Admittedly, I do not have a full knowledge of North Central's PSAT/NMSQT policy, but I do know that the select few are being segregated from the rest of the student body during the testing. That says enough for me.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Thoughts on Educational Elitism
Today (9/29/09), a large percentage of the IB juniors were pulled out of their homerooms and instead lectured on the upcoming PSAT/NMSQT. Part of this lecture was that these students, who were selected based upon (I'm assuming) GPA/class rank, had a better opportunity to succeed than the rest of the students at North Central. This raised two questions for me: 1) Really? Just because we have performed well in the past does not necessarily mean that we will be able to consistently do well academically in the future, nor does it mean that we are necessarily better off than any other student at North Central. In my experience, academic success hinges more on the ability to jump through hoops than on actual intellectual prowess. Just because you can memorize something once for a test does not mean that you have learned it. I believe that this facet of the educational system tends to misrepresent students' aptitude. Success on a test should not hinge on memorizing miscellany, especially in an age where, in any real-life application, said miscellany could easily be looked up if unknown. A student who happens to be a bad test-taker could be just as intelligent as any of the Top 25, but said student's test anxiety keeps them from excelling in the educational system as it is. In my mind, this is no reason to dismiss the student as "less likely to succeed." 2) Why do we get special treatment? We have proved that we can do well on standardized tests (which I believe are not an accurate measure of anything, but that's another rant), so why do we need special attention now? Should not the effort instead be directed to helping those students who are struggling academically? Or have they already been relegated to a lower rung on the intellectual ladder? I believe this policy of giving the intellectual frontrunners another push forward while ignoring the rest is both illogical and immoral. A great Vulcan (well, half-Vulcan, technically) once said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." So then, is our "equal-opportunity" system of education really "equal?" Why are the test scores of the tops of the classes any more important than any other students'?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Question number 2:
There is a great possibility that the academically struggling students *are* given special treatment. (Exhibit A: Lower A hall of North Central.) Other instances of "special treatment" are for ESL students; they are (If I'm correct) given extra time on these tests. So this is another example of a group of the students being pulled out of the mass body.
I agree with rachel and I would also like to add that the school is funded and ranked based on the results of the PSATs and what percentage of their students achieve National Merit Semi-Final status. So your issue should not be with the school it should be with the people who choose to base their funding to schools on standardized tests rather than academic improvement. If the school does not get funding then it cannot help anyone. Also the rest of the junior class will be recieving the same practice test in a week, so they will have time to practice if they so choose. the other students will not in anyway be blindsided by the test. The school's only fault is trying to get extra funding, and i turn helping us
I agree with Will. Although the school says it is necessary for the higher ranked students to be more prepared for the PSAT, I believe it should be the opposite way around. When it comes to standardized tests the students who have a tendency not to do well should be the first priority. Receiving the practice test one week before other students, puts the other students at a disadvantage. Students with lower scores need more time to prepare. I think that it was strategic to inform the higher ranked juniors about the importance of the test and the opportunities available, but we are not the ones who need the extra assistance.
Good point Kelly! But I feel as though putting all the students that are "most likely to succeed" together only puts them under more pressure. Sure it makes it easier for the administration to observe our test score, as Ms. Dickerson said (I think that was her name). But then doesn't that also mean that the administration will pay more attention to our scores than the rest of the student body? This, especially in a public school, is unfair. Everybody deserves the same attention and opportunities as everyone else.
I agree with Amelia. Our school DOES receive funding based on the highest scores on the PSAT/NMSQT. This funding doesn't just help those students who perform well on the test itself - it also helps, in one way or another, I presume, every single student in the school, as well as teachers, the township, and more.
Will quoted Spock, stating that "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." However, in this circumstance, does that statement best apply in the manner Will presented it?
Consider it from this perspective: Don't the needs of the many - the thousands of people impacted in a positive manner by increased school funding resulting from more school National Merit Semi-Finalists, including those juniors who don't receive this "special treatment" - outweigh the needs of the few - the several hundred juniors who don't receive this "special treatment" regarding the test?
Although I don't necessarily agree with this whole "segregation of the select few" idea, I don't exactly blame the school for doing it either. In fact, I somewhat commend the school - in its position - for engaging in this system. If North Central believes that it can receive additional funding through this policy, then who's to blame the school for separating the "smarter" students from the rest of the student body in the hopes of producing more National Merit Semi-Finalists - and thus receiving increased school funding - so that the entire school as a whole benefits from the testing process?
Matt- your argument makes sense until you fail to back it up with information on how the "entire school as a whole" benefits from the testing program. I'm not trying to contradict this at all, I was just wondering if you could enlighten me on this subject.
I was trying to make the point that additional funding (resulting from more PSAT/NMSQT Semi-Finalists) to the school helps everyone in the school - hence, the "entire school as a whole." If the school can afford better classroom materials, better technology for classes, and so on as a result of better test scores, then the entire school benefits by the improved educational environment and improved education offered at the school.
If this requires the separation of "smarter" students for testing, then so be it. If the school honestly believes this will improve the test scores of the "elite," then "segregating the select few" is a smart decision to benefit the school as a whole (to make myself clearer: the entire student body, the teachers, the administration, and so on) - through increased funding - even if it comes at the "expense" of other juniors.
So Matt, you state that sacrificing a few for the benefit of the masses is acceptable? I know this example is very minor compared to what this generalization suggests, but isn't this issue an extension of that? Sacrifice of the "top" juniors (through means such as loss of homeroom time, having to adjust to different homeroom conditions for a standardized test, separation from peers, receiving extra 'pep talks' and extra pressure to represent the school well). I realize that these are still really lame examples, but why is the "expense of other juniors" in order to benefit the school fair and allwed? (This isn't directed only at Matt; I'm curious to see other opinions of this as well. My personal opinion is that it isn't really fair for the juniors expected to test well to be taken from their regular homeroom. I didn't feel that I received any extra information of the test a week ago that I wouldn't have learned today. The information given in advance didn't affect me, anyways. All I really received from their talk was the impression that I am under pressure to perform in the top whatever-percent in order to impressively represent the school I attend. And that pressure isn't helping me fill in any multiple choice bubbles...)
No, I was referring to the quote "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one," and I was examining it from a different perspective than that of Will. And I was referring to the "sacrifice" of the "non-top" juniors, in that in theory they have less time to prepare for the test and so on.
I agree that to an extent that the decision to "segregate" us is both "illogical" and "immoral." That said, I don't blame the school for the decision - it presumably believes that this will improve the likelihood of higher test scores.
So, in this circumstance, our "equal-opportunity" system of education isn't really "equal." This is because for the PSAT/NMSQT the test scores of the tops of the classes (who presumably will achieve the higher scores) are essentially more important than those of the other students because the higher scores are directly related to the school's funding, its "pocketbook." For this reason, then, the school is placing special emphasis on the tops of the classes, because it feels that, by doing so, there will be higher scores on the test and thus more funding for the school.
Oh, my bad for misreading.
Haha, that third paragraph reminded me of Animal Farm "all pigs are created equal, just some more equal than others". (I am paraphrasing).
In todays society, there is increasing pressure for schools to have high standardized test scores. So, while it seems unfair for some to get extra help, it is much more unfair for the government to demand this high level of achievement.
Yes it is extremely unfair for the government to demand these high level test scores. But it is it truly necessary for the "elect" to be taken away from the other students who were not selected? And will the absent of the "non-elect" students in the test-taking room truly improve the scores of the "special" students? I personally think that my score would not be altered simply due to the individuals sitting around me.
Post a Comment