Are You Smarter Than A School Board Member?

As long as they don't lower the bar........Look at each as a goal, difficult, but not impossible

Also like that board member, he has to remember as I did, when I left high school I did go back to college until I was 25 years old. I blew my first semester in Math with a 'C', classmates thought I was an idiot. from the second semester on, the way of thinking and studying came back and I pull A's.

Learning and appling are two different things.

I again went back to college when I was 50, and frankly, I'm glad I'm through with it, the enjoyment from math from my earlier degree, well it was not quite the same.

Off on a small tangent, in grade school the push was to mainstream and for all the students to work at their own pace.....(I think the teachers were just riding it out0....... and as a 12 year old, and loved sports, well, my pace was....well, uh .... I lets just say I was saving myself.....

I gotta be...
I'm smart enough not to do tests these days.
happy solstice everyone.
Del

(just had a look at the first 2... easy peasy)

I fell asleep before getting through the second poem.

My short term memory is shot anyway, so while I may never pass the tests, I think I'm qualified to be a politician.

I didn't think the questions were that tough, although I didn't like the one on musical sounds.

One of the things that bugs me is the required college courses these days. My neighbor's kid is taking sound engineering courses..............sound board stuff, mixing, acoustics, etc. He's got student loans, as well as costing his parents money, and one of his required courses is PE. What's up with that?!!! He's paying tuition to take bowling.

Of course, there's also things like english literature, and others, that he should have had plenty of in high school. In my mind, when college is costing good money, they should be focused on a particular career path and leaving the other crap off the plate.

One size fits all approach in education, is about as appropriate as one shoe size fits all...

I just read the article and have done a few of the math problems. The friend referenced who said he knew none of the answers to the 60 math questions must be an idiot. The 2nd question is so easy my 6 year old could answer it.

If these are the people that are running our school boards, it no wonder that our schools are constantly getting dumbed down.

Having a conversation with a high school kid, or even some college kids, for that matter, is an eye opening experience. Disturbing trend.

Try to hire skilled trades people now. Yea there are allot of people that apply and say they have been at it for a couple of years now, but know nothing. Some are lucky to be able to read a tape. Not to many more years left that I have to worry about that stuff anyway. Guess I will just set back and snooze in the rocker. Seems that's what most of todays students and teachers do as well.

the students are nothing more than product, and the schools get $$$$ from the government by how much product are produced.

what the fuqk

the bell curve is the solution, not the problem

going with no more than 1/4 of students should get A's

While I kind of understand the rationale for grading on a curve, I think it does the students more harm than good.

There should be clear objectives for a course whether it's reading, writing or arithmetic (or something else). If the student shows a clear and obvious command of those objectives then they should be rewarded. If not, their grade should represent their demonstrated knowledge.

Grading on a curve should be left to individual exams or assignments where the teacher has obviously screwed up creating the test. For instance, if no students score over 50%, then the teacher has most likely not done a good job of teaching or of creating the test.

Here are some real numbers for you to ponder as you tout the wonders of the bell curve

I am curious about comparisons between various countries. I've looked around a little and haven't seen enough detail to address my curiousity.

My understanding of testing in the US is that the tests are given to all school children of a given grade (4th or 8th or seniors). Are the tests administered in the same way in other countries? In Japan, high school students have two paths they can follow, academic or vocational. Are the tests given to all....or just those on the academic path? Also, I think in some countries, not all children are required to attend school.

The tests are administered the same way in various countries to assess the level of knowledge from which the numbers are derived.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/us-falls-in-world-education-rankings_n_793185.html

Here are some graphs:

http://mat.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/

http://www.geographic.org/country_ranks/educational_score_performance_country_ranks_2009_oecd.html

It's kind of sad that the US government continues to reach the conclusion that we simply aren't spending enough money to combat the problem.

I agree that more money is not the answer

Some people are smarter than others.

Some people will become millionaires and live in mansions, and some people will never make more than 20 thousand a year and rent their entire lives.

I'm not suggesting anything this drastic for humans, but sometimes life just doesn't seem fair.........................................we've got to stop trying to mandate fairness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYSrgn0aml0&feature=related

What we are doing, (across the board), is the equivalent of interfering with the natural order of nature, to insure that no little gazelle ever gets hurt again.

I don't think you understand bell curve grading

or you are refering to the bizzarro version where 70% of the class gets A's

I had a math class once where the Prof graded one quiz on a fair curve to prove a point

25%=A

25%=B

25%=C

25%=D

we went back to a more traditional 70%=c's arrangement

*

of course you are also advocating a votech scheme, which does away with general education requirements

specialization is not the answer, the present system is geared towards all or nothing testing

the real world is open book

I don't care for any system that slides the scale to be an averaging of grades, as opposed to a system that grades on actual right or wrong answers...................the old fashioned way.

Reading between the lines of this article, we have a high ranking school board member that missed every question on a 10th grade standardized test. As he's rethinking the way we test our students, based on his own miserable score, the implication is, that we need to make the tests easier. He has reached the conclusion that he is brilliant, and the tests are faulty.

Anyone here that did the 14 questions, knows that this guy is full of $hit, and yet, these are the people that are in charge of how we teach our kids.

We have got to stop putting our thumb on the scales of education, so that some kids don't feel like losers. It's embarrassing on an international scale, and it's yet another thing that's going to lead to our undoing.

ah same old problem

letting the winner of a popularity contest be in charge

the school board should be oversight not management

Why does it make sense that there should be a distribution of grades based on a bell curve?

If the test is on multiplication and the test has 100 problems of various degrees of difficulty and the entire class gets 100 of them correct in the allotted time, why shouldn't everyone get an A?

I realize that's an extreme and unlikely example, but I think it makes the point. Why is 10% (or 20% or whatever) of the class getting an A desirable or even required?

• Challenge the students
• be fair
• let them know what's expected
• make it difficult
• make it achievable

Just as well they didn't include any biology questions.

I apparently only had access to an abbreviated version, only seven questions each. Perfect score on both. Took about 2 minutes or less each. If this is representative of the entire test then I wonder how he got his credentials.It seemed ridiculously easy to this old equipment operator.

Yeah, it was just a sample of questions. 14 total. I was a little shocked that a school board member missed every question on the real test, if these questions are representative of it.

I didn't find the test too hard either. I missed two reading questions and one math question but then I did take the test at 4:30 am in the middle of the night while doing a bathroom break.

To be fair if you asked me my anniversary date, my wifes birthday, my moms birthday, my dads birthday, their anniversary, the day mom died, and my bosses full name right now I can solidly say I can only recall 2 of 7.

Just my opinion, but, to me, those tests (or at least the samples provided) were more of an exercise in deductive reasoning. Get the right answer by eliminating the most obvious wrong answer, rinse, repeat, til only one is left.

I got them all right, reading and math, except for one about the poems. And even there I would probably argue about my answer being "wrong".

The most valuable lesson I ever had in life was "how to take tests" for maximum effect.

Hooker

is test taking a marketable skill?

I don't know about test taking, but thesis writing can be pretty darned lucrative.

Beyond academia?

No. Once they fake it through college, they expect to hit the business world and make the big bucks.........................................If it doesn't happen that way, they march on Wall St.

Don't worry, your precious bell curve doesn't stop at high school.

http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/educational-assessment/alternative-grading-methods-for-the-college-classroom/

From the article:

These faculty researchers hypothesized that a number of potential positive outcomes would accrue from this peer assessment experience, including increases in autonomy, intrinsic motivation, perceived competence, and actual performance in the course.

What does the bell curve accomplish, but perceived competence for the students that either can't, or don't feel like, doing the required work?

Unfortunately, the bell curve is not transferable to the real life work world.

One positive outcome, is that companies are becoming reluctant to toss older workers to the curb, but it's a hell of a price to pay, for society.

Aced both. Piece of cake, but I also aced that exam 492/495 when I was in high school. In 1958.

That doesn't count. 1958 was before we truly knew how to educate. Now, it's not how you do on a test, but how you feel about the emotional needs of your classmates. For you to excel, while others are left behind, is the epitome of greed. You probably have made decent money in your life.............................or worse yet, you own your own company, and employ people.

How can you possibly brag, you evil sob?

I think you are waging a war on a tool, the Bell Curve,

which is much like waging a war on a tactic, terrorism, instead of the root

you're having fun

rant away

what kind of solution do you propose?

what kind of organizational structure will lead to a better educational system?

Those are easy questions to answer.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/808774/Re-Are-You-Smarter-Than-A-School-Board-Member

We don't need to reinvent anything. The same teaching methods that were used in the 50s, will work today.

The bell curve is just one of many things that have been done in the name of progress, that have turned our public schools into waste heaps. The root, of course, is "feel good" progressive liberalism. It's path of destruction, across society, is wide and deep.

forward does not mean change for the sake of change

really smart people know when to leave well enough alone or when to take a step back

is the root a bad organizational structure, which thinks the goal is testing as an end?

benchmarks are great tools when properly used

I think a big part of the problem, at least in education, is that we have placed self esteem on some sort of altar, and we try to make sure that kids feel good about themselves, regardless of the price.

Again, this is not reality. When they become adults, not only is their education not up to par, but their emotional development is severely hampered as well.........................................allowing them to suffer some bumps and scrapes along the way is necessary.

The way we are currently doing things, they are crushed when they finally become adults and realize that they are not as special as they were told, growing up.

ahh

one of those over correction things, by parents who felt beatdown by their parents

you can't just go back to some time when you heard things were better like the 50's [by the way you weren't alive then, so you couldn't have any direct knowledge]

a thing to wonder about was when did the pta take over the school boards?

when did the school board start setting the cirriculum?

when did the inmates take over the asylum?

how do we phase reality into education?

or besides teaching what career takes the summer off? which is a strange holdover from when the majority was involved in agriculture

We didn't have easier or harder classes. High school was set up like college, where we had to have a certain amount of credits to graduate. Some were required, and some weren't. I loaded up during freshmen, sophomore, and part of junior year, so I could skate through senior year..................which I did.

Giving teenagers the option of taking an easy class or a hard class, doesn't seem like a real good idea.

That said, the fact is, that there are people with low intelligence, that never will get certain things. Math and science for example. I think it would be a good idea to identify those kids early, and rather than grading them on a sliding scale to make them feel smarter, we should be finding out the things that they are interested in, and training them in a particular field so that they can go to work upon graduation....................................this could include off campus, non paid internships, that could be used as part of their grade.

ours were simular, but they had group all the the classes such as:

( 2 years) math (i.e. calculus, algebra, geometry) as math, where you had to only take (2) years of math, they moved it to three (3) years a few years after I graduated

(3 years) English: (Drama, Literature, composition)

(2 years) science: (physics, biology, chemistry, environmental)

Each was broken down chemistry 1 and 2) which is 2 years. Math such as algebra 1 and 2 also. So you could get through high school with just 2 years of algebra.

That said, the fact is, that there are people with low intelligence, that never will get certain things. Math and science for example.

I agree with that, also we had a study in my elementary class (6th grade) that was taking advance math with the high school juniors.

decent guy, he always corrected the teacher in math...... and was correct in doing so. ^{Last I heard of him is that he went to college after high school, but basically He disappeared after high school,}

there are other issues at work in the teenage years

I was a bit wild & throughly bored with the educational system by high school. I probably would have been better served, being put to work for a couple of years around the time I was 14

I was really wild in high school, and bored by 3rd grade. I always liked work though, and started earning my own money when I was about 12. It would have been nice to be able to work, away from school, and use the experience toward graduation credits.

I think we're putting too much emphasis on turning out well rounded individuals, and not enough on turning out people that can actually contribute to society.

The constant drumbeat of, "You'll never amount to anything if you don't go to college", is also utter, nonsensical BS.

turning out well rounded people is the goal

I'm not sure what turing out good little test takers has to do with that

Really? I think it's the same reason that teachers are getting caught giving the kids the answers.

yes yes

there is an educational industrial complex

which I suppose is the somehow the governments fault

Well, lets see.........................we've got taxpayers that fund education, government that runs education, and kids in the US rank far below their counterparts around the globe.

Who would you suggest is to blame?

I will concede, that a large part of the blame lies on stupid, lazy parents.................but then again, kids are also being taught in school, that what they are told there, trumps what their parents say.

blame is pointless

but if we must

how about a system that has the temps in charge

Blame is pointless, without action. A better term or use of words, would be, identifying the problem and eliminating it.

there are many factors converging

which I suppose is the somehow the governments fault

Yes and no.

• Individuals are at fault: they are the ones who vote for politicians and who also give up their responsibilities to the government to educate their children.
• Politicians are at fault: in their quest for power, they distort their (and government's) importance in the role of educating the country
• Media is at fault: they do not report facts alone, but slant their coverage (mildly and severely) in favor of their own bias.

People, left to their own devices, have somehow managed to survive for thousands of years.

Somebody, please give me an example of when, (in history), a bloated government provided the answers.

It's time that, "We The People", start pruning the tree. It's getting out of hand.

how about an example of what you think works in terms of government?

there have always been social organizations [government]

so no

people haven't been left to their own devices for 1000's of years

there's a huge difference between the logistical problems of a government of 2.5million people & one of 300million

I think you and Kamarat may be talking past each other. I don't think Kamarat means that no goverment is necessary....I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong Kamarat) his position is that smaller more local government is preferrable to large and centralized goverment; that minimal rules and regulations are better than more. It seems like on more than one occasion he even specifically said that some regulations are desirable and necessary.

My understanding of your (Garthh) preference is for a large centralized government. But I don't believe you mean that centralized government is the answer to everything, even though your posts sometimes come across that way.

I regularly explain how we got where we are in practical terms

governmental regulation/intervention is a reaction to abuse of commonly held resources whatever they might be

when you have use it or lose it funding, the wheels keep rolling, layers get added

compound the situation, by having the elected overseers taking on the roll of management

you're wrong, it's not big or small government

it's better government

local control isn't immune to corruption, far from it this very thread started out as an example of local control going bad

it's better government...

local control isn't immune to corruption,

I do not disagree with you.

Yes, local governments can be very corrupt...however, it's much easier to move to a different town than a different state and easier to move to a different state than a different country.

so your solution is to give up & move?

really?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that.

Every citizen has the right and duty to work to make their government operate the way they think is best whether it be at the local, county, state or federal level.

That being said, if I am not happy with my local government (i.e. because of corruption), then I can choose to relocate within my state to a less corrupt local government. Such a move is easier to make than moving to another state. However, if the state government is corrupt or has a taxation policy I do not agree and am not able to change, then I am free to relocate to another state that may better match what I would like.

However, such a move to another country, should I find too much unacceptable in this one and it too difficult to influence, is much more difficult on a number of levels (physically, financially, emotionally, and in some cases impossible).

So, IMHO, less regulation, taxation, and legislation at the Federal level is more likely to be better than more of the same. Obviously, there are some areas that are not possible or practical to handle/manage at the local level, so I'm not saying that there should be no Federal laws, or Federal regulation or Federal taxes.

GA, but the dopey system here is saturated right now, preventing a vote (even though votes are solicited).

(Another bit or two in some register would easily fix this, but no explanation has ever been forthcoming. FWIW, Amazon is even worse; they regularly blow off some of the best people, and retain some of the worst.)

for not saying it you sure did reproduce the meaning again

Moving away from bad government is short sighted

I'll rephrase it's not the quantity, it's the quality

did you see this one?

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/18639#comment811301

from this

http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/tale-two-systems?page=0,2

this looks like a good example of how regulation can stop the race to the bottom

of course the goal of the german regulation is to force collaboration between labor & management,

which as they have so clearly shown at their plants in this country, they will not do voluntarily

back to the schools, the race for the bottom is test results as a goal

what do we really want schools to do? are there examples of good systems?

I clearly stated that "Every citizen has the right and duty to work to make their government operate the way they think is best whether it be at the local, county, state or federal level".

Let me see if I can make it more clear. I don't believe the solution is always to move away. My desire for less federal and more local government has to do with giving the citizen freedom. What does a citizen do if they are not happy with the laws of the land? Try to change them.....that does work....keep trying....that doesn't produce the desired results...try again....try again....try again. At some point the citizen has to decide to keep fighting for what they want, give up and accept things the way they are or go somewhere else. Should it not be possible to resolve a governmental problem to one's satisfaction relocation is an option.

Local regulations (laws, etc) are easier to influence (taking an active role in campaigning for or against) than Federal ones. Society where the federal controls are fewer and more done locally is better (more free) than society with greater federal control. That does not mean I think zero federal government is optimum, however, there is a lot the federal government has their fingers in that, in my opinion, it shouldn't.

I agree with you that quality is better than quantity. However, I do not see a lot of quality in the US Federal government, but I do see those in office trying to increase the quantity and gain more control (power) at that level. Quite frankly the general population is greatly to blame. When things (economy) go bad we want action...we don't want our elected officials in D.C. just sitting around doing nothing. We want them to fix things. Unfortunately the fixes in many cases create other problems or exacerbate the original problem. Many times the best solution is to do nothing (by the government).

I'll take a look at the two links you included and comment on them later.

Society where the federal controls are fewer and more done locally is better (more free) than society with greater federal control.
Can you cite a contemporary example?
the rest are just the usual conservative talking points
you can skip the 1st link which is just the usual suspects going off on a tangent
I included it, just to show my source

I'm back. The New Years Eve celebration lapsed into the entire next day....................................ouch!!

I've always said that we need government, we need laws, and we need taxes to run the government.

Society where the federal controls are fewer and more done locally is better (more free) than society with greater federal control.

That entire line is a little scary. The US was designed to escape government control. And the Constitution was specifically worded to prevent the US government from taking the type of control that the founders fought to get away from.

We need enough laws to maintain a civil society, but neither the federal, nor local governments should be controlling anything. The usual conservative talking points typically tie directly in with the limits that the Constitution places on government...............................which, from the looks of things, are being ignored.

The reason that conservatives are getting more vocal, is that they realize, that if we, (all of us), allow the Constitution to be shredded, it will never be revived.......................and the US will never again be the same. Just because it's happening in tiny increments, doesn't mean it isn't happening. I, for one, don't want to be controlled by the right or the left..........................or anyone else.

sorry the constitution is being followed, it was made to be an evolving thing

the break with england was taxation without representation

& there is a certain lack of representation, of course things are quite a bit more complex, more ways for us to interfere with each others liberty

so certainly there has been incremental change happening & rightly so [see above]

While there are plenty of conservative talking points flying around you won't find any actual conservatives [maybe Ron Paul]

Whoa!! I take a lot of issue(s) with what you write. The Constitution was made to be an evolving thing, but ONLY by following the included mechanism for amending it. It was not meant to be unilaterally changed by activist judges or capricious politicians.

The amendment process was purposely designed to be a cumbersome and inefficient process that was one of the closest things to a pure democratic process that the founding fathers thought was workable.

"so certainly there has been incremental change happening & rightly so"

Not likely rightly so. If any change has been made outside the Amendment process, it is patently unconstitutional, illegal and likely can be judged treasonous.

Any man who believes that we are a nation of laws and a government of the people (from which the politicians derive their power) cannot, with a straight face, read the Constitution and construe any other conclusion.

Hooker <-- a Constitutionalist above all other labels

Have all the issues you want with the reality, it doesn't change where we are

I suppose you could sue litigate

You can call it treason if you want, but the politicians & judges are all part of the plan

there's too many lawyers in too small a place

Yeah, Washington DC is pretty small.

In the future, all of us should remember that it's probably not a good idea to elect lawyers to political office.............................they may be smart, but they go to school to specifically learn how to manipulate both facts and people to get an outcome that benefits themselves. We are all reaping the rewards of having political positions that are crawling with them.

one of those paradoxes [paradoxi?]

people who are good at convincing groups to do things are good at running for office

Mojo has a suggestion...

Yeah. My wife has worked around them for about 12 years.

They start out young, energetic, optimistic, and thinking they can do some good.

Almost invariably, they become cynical, jaded, selfish.........................and despite the big smiles and friendly demeanors, they end up taking advantage of the system, (which only they really understand), to screw the rest of us and benefit themselves.

I've seen too many examples of it to say it's not true.

I'll never cast a vote for a lawyer politician...........................at least not one without a spotless track record of doing the right thing...........which ain't gonna happen.

that's a good filter to use at election time

I use another too

the number of campaign signs is inversely proportional to the likelihood of me voting for that candidate

I don't vote based on number of signs either............................they obviously don't care about the planet.

That entire line is a little scary.

It shouldn't be scary. What I stated goes along with escaping government control (to some level). My position emphasises local government with the Federal doing stuff it really is required to do by the constitution (protect citizens, adjudicate disputes, etc.).

As you yourself has stated on several occasions some government is needed, some regulation is needed. I think that's true. But I don't think we need the Federal government telling individual citizens how to live and run every aspect of their lives. As a matter of fact, originally, the federal government had very little to do with the economy (relative to present day).

I'm re-reading your comment and I guess you are having heartburn with my use of the word control. Fair enough. Maybe it was a poor choice of words on my part, perhaps responsibility would have been more accurate (although using the words 'responsible' along with 'federal government' seems contradictory).

No, actually my head was still swimming a little from a weekend of binge drinking, and I missed the statement in your post, and misread the statement in Garthh's post.

I somehow thought Garthh was calling for greater federal control.......................screwed all of that up, big time.

If you see me do that again, feel free to reach out and slap me right away.

I'm not sure why a contemporary example is really relevant. I don't think there were any contemporary forms of government like what was being proprosed by our Founding Fathers at the time of the creation of the US.

But to answer your question I would point to the US prior to formation of the Department of Education. I choose that point in time, not because I think it was an ideal time to live in the US, but because it is a point in time a useless and expensive organization began at the federal level.

As a matter of fact, I would suggest we go back to a level of government where the spending was less than 15% of GDP. We should take a good look at the federal programs which are not required by the constitution and reassess whether they are really necessary at the federal level of government.

GA!

But don't we need them all? Each number to the right, is the number of agencies within the departments. Hmmm................where to start?

http://dir.yahoo.com/government/u_s__government/executive_branch/departments_and_agencies/

Thanks.

Great link. I was looking for something like this recently.

I would start with Department of Education, then maybe HUD and DOE.

so no

you can't provide an example

if there is no example, what makes you think the solution to the problems, which you can't really clearly define is to gut or otherwise greatly modify government?

nor is it possible to go back to 1867, a lot has happened in 145 years

how do you propose to "reassess" programs?

I'm all for figuring out how get the best possible ROI for taxes & who should do what

no surprise you never bothered to comment on the situation with german auto makers, which runs counter to your line of reasoning

in a nutshell: government bad, laissez faire good

I know you claim that maybe there is need for some limited form of government

try to point to some successful things government does so maybe we could emulate these successes...

I tried the test too, and I got two of the math problems wrong. Why? Not because I couldn't do the math, but because I didn't read the problem through and jumped to an incorrect conclusion. In this sense I think these questions were very valid. It is not only important that one can do the math, but more important that one can understand the problem as presented.

I don't know which is more unbelievable, that the school board member didn't get one question right, or that he publicly admitted to it.

I didn't go through the whole thing, and I'm sure I wouldn't get 100% without some refresher reading, but it looks reasonable to me.

56/56. It was easy, although there was some terminology I didn't recall and had to make an educated guess at.

Also, two problems required using a ruler (scale) on the mathematics chart. I looked at the chart and only saw equations, no scale. So for those problems I guessed at the size of the cube (for one problem) and radius and length of the cylinder (for the other problem).....fortunately, my guess must have been correct.

I don't recall what I was learning in 10th grade math, but I thought these questions seem reasonable.

I took the math test, got 32 correct

I don't remember the graphing stuff

Here is a satire I once did on the WASL (Washington Assessment of Student Learning) Test:

THE WASSAIL TEST

1. Which is a possible correct verbal answer to the following question:

Which of these three answers is the longest?

a. This one.

b. That one.

c. The other one.

2. Which is the most inclusive correct answer?

a. Not the next one.

b. Not the next one.

c. Not the first one.

d. All of the above.

e. Most of the above.

f. One of the above.

g. Some of the above.

3. Show your work by giving proofs for both answers.

If it doesn't fit within the margins, you may turn the page over.

4. Match these items to the most appropriate location:

(Hint: Not all of the locations will be used.)

a. balaclava 1. Crimea

b. balalaika. 2. Samoa

c. baklava... 3. Serbia

d. lavalava.. 4. Siberia

e. Vaclav Havel 5. Slovakia

...................6. Syria

5. Congratulations! You have now completed the WASSAIL test. Choose one:

a. If you are a child, you will not be left behind.

b. If you are an adult, free wassail tomorrow!

[Prompts 2 and 3 continue to be undergoing validation as per according to student performance. After the subsequent statistical observation of preliminary assessments, the rubrics may be adjusted. Please stand by.]

©2004 Crankshaft Educational Consultants. All wrongs reserved. Or at least implausibly denied. May be copied only without permission. Don't even ask!

60 questions in math at 10th grade level and he knew NONE of the answers. I would say that speaks more about this "my friend" than the test itself. He may be successful in life as you have alleged, but I am willing to bet my bottom dollar he has little to no background in the engineering and/or science disciplines. Being able to read a pie chart and spotting the difference in sizes isn't the same as knowing how to calculate the area of a slice of pie.