The future of EdChoice

Kballer

Well-known member
Both of you above are correct, but it's no different than any college transfer, not all credits count. If I know I'm going to UC, I'm going to take all the CCP classes UC has to offer.

As was stated, if you take CCP courses from Cincinnati State, a private college or any out of state college would just say no, they are not accept that.

Being a smart consumer was the point of my post about CCP over AP.
And conversely if you are trying to get into Notre Dame or Vanderbilt you want to get those AP classes and 4/5 on exam. I agree about being a smart consumer and it’s about aiming right- choosing schools that match your ability and budget
 

ogealbhain

Active member
It should be fairly common sense. Think about calculators used in 1980 vs now. The math and science in particular had to get incredibly more difficult over the decades. They also in 2005 added the Writing test and that was last changed in 2015.

The reason we keep getting so many perfect and near perfect scores are because people are now ACT experts that teach kids exactly how to master the test. Kids also take it many times, whereas we took it once and just dealt with our scores. ACT and test prep is BIG business. So no matter how ACT and SAT change, people will be right there figuring out the new tests.
There is no data or research in this post.
 

cincifbfan

Well-known member
There is no data or research in this post.



Talk to any testing expert who studies these standardized tests and they will tell you what I said. The tests are getting harder as they rightfully should. Our students are smarter, capable handling more complex material, and studying/preparing better than ever. The science section used to just basically have testers interpret charts and graphs, whereas now it is incredibly complex. The math has gotten dramatically more difficult as technology has improved and students are taking ever-increasingly difficult Math classes in high school that weren't a possibility decades ago. The reading no longer just has testers read a single passage and answer questions about that passage. They have to read multiple passages from differing perspectives and answer questions from those passages.

As I stated in my original response, common sense would tell you that these tests are getting increasingly difficult as we become more advanced and evolved as humans.

It will be interesting to see how the scenario plays out now that we have more and more colleges not even requiring SAT or ACT scores.
 

D4fan

Well-known member
It has been a few years now since my youngest took the ACT. If I recall correctly, the ACT has to constantly be changed to challenge students and therefore prevent multiple perfect scores.
As I understand it, a specific version of the ACT is given, then they use percentages to determine how many questions kids who took that test could miss and still get a 36. A 36 does not mean you scored 100% on the test, it means you scored in the top 1% of test takers that day. As more students come closer to getting an actual 100% on the test, the test questions get improved or strengthened to prevent too many perfect scores from occurring and thus allowing the ACT to be used as a determinant of approximately what percentile of student one is rather than what a student has mastered.

To that end, over the years the test has gotten more difficult. Conversely, the aim is for the test to produce the exact same percentile of top scores today as years ago.in my mind, there are multiple reasons school districts such as Mason have so many top performers. One is the district has top performing parents. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree axiom. Another, is these types of districts take test performance seriously compared to many others.

The end result is for Mason to have a large number of kids with 36 scores, neighboring districts will have their student average score go down. This keeps the percentages steady so the ACT can predict accurately where an individual student falls in terms of percentile compared to their peers.

So if all kids take it today will the scores go down? No. THE ACT WILL STILL RANK EACH STUDENT BASED ON THE TOTAL OF ALL SCORES FOR THE TEST THAT DAY. What does occur though by having all students take it is an elevation of test scores for those who go on to college. The reason is simple. When all students take the test the number of questions a student needs to get correct to score a 30 on the test goes down due to the fact more weak students are taking the test and the test is designed to tell you what percentile student you are among those students that took that specific test on that day. This is also why getting the results back takes so long. It's not just a simple matter of "grading" the test.

So when ALL STUDENTS TAKE THE TEST, THIS CAUSES MORE TOP SCORES TO POP UP IN CONCENTRATED AREAS (top performing districts), hence the Mason result.
 
Last edited:

D4fan

Well-known member
I read the link above for "is the ACT getting harder ?".

Figuring out when the greatest number of low performing students will take the ACT test on a given day may help boost your score, as you are higher in the percentile.
Kids that are required to take it often procrastinate, and it is this group of students you want to place yourself within. Of course, once word gets out about how much higher you score taking the last offered test of the year, you may have to tweak it.
Most top performing Universities want your scores early your senior year so avoid that first test in the fall if possible as you will be competing against a higher percentage of top performers, making your score lower.
 
Last edited:

ringer2

Active member
It has been a few years now since my youngest took the ACT. If I recall correctly, the ACT has to constantly be changed to challenge students and therefore prevent multiple perfect scores.
As I understand it, a specific version of the ACT is given, then they use percentages to determine how many questions kids who took that test could miss and still get a 36. A 36 does not mean you scored 100% on the test, it means you scored in the top 1% of test takers that day. As more students come closer to getting an actual 100% on the test, the test questions get improved or strengthened to prevent too many perfect scores from occurring and thus allowing the ACT to be used as a determinant of approximately what percentile of student one is rather than what a student has mastered.

To that end, over the years the test has gotten more difficult. Conversely, the aim is for the test to produce the exact same percentile of top scores today as years ago.in my mind, there are multiple reasons school districts such as Mason have so many top performers. One is the district has top performing parents. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree axiom. Another, is these types of districts take test performance seriously compared to many others.

The end result is for Mason to have a large number of kids with 36 scores, neighboring districts will have their student average score go down. This keeps the percentages steady so the ACT can predict accurately where an individual student falls in terms of percentile compared to their peers.

So if all kids take it today will the scores go down? No. THE ACT WILL STILL RANK EACH STUDENT BASED ON THE TOTAL OF ALL SCORES FOR THE TEST THAT DAY. What does occur though by having all students take it is an elevation of test scores for those who go on to college. The reason is simple. When all students take the test the number of questions a student needs to get correct to score a 30 on the test goes down due to the fact more weak students are taking the test and the test is designed to tell you what percentile student you are among those students that took that specific test on that day. This is also why getting the results back takes so long. It's not just a simple matter of "grading" the test.

So when ALL STUDENTS TAKE THE TEST, THIS CAUSES MORE TOP SCORES TO POP UP IN CONCENTRATED AREAS (top performing districts), hence the Mason result.
It has been a few years now since my youngest took the ACT. If I recall correctly, the ACT has to constantly be changed to challenge students and therefore prevent multiple perfect scores.
As I understand it, a specific version of the ACT is given, then they use percentages to determine how many questions kids who took that test could miss and still get a 36. A 36 does not mean you scored 100% on the test, it means you scored in the top 1% of test takers that day. As more students come closer to getting an actual 100% on the test, the test questions get improved or strengthened to prevent too many perfect scores from occurring and thus allowing the ACT to be used as a determinant of approximately what percentile of student one is rather than what a student has mastered.

To that end, over the years the test has gotten more difficult. Conversely, the aim is for the test to produce the exact same percentile of top scores today as years ago.in my mind, there are multiple reasons school districts such as Mason have so many top performers. One is the district has top performing parents. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree axiom. Another, is these types of districts take test performance seriously compared to many others.

The end result is for Mason to have a large number of kids with 36 scores, neighboring districts will have their student average score go down. This keeps the percentages steady so the ACT can predict accurately where an individual student falls in terms of percentile compared to their peers.

So if all kids take it today will the scores go down? No. THE ACT WILL STILL RANK EACH STUDENT BASED ON THE TOTAL OF ALL SCORES FOR THE TEST THAT DAY. What does occur though by having all students take it is an elevation of test scores for those who go on to college. The reason is simple. When all students take the test the number of questions a student needs to get correct to score a 30 on the test goes down due to the fact more weak students are taking the test and the test is designed to tell you what percentile student you are among those students that took that specific test on that day. This is also why getting the results back takes so long. It's not just a simple matter of "grading" the test.

So when ALL STUDENTS TAKE THE TEST, THIS CAUSES MORE TOP SCORES TO POP UP IN CONCENTRATED AREAS (top performing districts), hence the Mason result.
This is not correct and demonstrates a misunderstanding of how norming works in a standardized test.
 

D4fan

Well-known member
Well, then I guess I did alot of explaining for nothing LOL. Thought I had (have) it but won't say I'm not wrong either.
 

aged jock

Well-known member
You are combining a couple issues into one here.

First, we have the ruling that the current method of funding schools is unconstitutional. This needs fixed and I believe everyone agrees.

Second, the fact still remains that EdChoice takes public dollars and gives them to Private schools who do not have to abide to the same standards or BS grading system. It is flawed in a major way.
So, what we should do is take all kids down to the lowest possible level because a lot or even most are more comfortable there, and condemn a lot of kids to failure? Why not give kids who want out a chance?
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
So, what we should do is take all kids down to the lowest possible level because a lot or even most are more comfortable there, and condemn a lot of kids to failure? Why not give kids who want out a chance?
I cannot believe someone "liked" this.

Want out? That is the assumption that a public district is failing. Even if we ASSUME correct it does not mean the private district is any better. I'm not saying that you cannot get a good education at a private school, I did, but this is all based on a flawed system. A system that measures one entity and not the other. It is like saying my roads are bad so take my tax dollars and make a road better outside of my district better. o_O

Every private fan on here thinks anyone against EdChoice is saying that a private school is a poor choice. It has more to do with how everything is measured, who is measured, who is not measured, and who gets what? Some public districts give more out under EdChoice than they receive from the state. The entire thing is flawed.
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
Simply false. Where are you coming up with such nonsense?

The home school district pays $4,650 per K-12 student toward tuition and $6,000 for high-school students. If those amounts exceed the per-pupil state aid that the district receives, then more of their state aid is deducted to make up the difference.
 

D4fan

Well-known member
I cannot believe someone "liked" this.

Want out? That is the assumption that a public district is failing. Even if we ASSUME correct it does not mean the private district is any better. I'm not saying that you cannot get a good education at a private school, I did, but this is all based on a flawed system. A system that measures one entity and not the other. It is like saying my roads are bad so take my tax dollars and make a road better outside of my district better. o_O

Every private fan on here thinks anyone against EdChoice is saying that a private school is a poor choice. It has more to do with how everything is measured, who is measured, who is not measured, and who gets what? Some public districts give more out under EdChoice than they receive from the state. The entire thing is flawed.
The private school I am most familiar with does seperate testing on the kids who come in on vouchers. These kids must take a series of tests late in the year while non voucher kids stay in the classroom. I believe it is a state required test. So how are private schools not being held accountable for the state funds if the state requires testing to confirm growth?
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
The private school I am most familiar with does seperate testing on the kids who come in on vouchers. These kids must take a series of tests late in the year while non voucher kids stay in the classroom. I believe it is a state required test. So how are private schools not being held accountable for the state funds if the state requires testing to confirm growth?
Because they do not test the student body but rather just the voucher kids.

By the way, using these numbers usually shows the public outperforming the private (of course only using voucher kids).
 

D4fan

Well-known member
Because they do not test the student body but rather just the voucher kids.

By the way, using these numbers usually shows the public outperforming the private (of course only using voucher kids).
Some private schools do test all kids and then do not release their results. For years this has been the policy of the school where my wife teaches. This trend has slowly improved as the private school has :

1-required all hires for classroom teachers to have their degree in education rather than the old concept of any bachelor's degree will work
2- have retained special education teachers and test students for disabilities far more frequently than in the past. Many of these kids then qualify for a scholarship that pays their full tuition and the local district provides additional reading recovery teachers and the like. IEP's are now common but require emense effort on the teacher to properly discharge.

For the first time this year the kids at her school tested top in the county. So in general I agree with you, I attended a low performing private school from 4-8 grade, then had to catch up in high school when I went back to the same public school I attended k-3.

I think you and i agree on one point, the supposed "improvement " when many kids enter a charter school has more to do with parental involvement and support than the great education provided by charter schools. Parents who require their kids to be accountable will typically produce above average performing students.
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
Some private schools do test all kids and then do not release their results. For years this has been the policy of the school where my wife teaches. This trend has slowly improved as the private school has :

1-required all hires for classroom teachers to have their degree in education rather than the old concept of any bachelor's degree will work
2- have retained special education teachers and test students for disabilities far more frequently than in the past. Many of these kids then qualify for a scholarship that pays their full tuition and the local district provides additional reading recovery teachers and the like. IEP's are now common but require emense effort on the teacher to properly discharge.

For the first time this year the kids at her school tested top in the county. So in general I agree with you, I attended a low performing private school from 4-8 grade, then had to catch up in high school when I went back to the same public school I attended k-3.

I think you and i agree on one point, the supposed "improvement " when many kids enter a charter school has more to do with parental involvement and support than the great education provided by charter schools. Parents who require their kids to be accountable will typically produce above average performing students.
We do agree and kudos for your wife's school.

However, the EdChoice does not mandate that the privates test the same. If it did, I would not be here arguing against it. If everyone plays by the same rules then so be it, but as it stands it simply is not the case.
 

St John Baptist

Active member
the perception seems to be that there will be a mass exodus of students if the current law stays as is. Isn't the reality that there are only so many spots in these private schools to accept more students? And they have to apply to the school and be accepted before they can apply for Ed Choice.
 

ringer2

Active member
But this is very different than the statement you made that I disputed. You stated that some districts were giving more back to the state than what they were getting and state aid. That is not what this article says is happening. Indeed, that is not happening.

The truth is that nearly every district losing students to Ed choice or not being harmed financially. Yes, the revenue goes down because their state contribution decreases, but the associated expenses with educating those kids is greater in almost every circumstance. There is research by Luekens that gives evidence of this. So while a districts revenue will decrease their expenses decrease by at least the same amount in almost every case. Or at least they should decrease if they are willing to make the management issues that ought to go along with decreased enrollment.

The edchoice debate does not rise and fall on the performance of public schools versus private schools. It ought to rise and fall on giving parents the authority to make the decision on where their child goes to school.
 
Last edited:

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
I cannot believe someone "liked" this.

Want out? That is the assumption that a public district is failing. Even if we ASSUME correct it does not mean the private district is any better. I'm not saying that you cannot get a good education at a private school, I did, but this is all based on a flawed system. A system that measures one entity and not the other. It is like saying my roads are bad so take my tax dollars and make a road better outside of my district better. o_O

Every private fan on here thinks anyone against EdChoice is saying that a private school is a poor choice. It has more to do with how everything is measured, who is measured, who is not measured, and who gets what? Some public districts give more out under EdChoice than they receive from the state. The entire thing is flawed.
Quit being silly.
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
the perception seems to be that there will be a mass exodus of students if the current law stays as is. Isn't the reality that there are only so many spots in these private schools to accept more students? And they have to apply to the school and be accepted before they can apply for Ed Choice.
It does not take away the fact that you have two entities playing by different rules. Period.
 

ringer2

Active member
It does not take away the fact that you have two entities playing by different rules. Period.
Why would you want both systems playing by the same rules. If that were the case just have one system. The point is to offer an alternative to Ohio families that they deem to be in the best interest of their child.

my tax dollars pay for all kinds of things I don’t want them to go to. This just happens to be an example that that is true for you. Doesn’t mean the state shouldn’t do it.

And public dollars go to private entities ALL THE TIME. It isnt even unusual.
 
Last edited:

ringer2

Active member
I’m watching the public testimony live right now on The Ohio Channel. There is so much misinformation being spouted by witnesses opposed to EdChoice I’m losing my mind.
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
Why would you want both systems playing by the same rules. If that were the case just have one system. The point is to offer an alternative to Ohio families thet deem in the best interest of their child.

my tax dollars pay for all kinds of things I don’t want them to go to. This just happens to be an example that that is true for you. Doesn’t mean the state shouldn’t do it.
How many ways can it be explained?

You cannot have one entity held to one standard, claiming that they are failing at those standards, and then say it is ok to use taxpayer money to go to another entity that is not measured by those very standards. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
I’m watching the public testimony live right now on The Ohio Channel. There is so much misinformation being spouted by witnesses opposed to EdChoice I’m losing my mind.
It is probably because you are blinded by your allegiance to your Catholic school and refuse to understand how flawed EdChoice really is.
 
Lastly, the reason that so many people exit their public school as soon as they are given their chance when EdChoice becomes available is from this completely made up notion that the private schools are SOOO much better. The reality is it is easy to be "better" when you literally hand pick every child allowed into your institution and can remove them. If they were, they would start accepting ALL kids and not kick kids out for things like poor behavior. Take the kids with a mile-long IEP, take the kids that work 3rd shift at Amazon when as soon as they turn 18 because their parents kicked them out because "they grown now," take the kids that speak no English and work your "private school miracles" on all of them and turn them into your high ACT scores and graduation rates.
I mean, being able to send their kid to a school without kids with troubled backgrounds and mile-long IEP is a reason many people send their children to private school.
 

ringer2

Active member
How many ways can it be explained?

You cannot have one entity held to one standard, claiming that they are failing at those standards, and then say it is ok to use taxpayer money to go to another entity that is not measured by those very standards. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
This is paternalistic nonsense. Do you not trust a parent to make the best decision for their child? The people who ought to be setting the criteria are the parents of each individual child. Every parent in the state ought to be eligible for a scholarship.
 
.
Top