Snafu: a confused or chaotic state; a mess
ORIGIN 1940s: acronym from situation normal: all fucked up.
Matthews was sent a two-year-old report—“Investigating the Alignment of High School and Community College Assessments in California”—by Richard S. Brown [a Saddleback College alum!] & David N. Niemi. Despite the “sleep-inducing” title, for Matthews, the report is a “must-read.”
I have wondered, without ever stirring myself to investigate, how community colleges decide who gets to take their for-credit courses, the ones that can put a student on a path to a degree, and who will be consigned to their remedial courses….
The answer, of course, is that incoming students take placement tests. But this is where things get worrisome:
I assumed that a big state like California with long experience running community colleges … would have a well-proven system of placement tests and qualifying scores that was fair to everyone. Brown and Niemi startled me by revealing this to be far from the truth. They looked at California’s 109 community college campuses and found 94 different placement assessments. Try to enroll in two different community colleges, and the chances are that not only will you be given different placement tests, but the magic number of right answers that gets you into for-credit courses will also be different. ... A student who qualifies for credit courses at one community college could, conceivably, fail to qualify for credit courses at the community college in the next town with the same score on the same test (if by some weird chance they gave the same test)....
I was surprised that the community colleges, and their students, were tolerating such a situation, because so far they are not having much success in qualifying new students for credit classes. Over 70 percent of them are forced to take remedial math, and 42 percent must take remedial English.
…
The high schools have to do a better job, a frequent topic of this column. But it would help if the community colleges could get together and decide on a set of tests, and a consistent set of passing scores, so students sent off to remedial work have a clearer idea of how much they have to improve. I would also like to hear more about efforts to get students near the passing mark over this hump more quickly and cheaply....
…
…Brown and Niemi say “one suggestion for improving the disjunction between high school and community college is to make clear to students early in their educational careers, perhaps as early as middle school, what is expected of them upon enrollment at the community colleges by developing continuity across the high school, community college and four-year college systems.” [All emphases added.]
I don't know about you, but me, I keep finding myself asking: how could this be allowed to happen?
FOR THOSE WHO APPRECIATE CONCISE HUMOR:
TigerAnn and I went outdoors and examined some flowers.
The Tige took the time to sniff some of 'em.
Do likewise.
12 comments:
Yeah, home come the state can't get this right? How hard can it be?
My daughter went through this "snafu" a year go, spring semester, when she tried to transfer from Santa Barbara City College to Saddleback College. Different placement tests ranked her at a different math level (she had already completed her English composition courses so those were not an issue). She was terribly frustrated because she had to take Int. Algebra twice. Myself, I don't think it was a huge issue because it taught her a lesson that life doesn't always work out the way it is supposed to.
actually, there is a very simple reason for this. the creation of assessment tests is handled primarily by academic senates.
... and many academic senate members dislike standardized testing.
How does this explain anything? What is preventing academic senates (perhaps through the state academic senate) adopting one set of placement tests? Have they been urged to do so (by state leadership--e.g., the state chancellor)?
that's the right question, Roy.
I cannot speak for the ASCCC but I have found a few of their position papers on the subject which indicate they're working on it.
There is some internal conflict, however, stemming from a long history of standardized testing debacles - most recently NCLB.
The ASCCC can't really bring itself to embrace standardized testing, let alone promote it.
The CCCCO could do it but then the ASCCC would fight it on AB 1725 grounds, and the colleges would fight it because it would be an unfunded mandate.
Man, we've gotta start making things work. Maybe there's a problem with standardized tests (I'm not convinced) but there sure as hell is a big problem with 94 different tests and standards. Sometimes I think this country is 95% idiot. Good grief.
Ok, this isn't relevant to the post, but I need to give credit where credit is due. Chunk the red-yellow flower picture is gorgeous.
Gee thanks, B'Stein. We've got lots of posies and shit around here. Grow like weeds.
CC's are required to use multiple measures to place students. A single, make-or-break test is not permitted.
Why? Probably because even the best placement test will INCORRECTLY place anywhere (I forget which) from 25 - 33% of the testees.
If you're a fan of standardized testing, then you need to know that the SAT test (taken by tens of thousands of students) is no more accurate than a coin flip in predicting student success in college.
The SAT and the GRE and the rest of the alphabet soup are really good at identifying students' socio-economic level. But that's all they're good for.
12:40--perhaps I misunderstand you, but, by your logic, doesn't it follow, not just that one should be skeptical of any particular placement test, but that one should (therefore) be skeptical of the use of a menu or schedule of placement tests. That is, by your logic, we should not try to place students in remedial courses. Obviously, the latter course would be unwise and disastrous. ¶ Let me put it this way: if each tool in one's collection is broken, then showing up with one's whole collection is no better than showing up with just one of one's shitty tools. Right? ¶ I've been teaching for 30 years, and trust me, many of my students, as they come to me, simply cannot manage college-level writing (or comprehension). An effort must be made to flag students who are bound to fail in a college course--to send them to remedial instruction. Naturally, that any "tool" one uses is imperfect is not an argument against using a tool. We can attempt to create the fairest possible tests--even a choice between a limited number of tests--and standardize that. Wouldn't that be an improvement over the status quo?
I agree with BS about the flower pic - and the clear blue sky background sets it off so well. Lovely.
ES
I was talking about the darker one. I like the bright colors contrasting with the dark background. Wispy nonsensical things like this are also cool. For some reason, Chunk's photo reminds me of the wispy things.
I think Chunk's picture would be awesome with some HDR. But he doesn't seem keen on fiddling with these new techniques. *poke poke*
Post a Comment