Anyone else's school doing this with the ACT test?

[southerncrone]

The ACT company is so slick, it's disgusting.

In our state, the ACT test is given to ALL students now. On April 22, all of our juniors are required to take this 4 hr test during school.

The thing that we find despicable is that we teachers are required proctor this test....with no extra pay. Usually ACT pays the proctors. This way, they don't have to, I suppose.

I don't know exactly who the demon is in this venture. It's either ACT, or our Board is getting paid the money for us to proctor, but not passing it on to us.

Any of you have something similar going on? Or what do you think is afoot here?
I'd really like your thoughts on this.

[LuvNewcastle]

1. Are they still charging money

to take the test? I think it cost about 50 bucks when I took it about 20 years ago. If they are charging, then they need to pay y'all extra for acting as proctors.

[southerncrone]

5. Yes, they are charging.

Our system pays for each student to take the test once, after that if they want to take it again they must pay the $ themselves.

My point is the ACT people are already increasing their sales because we require ALL students to take this test instead of just the college-bound.

[notadmblnd]

2. jrs and srs took the test last week at my son's high school

it was during the day. classes for freshmen and sophomores were canceled for the two days. But yes, in the past it has been administered on the weekends and personnel other than teachers administered it. I imagine it is a money saving maneuver.

[frazzled]

3. I'm not clear ...

If it's during the school day, why would a teacher be paid extra to proctor? It's time she or he would be working in the classroom anyway.

The other thing I'm not clear on is why complain about proctoring for four hours? I've never proctored for ACT, but I proctored a number of times (parent volunteer, no pay by the way) for high-stakes high-school state testing. You get to sit at a desk for several hours basically, and of course keep an eye out, and hand out bathroom passes or whatever, and perhaps answer a question. I would think it would be a welcome break.

[southerncrone]

4. I am not "complaining" per se. My point is

that the testing company pays for proctors when the test is given on weekends, which is generally when it is given. They are saving by not pay us as proctors. I find it disgusting that these testing companies are making out like bandits on all this "required" testing, but are still trying to cut corners by not paying proctors. They are already making the $40 per head on ALL juniors, instead of just those who are college-bound.....basically tripling their "sales". Our system pays for taking the ACT once, after that students must pay themselves.

We are being their servants at the expense of our other students who will be basically in "study hall" during this 4 hrs. I just hope our school system is at least getting the $ for this service WE are providing.

[frazzled]

6. I see ... and one more question

Is your district using ACT as a graduation requirement? That is the only reason I can see for requiring it for all students: to use their test instead of the state tests used in many places that all students must pass in order to receive a degree. I guess that could be a savings for the state. Though it's hardly a "basic skills" test, and would certainly challenge some recent immigrant students, if you have a lot of those. (In our school district, over sixty languages were spoken, from Hmong to Somali to Turkish, and it was always those kids who had the most problems, if they had been here only a few years.)

When my kids were in high school, SAT was the more common test (though they usually took ACT, too), but it was totally optional. And you took PSAT your junior year, so I guess it was sort of the same as your district requiring ACT for juniors.

[southerncrone]

8. Yes, it is a graduation requirement. They also must pass

an End of Course test in all core classes, IN ADDITION TO the Gateway test for Fr. Science, Biology, Jr. English, Algebra 1, Amer. History & they add more of these each year. Until this year they also had to take a Final Exam in all classes, too. They still must take this Final Exam if they have missed more than 3 days in the semester.

It is no joke that we cannot teach the material for the fact that we are testing 6 wks of the year because we are on a 4x4 block. It is sheer insanity.

Before this year, the kids were required to take the ACT on the Saturday offerings. We are a large school, so we were always a testing site. This is the first yr they are taking the ACT during a school day.

We do have a few ESL students, certainly no where near your diversity. Ours are mainly Mexican Hispanic, Korean, Japanese & an occasional European or South American.

Our state has recently signed on to the Diploma Project, which will mean many more changes & stringent curriculum for the kids.

[peace13]

7. Is proctoring harder than teaching for the day?

Would it be more advantageous to the teachers if ACT paid their wages or are you suggesting that teachers need to be paid twice for the day?

[southerncrone]

9. Proctoring is easier than teaching.

However, we are still required to meet our standards which are virtually unattainable, anyway.

The school uses a "testing zone" for all of these tests, which means that we basically have a fruit-basket-turn-over situation. Over 1/2 the school must change rooms for this to happen. No proctors will be in their normal classrooms. When we are proctoring, we cannot do anything else. No grading papers, no planning, nothing. Just sitting there & watching the kids taking the test, giving out extra pencils, reading instructions, taking up papers, etc. So the time we are proctoring is taking away from the time we would be handling our normal job requirements. Keep in mind this is for 4 HOURS. That's 4 hours that we'll have to make up on our own time in the grading & planning dept.

So, yes, I do feel like we should be paid for this proctoring.

[noamnety]

11. easier, but more miserable.

Most of us get pretty stir crazy with nothing to do for 4 hours to occupy us. I can take about 10 minutes of standing staring into space, and then I want to stab my eyes out.

We also require prep time (unpaid, after school) to read the test supervisor manuals (obnoxiously long and painful), and we had mandatory staff meetings where we had to practice filling out all the forms including the registration stuff and incident reports if there was an irregularity.

[noamnety]

10. We do this at our school

The ACT replaces part of the old state standardized tests. I support that, because the state tests before didn't benefit the students at all, and those who were planning to go to college had to do two rounds of tests - the state ones, and then ACTs or SATs at their own expense.

Now it's compressed into one round of testing that makes college admissions at least one tiny bit more accessible to them - if we MUST have standardized tests, they may as well be the ACT or SAT, no?

All that assumes we need the standardized testing for all students, and having administered them, I have such major problems with how they are handled for kids with disabilities that I just can't support it as a basic concept. Some of our kids in the past have been so stressed out they were pacing the halls talking to themselves frantically afterwards - the emotional impact for some of the kids with autism/aspergers is something the test supporters just don't grasp. I've also read tests to kids with disabilities that affected their ability to read, and the instructions were so discriminatory I had a moral problem participating in it - even though I had to as a job requirement.

[southerncrone]

12. Agree about the kids with disabilities.

The testing companies don't care about them. They are only after the $. In their eyes, these kids can be moneymakers for them because they might need to take the test numerous times.

This whole standardized testing craze nauseates me. See my post #8 listing all the testing we are required to do. It is ludicrous. All this testing is making the kids cynical, too. They will make comments like, "This better be on the tests, Mrs. Smith, cause we can't learn anything that's not on the tests." Or "You'll make our school look bad if you waste our time teaching something that's not on the tests." These are all sarcastic remarks, but there is truth to them!

What are we teaching our youth these days? No wonder they view school as punishment & prison.

[noamnety]

13. You know what would be great?

If everyone involved in developing a test had to teach a year at a Title One school, and had to get their own class to pass the test with 100% success before they could make it a state requirement. If they themselves can't teach successfully get their own class (of nonprivileged kids) to pass it, they shouldn't be allowed to market it as part of "No Child Left Behind."

[southerncrone]

14. Excellent idea!!!

That is why it will never happen. :(

The legislators should have to pass them, too, before they can be mandated. Those who don't pass should be kicked out of the legislature, as they are not intelligent enough to be making such important decisions that effect millions of people.

I work in a relatively small system. Our school board members NEVER visit the schools. Neither do our state congressmen. I find this a major problem. I suspect it's the case all around the country, not just here.

When is the last time a US Congressman visited a school for anything but a photo op to cut a ribbon or plant a tree? They NEVER enter classrooms for any length of time to just observe what the everyday reality is. Yet they make policy based on hearsay, ancient experience & business deals.

Then they are horrified when the US has slipped miserably in comparison to other countries in the level of education. Pleeeeezzz.

We teachers are educating children today IN SPITE of the system, instead of BECAUSE of the system.

[Taitertots]

15. What is the problem

If children can't get satisfactory scores on an ACT they shouldn't be allowed to graduate.

Some children who might not have taken the test or considered college might get into higher education.

So far the only complaint is that teachers want more money and the ACT test company is making money.

[southerncrone]

16. Reflecting back on your school experience, what percentage of

students in your class would have passed the ACT or SAT test? In the past, these were given to those students aspiring to attend college, usually the upper echelon. Many of them did not pass them.

Now we are requiring ALL students to take this test to graduate. Mind you they don't HAVE to pass it, but our schools are rated & ranked based on the % who do pass, including special ed & second-language students. If we don't have a high enough percentage, we suffer extreme examination & restructuring (basically, it boils down to the browbeating of teachers). This is fine if all of the systems were equal in funds & experiences. Our county is a poorer rural county. We are being compared to schools who have twice the funds & wealthier, more educated families who are more likely to support their kids education in the home.

Teachers will always want more money, because on the average for the education required, we make so much less than other professionals. Is it wrong for us to want more? Seems other professions want more money, too, & no one puts them down for that, but teachers.....oh,no.....can't have that.....they're just whining. All of your public servants deserve more money...policemen, firemen, garbage collectors, etc.

These testing companies have now wormed their way into getting paid to test EVERY student, not just the college-bound. How'd you like to triple your sales overnight? IT IS A RACKET.

Keep in mind the money paid to these testing companies to test these extra students is directly taking it away from the educational budget.....money we could use for supplies & books to TEACH them.

[Taitertots]

17. Only the ones who shouldn't have been able to graduate

couldn't get acceptable ACT scores. I think passing ACT or some equivalent test should be a requirement for graduation. If students are not getting adequate scores there should be examination and action should be taken. Even if it is not a requirement, everyone should take the test to see how well the school is doing.


So it is alright if you get more money, but a racket if the ACT testing companies make money.

The very worst that happens is you don't make more money.