that as children get older there has to be an accountability measure to make them responsible, I just think that some of the pressure needs to come off of younger children before it's too late.

I agree with Shelly that there should not be too much emphasis on testing and grades in the elementary classroom. Children should, of course, be expected to reach objectives and learn, but too much testing at such an early age can be a bad thing. I remember third and fourth grade students in Charlotte having insomnia, panic attacks, and becoming sick because they were so stressed out about EOGs. That is so sad!

I definitely agree with both of you. One, kids don't need that kind of stress too ealry. We don't want them getting CVD at age 15. Two, I think that the variance in develpoment is larger at a younger age.