I can totally see why parents would want to opt out. It's well within their right. It's not just the SAT, which I am fine with because it has its place.
There are just too many high stakes exams right now, especially for younger students. This along with the time devoted to practice tests = out of control. The reaction some young students are developing, such as severe test anxiety manifesting in the form of vomiting an nausea or excessive crying, is in insane.
I'm honestly concerned for my child, but we're lucky because she's only in preschool. There's still time for the pendulum to swing back to a less crazy pace by the time she starts Kindergarten.
I haven't read through all of the replies, yet, but found myself nodding my head when reading this response.
I can see why parents opt out. Anecdote: I have a 13 year old daughter who took the FCAT writing this year. It wasn't like 3rd grade where, if you did not get a certain score on the FCAT Math and Reading, you would be held back (which I completely disagree with), so there wasn't that pressure on her. However, she was still so worked up that she was crying the night before the test and had real anxiety about taking it. She isn't a great test taker, but she has honor roll and does well on smaller tests. The large, high stakes, tests freak her out and I don't blame her for feeling that way.
The kids just went back to school after Spring Break and this last 9 weeks is worthless as all they are doing is practicing for the FCATs that they will be taking later this month. It's ridiculous.
If enough people start opting out, something will need to be done to change the ridiculous amount of testing going on. Even the superintendent of the school district I teach in supports parents opting their kids out of testing. This has nothing to do with being a wuss.
This is not the same as taking the SAT. The SAT is under 4 hours long and I'm guessing most teenagers take it once or maybe twice. I teach 9 and 10 year olds. They have 3 reading tests (60 min each), 3 writing tests (60 min each), and 3 math tests (65 minutes each). This year they also have a social studies test. The first day is a whopping 110 minutes, and the second two days are 90 minutes. If you have any tips on keeping 9 and 10 year-old kids silent and still for a hundred and ten minutes, please let me know!
That's 845 minutes (over 14 hours) of actual test time, not counting giving directions, answering questions, and sample problems (about 10-15 minutes each test), and not to mention the time to get the kids ready for all of these tests, loss of instructional time, and inability to teach anything else during testing weeks because the kids are FRIED. This also doesn't count MAP tests (about 9 more hours each year).
Testing is Out. Of. Control.
i don't see the big deal. (ftr - no idea what standardized testing is like here, so not even sure if i am affected and to what extent).
i mean, it's school. you learn, you get tested on what you learned.
i can see why teachers want to opt out, but i guess i don't get why parents are in an uproar. this is like the educational equivalent to people diagnosing themselves on the google. just butt out and let people do their jobs. or homeschool if you don't like it.
There is a huge difference between taking a test and standardized testing. Assessing whether or not children have learned what the teacher taught them? Good idea (although authentic assessment should be used whenever possible). But having weeks of expensive, time-consuming standardized tests that are tied to school funds and teachers' jobs? Horrible idea.
i don't see the big deal. (ftr - no idea what standardized testing is like here, so not even sure if i am affected and to what extent).
i mean, it's school. you learn, you get tested on what you learned.
i can see why teachers want to opt out, but i guess i don't get why parents are in an uproar. this is like the educational equivalent to people diagnosing themselves on the google. just butt out and let people do their jobs. or homeschool if you don't like it.
I am no expert by any means, but I disagree here - spending a tremendous amount of time and energy taking these type of tests which have a tendency to be a test of who can memorize stuff best, doesn't seem terribly helpful in actually TEACHING kids anything. I think some testing is good, mainly for practice for the important tests to come, but all the testing seems excessive to me..... as does the amount of homework kids seem to be getting these days. It seems counter productive to spend so much time focused on getting good test results over and over again rather than focussing on expanding knowledge and fostering a love of learning.
Not to mention that the criteria for each test changes from year to year, so it's a constant moving target for teachers and students.
I can totally see why parents would want to opt out. It's well within their right. It's not just the SAT, which I am fine with because it has its place.
There are just too many high stakes exams right now, especially for younger students. This along with the time devoted to practice tests = out of control. The reaction some young students are developing, such as severe test anxiety manifesting in the form of vomiting an nausea or excessive crying, is in insane.
I'm honestly concerned for my child, but we're lucky because she's only in preschool. There's still time for the pendulum to swing back to a less crazy pace by the time she starts Kindergarten.
Spot on. Several of my friends' kids are suffering from major anxiety due to these tests (nausea, crying fits, shaking, etc). My kids are preschool, too, and I hope things change before they have to deal with this. I have also been considering going private and this is one o f the main reasons.
i don't see the big deal. Â (ftr - no idea what standardized testing is like here, so not even sure if i am affected and to what extent).
i mean, it's school. Â you learn, you get tested on what you learned. Â
i can see why teachers want to opt out, but i guess i don't get why parents are in an uproar. Â this is like the educational equivalent to people diagnosing themselves on the google. Â just butt out and let people do their jobs. Â or homeschool if you don't like it.
There is a huge difference between taking a test and standardized testing. Assessing whether or not children have learned what the teacher taught them? Good idea (although authentic assessment should be used whenever possible). But having weeks of expensive, time-consuming standardized tests that are tied to school funds and teachers' jobs? Horrible idea.
I can assess my students in a developmentally appropriate way on what is taught in class. That is completely different than standardized tests where you get the results 6 months later. I wish I could tell you some of the essay prompts on these tests. It is a complete waste of time. We can not expect young kids to sit still and silent and take test after test for 3 weeks and expect to see their best work. They try hard, but it's stressful and worthless. I could teach whole new units if I had all that wasted time back.
bab, please don't post things like this unless you have counted the number of people of one particular opinion and collected their demographic information. We're not PCE but apparently in this post we are. TIA.
Anecdote here - I have a friend who opted out of testing for her third grader. She is advanced in her class and this is the test that determined the gifted program. The mom had a bad gifted experience growing up so she did not want her daughter to experience the same. The school tested her anyway! The mom is pissed - just happened last week so not sure what she is going to do. Her theory is the school tested her so it would help increase their overall scores.
Most states have makeup days. It's very likely that if she sent her back to school and it was still a makeup day that the school was obligated to test her.
So, this is actually about people not wanting their child to have a label. I can understand your frustration about that being considered a bad thing.
This comment is a tad much
I don't understand. I thought that speckledfrog was agreeing with you here, bab ? That she was saying if people are opting out because they don't want their kids to be labeled, she agrees with you that it is a poor choice.
Anecdote here - I have a friend who opted out of testing for her third grader. She is advanced in her class and this is the test that determined the gifted program. The mom had a bad gifted experience growing up so she did not want her daughter to experience the same. The school tested her anyway! The mom is pissed - just happened last week so not sure what she is going to do. Her theory is the school tested her so it would help increase their overall scores.
Most states have makeup days. It's very likely that if she sent her back to school and it was still a makeup day that the school was obligated to test her.
I know there is no "opt-out" option in NJ other than keeping kids out of school for the days of the test and the make-up days. If the child is in school, the child must take the test. There is no form or letter you can send to get the school not to test the child, because by law, they are required to test all students.
This is timely since my 7th grader is in the midst of two weeks of these tests right now.
I could be wrong but it is my understanding that all the "labeling" happens prior to the tests in order to offer the chidren a better chance of getting a good score. Tests and times can be modified for the student if they are given an IEP that calls for it. The tests don't determine the IEP, the student's progress in school and learning determines that.
I have many teachers in my family and as friends and I wouldn't want to be a teacher for anything in the world right now. They aren't being allowed to teach and I am pretty sure it is not just the kids who are anxious about these tests (I think I saw my cousin, a teacher, rocking in the corner next to her students, lol).
You alluded to what I was going to say. True, children aren't labeled by these tests, but if a child is having difficulties or already identified as a special education student, these tests have added difficulties for them, beyond their typical struggles.
bab , are you sure the parents who are opting out are doing so to avoid a "label," and not because their kids are already suspected or identified as having learning difficulties?
I ask, because in NJ--or at least in my large district--children with IEPs are required to take the same test as everyone else in their grade, without most of the accommodations that are afforded to them under their IEPs. This means that children who have already been identified as not being able to work at grade level are forced to sit for a week of testing at that beyond-their-abilities-level, and they are not given any of the tools they've been taught to use to help them do their best.
I think the only accommodations allowed is that they can take it in a room by themselves and, if their learning difficulty involves reading, someone can read the instructions and math problems to them. But that means that a person with a reading difficulty, for example, must read all the questions and multiple choice answers themselves on the entire language arts portion of the test. This doesn't provide for an accurate picture of what the child knows. The kid could be a whiz at vocabulary, for example, but wouldn't do when because he has dyslexia and can't read the question. Even language arts is not as simple as (can't read) = (doesn't know the information), or (can't read) = (isn't able to comprehend written passages), or even (can't read) = (doesn't know the basics of grammar). Not being able to read doesn't mean a teacher failed or a child doesn't understand language arts. Sometimes, not being able to read is a neurological issue that is entirely separate from the child's ability to learn.
Same thing for math. Now you take a kid who's been working on learning his multiplication tables and you give him a test that includes long division, fractions, etc. In the weeks before the test, you explain the concept so he's not totally overwhelmed. But he's used to having manipulatives (physical objects he can move around to demonstrate what happens in a mathematical equation) to understand math concepts. How do you think this kid is going to fare on the test?
My kid uses a white board for his multiplication and long division. For some reason, using it really makes a difference. He does so much better using it than regular paper or even graph paper. I don't understand why, I just know it works. Yet, we are unsure of whether they'll let him use the white board for the test. We've asked, and they are "looking into it." Why would this be a problem? He knows he has to copy the work over so the graders can make sure he knows how to do it. Why would it make a difference if he first calculated the problem on a white board and then copied it over? Yet, they may very well still say no, because it is not one of the "allowed accommodations" for the test.
I mention all of this, because if the parents are opting out, not because they don't want their kids labeled, but because they already know that the deck will be stacked so far against their child and it will only be a hit to their self esteem, I can totally understand them opting out. We've considered it, for sure. Remarkably, my son surprised us with how well he scored last year.
I don't understand. I thought that speckledfrog was agreeing with you here, bab ? That she was saying if people are opting out because they don't want their kids to be labeled, she agrees with you that it is a poor choice.
I see. I didn't get that at all. I thought she was just saying that if the issue really was that parents didn't want their kids labeled, she could agree with babs.
I was not aware, but my parents agreed to have me be part of this long-term tracking study in my area, starting in kindergarten. This meant that, in addition to the tests everyone else takes, a few other kids and I also took at least one OTHER standardized-type test a year. I hated taking the tests, and they wanted to disenroll me, but I lived in a highly transient area (military) so the study people begged my parents to let me stay.
I used to throw up (literally) before every test--all of them, not just the extra ones. THROW UP. My parents didn't know that (or my teachers, except my 4th grade teacher because I didn't make it to the bathroom and I lied and said I was sick). This never went away. I threw up before the SAT, LSAT, and bar exam too. And several of my law school exams.
The results of that study, when I finally remembered to ask about it, were published and as I recall determined that not until 5th or 6th grade does the standardized testing really serve as an accurate predictor of future academic success. Before that, it's all wacked out with far less strong correlation. I have no idea how many kids were part of the study or if these results comport with the results of other similar studies, but I will tell you it has made me HIGHLY FUCKING SKEPTICAL of the obsession over testing. Even more so than I would've been naturally because I LOVE learning and filling in a scantron sheet doesn't resemble "learning".
In conclusion, this was a tangent.
P.S. Despite my skepticism, I wouldn't opt out of anything for mere label avoidance.
If enough people start opting out, something will need to be done to change the ridiculous amount of testing going on. Even the superintendent of the school district I teach in supports parents opting their kids out of testing. This has nothing to do with being a wuss.
This is not the same as taking the SAT. The SAT is under 4 hours long and I'm guessing most teenagers take it once or maybe twice. I teach 9 and 10 year olds. They have 3 reading tests (60 min each), 3 writing tests (60 min each), and 3 math tests (65 minutes each). This year they also have a social studies test. The first day is a whopping 110 minutes, and the second two days are 90 minutes. If you have any tips on keeping 9 and 10 year-old kids silent and still for a hundred and ten minutes, please let me know!
That's 845 minutes (over 14 hours) of actual test time, not counting giving directions, answering questions, and sample problems (about 10-15 minutes each test), and not to mention the time to get the kids ready for all of these tests, loss of instructional time, and inability to teach anything else during testing weeks because the kids are FRIED. This also doesn't count MAP tests (about 9 more hours each year).
Testing is Out. Of. Control.
i don't see the big deal. (ftr - no idea what standardized testing is like here, so not even sure if i am affected and to what extent).
i mean, it's school. you learn, you get tested on what you learned.
i can see why teachers want to opt out, but i guess i don't get why parents are in an uproar. this is like the educational equivalent to people diagnosing themselves on the google. just butt out and let people do their jobs. or homeschool if you don't like it.
The difference is that the SAT is 4 hrs on a SATURDAY usually. These umpteen million tests take days of actual classroom teaching time away from your kid because they happen during the school day.
Most states have makeup days. It's very likely that if she sent her back to school and it was still a makeup day that the school was obligated to test her.
I know there is no "opt-out" option in NJ other than keeping kids out of school for the days of the test and the make-up days. If the child is in school, the child must take the test. There is no form or letter you can send to get the school not to test the child, because by law, they are required to test all students.
They sent a form home before the test that she signed to opt out. Then they tested her anyway.
Post by Captain Serious on Apr 1, 2014 9:03:33 GMT -5
Another problem I have with these tests, is that here, all the kids know that these tests are "tests of the teachers and not the kids." I'm sure this started as a good thing, to try to take the pressure off the kids, but what it's turned into is horrific. The teachers put so much pressure on the kids to perform well, because otherwise they might be fired, and the kids--most of whom have developed decent relationships with their teachers--actually feel that pressure and are petrified that if they make a mistake poor Miss Sullivan is going to lose her job, and who will take over the class then?!?
I'm not saying it's intentional, but the prep for the test starts early, and the test is talked about from the first day of school, literally. The reminders are constant and pervasive. Teachers send home test prep pages as homework, and remind kids that they have to do things a certain way, because that's the way they'll have to do it on the test all year long.
Last year, M's homework switched to almost entirely test prep about two months before the test. A good portion of what they did in class was also test prep. That wouldn't be so bad, except he's not up to grade level, so for two months, he was working on stuff well beyond what he had learned. It was stressful and made him feel as though he were "stupid" (his word). Worse yet, he didn't have any time to revisit the stuff he had learned and was working on right before that time, so he forgot a lot of it. So, not only were those two months pretty much wasted, he lost a lot of what he was on his way to learning just before that time. It was such a waste. We discussed our opinions of this in his IEP meeing, and it's been somewhat better this year, but it's still a constant pressure that the kids could do without.
I would encourage people to opt out of the test for an entirely different reason- to help fight the corporatization of public schools. People are getting very, very rich off of this testing movement (and it's not your child's teachers or local district.) - Signed, the person from Indiana, where, apparently, the governor wants to privatize our entire education system
I know there is no "opt-out" option in NJ other than keeping kids out of school for the days of the test and the make-up days. If the child is in school, the child must take the test. There is no form or letter you can send to get the school not to test the child, because by law, they are required to test all students.
They sent a form home before the test that she signed to opt out. Then they tested her anyway.
That's weird. Maybe they misplaced her form? Here, it's not even an option to opt-out in writing. The only option is to keep your kid home for two weeks (one week for the testing and one for the make-up time). Since they only test in the morning, that means your kid misses the afternoon part of their classes and has to make it all up after.
I give up. LOL My OP is about my own real life experience with people I know in my own neighborhood (as I have stated a few times already). There are no research articles or news stories to prove my point. I'm just talking about the chatter in my hood.
Then edit your OP. The majority of parents who are opting out are doing it to protest the ridiculous Mount if testing going on in elementary school. here kindy kids will have 4 weeks of testing. damn straight no 5 yr old should deal with that.
My first grader hasn't had any testing, and won't until 3rd grade.
Why is there such a discrepancy in the amount of testing?
Then edit your OP. The majority of parents who are opting out are doing it to protest the ridiculous Mount if testing going on in elementary school. here kindy kids will have 4 weeks of testing. damn straight no 5 yr old should deal with that.
My first grader hasn't had any testing, and won't until 3rd grade.
Why is there such a discrepancy in the amount of testing?
Some states are improvment states I think and have more required tests, some states have just chosen to up the anty and do more testing for "accountability" the fact that it isn't consistent reinforces the idea that it is 100% unnecessary to test so much. Kids in school should be learning not spending a big chunk of time preparing for and taking multiple standardized tests.
I would encourage people to opt out of the test for an entirely different reason- to help fight the corporatization of public schools. People are getting very, very rich off of this testing movement (and it's not your child's teachers or local district.) - Signed, the person from Indiana, where, apparently, the governor wants to privatize our entire education system
THIS. Aaaaand it all boils down to following the $$$.
Standardized tests, back in my day (I graduated HS in 1998), were merely used to determine percentiles and to make sure that teachers and parents were aware of the progress their kids were making as compared to others in the state/and or country. In 11th grade we had to take and pass a High School Competency test, but we could retake any section until we passed it if needed. Teachers (FULL DISCLOSURE-I am one now) were treated as professionals and trusted to create, administer and score students based on their performance.....if students passed the class then they went on. If they didn't pass then they were held back or did not graduate.
At some point, supposedly well-meaning politicians wanted to give tests to determine of school funding was doing what it was supposed to. The problem was that they made the tests top secret....teachers could not see, discuss, or help develop said tests. It was at this point that the power shift began. Big testing corporations and publishers were given the contracts to create and print the tests. Politicians were lobbied by these companies. Schools began to be graded on the results of these mysterious tests and those grades helped determine funding.
Kids began to suffer....held back or put into remedial classes if they did not get a certain score. Politicians THEN began saying "LOOK how horrible our public schools are! We need to start charter schools and funnel money away from public ed....BUT those charter schools will not have to be accountable for the same stringent testing procedures AND big corporations can get huge tax breaks by starting or investing in charters!!!" And finally, the gubment now won't have to pay teachers the money they deserve because it's have found a way to base our salaries on these bogus "standardized" tests.
Follow the $$$. Wake up people, kids are suffering bc of the greed of our politicians who think they are educational experts just because they attended school once. And don't even get me started on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation!!!
My first grader hasn't had any testing, and won't until 3rd grade.
Why is there such a discrepancy in the amount of testing?
Some states are improvment states I think and have more required tests, some states have just chosen to up the anty and do more testing for "accountability" the fact that it isn't consistent reinforces the idea that it is 100% unnecessary to test so much. Kids in school should be learning not spending a big chunk of time preparing for and taking multiple standardized tests.
I don't disagree that they shouldn't be taking multiple tests. I also don't think that kindergarteners should be taking them.
But I do think there is a place for some standardized testing to help measure student performance on a grand scale. Is it perfect? No. But it's one part of a comprehensive measurement of student success if it can be somewhat reasonable (like one round of testing per year for older kids, etc). Like it was back when we were kids - you take some assessment every couple of years vs what some are saying is happening now with multiple tests every year.
While I think it's important to capture the in classroom assessment by the teacher for student growth, I do also think it's important to have quantitative data on student performance, which we get from testing.
Post by gullterre15 on Apr 1, 2014 12:45:01 GMT -5
OK, to address the OP and appease the single subject peeps (toledo), there are always going to be a few people who jump on the bandwagon of a righteous cause for UN-righteous reasons.....such as people who are afraid their kids will be "labeled" as a result of the tests.
For example, another anecdote: Here in FL if a student (either in HS or 8th grade going into HS) only gets a 1 or a 2 on the Reading FCAT 2.0 then he or she MUST be placed into an "Intensive Reading" class for remediation. I used to teach the 9th grade General Ed (as opposed to learning disabled that I teach now) versions of those Reading classes. Parents with kids who had "always been" honors had "messed up" on their 8th grade FCAT and wound up in the IR classes their freshman year. I had a lot of kids that said "OH yeah I didn't feel like trying on the test last year" etc. Well too bad kid, face the consequences.
SO, I can see how some parents may opt out of the standardized tests not bc said tests are wrong in general but bc they are worried about their "precious" Johnny or Jill screwing up. But the Opt-Out movement is still a righteous cause.
Post by sparkythelawyer on Apr 1, 2014 14:03:19 GMT -5
I'm always intrigued reading about all these tests students undergo these days.
On one hand, standardized tests in grade school and high school didn't bug me in the slightest, so all of the "My child wlil be vomiting all day from the anxiety" sounds weird to me. On the other hand, teachers, administrators and parents are putting so much more pressure on these tests and their meaning, both good and bad, than they ever have, so I can see how the racheted up anxiety bleeds over into the kids. I didn't realize how badly I suck at standardized tests until like, the ACTs.
Also, I think you have to come up with some sort of meaningful way to evaluate whether a teacher is capable, and whether a student is learning and making progress sufficient to move up to the next level/graduate/etc. Maybe testing is it, maybe testing is not. Who knows. I am also wondering what the effect of these tests are on tenure? Can a tenured teacher lose his/her tenure if their students do not perform well enough? I'd support the testing if it meant that tenure was eliminated.
Also, the whole topic sort of makes me think that we as a society have really come to distrust people with training in this world. We distrust teachers, principals, and administrators as being people just out for themselves or in "some corporation's pocket." We distrust doctors because "They just want our money, are being underwritten by the insurance companies, etc." We distrust scientists (for example, those who research vaccines) because "they're just in big pharma's pocket. What concerns me is that sometimes it feels like the only person we as a society are learning to trust is a SAHM with unfettered access to google. And a published blog. Why is it that once people have training in a field, we are so quick to discredit them?
Anyway, this was ramblesome, so feel free to disregard :-)
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Can you start a separate thread and tell me?
Wait, for realsies or are you being ironic? *-)
For realsies. I have my own, non-heated thoughts on the Foundation, but I don't know much about it. I'm kinda curious why you have strong feelings and wondering if I should know more about it.
I'm always intrigued reading about all these tests students undergo these days.
On one hand, standardized tests in grade school and high school didn't bug me in the slightest, so all of the "My child wlil be vomiting all day from the anxiety" sounds weird to me. On the other hand, teachers, administrators and parents are putting so much more pressure on these tests and their meaning, both good and bad, than they ever have, so I can see how the racheted up anxiety bleeds over into the kids. I didn't realize how badly I suck at standardized tests until like, the ACTs. The standardized tests we took as kids were WAY different than what kids deal with today. Growing up, I took 2 big ones. One in 4th grade, one in 9th. 4th grade was meant to point out really big problems in academic proficiency, 9th grade had to be passed by the end of 12th grade to graduate. You could take it 2x/yr, and only had to retake sections that you didn't pass. It was used to "guarantee," a base level of proficiency to function in society/life. Annual city wide testing was used to determine resources for the schools in our district only, so while there were other exams, they were really just used as a guide, not an evaluation of success tool. THAT, imo, is what tests were intended for, and I'd be ok if we went back to that
Also, I think you have to come up with some sort of meaningful way to evaluate whether a teacher is capable, and whether a student is learning and making progress sufficient to move up to the next level/graduate/etc. Maybe testing is it, maybe testing is not. Who knows. I am also wondering what the effect of these tests are on tenure? Can a tenured teacher lose his/her tenure if their students do not perform well enough? I'd support the testing if it meant that tenure was eliminated. I cannot adequately express my disagreement with that idea. You can take a shitty teacher, drop them in a school in a high socio-economic area with involved parents and kids who have loads of resources at home (books, internet access, food, etc), and those kids will test well. You can take a great teacher and drop them into a school where 98% of the kids are on free and reduced lunch, parents may or may not make sure they get to school, they may not have dinner 4x/week, let alone every night, never get to go to the library, no internet at home (you get the idea), and there isn't much that teacher can do to get great scores. They can do their best, but they will never be able to "achieve" the scores that shitty teacher in $$$ district will achieve.
The whole "All Schools Are The Same, So Lets Test Them The Same Because Teachers Need To Step Up" idea makes me absolutely rage. If all schools are the same, lets move the apparently good teachers from the "good" schools to the "bad" schools (with obviously "bad" teachers) in the district and WALLA! Problem should be magically solved. No? Oh, ok then.
Also, the whole topic sort of makes me think that we as a society have really come to distrust people with training in this world. We distrust teachers, principals, and administrators as being people just out for themselves or in "some corporation's pocket." We distrust doctors because "They just want our money, are being underwritten by the insurance companies, etc." We distrust scientists (for example, those who research vaccines) because "they're just in big pharma's pocket. What concerns me is that sometimes it feels like the only person we as a society are learning to trust is a SAHM with unfettered access to google. And a published blog. Why is it that once people have training in a field, we are so quick to discredit them? I don't distrust doctors, researchers, educators, or the like. I don't think most people do. You don't go into primary medical care, teaching, or academic research to get rich. If you're really good at some of those things, you can make more money than others, but as a whole, those professions aren't rolling in dough. I DO, however, distrust politicians writing these absolutely absurd education regulations because of the corporate education lobby behind all the "reform." Printing, re-printing because the test is now an Achievement Test instead of a State Evaluation, adjusting standards, and revising the same standards (with NO actual result in better school and student performance) does exactly nothing but line the pockets of those pushing the reform.
Anyway, this was ramblesome, so feel free to disregard :-)