Ivy College Prep LLC

• Endowments are Shrinking
• Federal Research Grants are reduced
• Public Universities are being impacted by funding cuts

Few of us have escaped the economic impact of what some economists are calling the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression. The colleges haven’t escaped either.  Many, whether public or private, are more vulnerable than you might suppose. It’s a good idea to be aware of how they will be affected, especially if you’re planning to join their campuses either this fall or next.

If you attend a college with a sizable endowment, and in 2007, 373 colleges had endowments of $100 million or more (NACUBO), its endowment has probably been reduced in value. According to Moody’s Investors Service most endowments have lost, on average, almost a third of their value. Harvard’s endowment of over $37 billion might now be around $26-27. On November 10th, Drew Faust, the president of Harvard, announced that she is in the process of reviewing compensation costs (which comprises half of Harvard’s budget), possible tuition increases, and a multibillion dollar capital expenditure to expand into Boston’s Allston district.

Harvard is not alone, as Cornell, Brown, and Dartmouth have also acknowledged earlier this week, that their endowments had dropped in value. Cornell announced a suspension of any building projects for the next three months, while Brown has placed a hiring freeze on all administrative and staff positions. Dartmouth College announced spending reductions as its endowment had reportedly lost $220 million.

Federal grant and research money is also being reduced. Most of the major research universities rely heavily on such grant money to finance research and salaries.  Cornell, in 2007, received over $170 million in research grants from the state of New York. This figure is expected to be reduced by 5-10% this year.

The public universities, who educate 80% of our undergraduates, are not faring much better. The Cal State system just took a $66 million mid-year budget hit, translating into a reduction of 10,000 spaces for the fall 2009 class. The University of California’s budget is also getting axed: already underfunded by close to a billion dollars, the budget is now threatened with another $65 million in mid-year cuts.  Arizona State also just suffered a $25 million budget cut on top of the $30 million already extracted from this year’s budget.  To stem some of its red ink, it is ending its contracts with 200 adjunct professors.  All told, there will be substantial budget cuts in 17 state university systems, including New York (SUNY) and Florida. This is happening just when applications are surging in the public schools, ironically, because families turn to public universities in financially trying times.

What does all this mean? Should alarms sound when Harvard’s endowment falls below $30 billion? At Harvard, this is probably the case.  Many schools, however, including Princeton, Yale, and a slew of liberal arts schools, are aware that though they’re suffering financial setbacks, their students are probably even more burdened. Princeton alone is adding $3-4 million to its financial aid pool to offset tuition expenses. Tufts University, despite severe financial woes, is increasing its financial aid, and fighting hard to maintain ‘need-blind admissions.’ Even though some public schools have sizable endowments (University of Texas with $15 billion, and the University of California with $6.4 billion), most are dependent on state funding or tuition increases. When funding ebbs, they must turn to staff reductions or fee increases. Neither is palatable. Both adversely affect the quality of the school’s educational experience.

The next two years are going to be painful for students, their families, and the colleges. Be very attentive to filing your FAFSA, CSS/Profile (for private schools), Cal Grants (should you qualify) as quickly as possible. Be equally aware, that whichever school you elect to attend will be under financial constraints that will impact student: faculty ratios, turn more classes into lectures, and require students to learn how to advocate for scarcer university resources. Advocating, fortunately, might be the most valuable skill a student might gain from what will be challenging years ahead.

Ralph Becker
Founder, Ivy College Prep LLC
————————————–

대학의 경제난

기금 감소

• 주정부 연구기금 감소
• 공립 대학들의 재정 감소의 영향

지금 우리는 대공항 이래로 최악의 경제난에 직면해 있다.  대학들도 마찬가지이다.  또한 공립이든 사립이든, 많은 대학들이 우리가 생각하는 것보다 더 영향을 받고 있다.  그러므로 대학들이 얼마나 영향권 하에 있는지, 내년이나 그 이후에 대학에 가야 한다면 알아두는 것이 좋다.

2007년에는 373개의 대학들이 10억불이상의 기금을 보유하고 있었지만, 현재 그 가치는 현저히 떨어졌다.  Moody 투자회사에 따르면, 대부분의 기금이 1/2이하나 1/3의 가치로 떨어졌다고 한다.  하바드 대학도 370억불의 기금이 현재 26-27억불 정도이다.  11월 10일, 하바드 대학의 총장, Drew Faust는 직원봉급(예산의 반이상 차지)을 재조정, 등록금 인상, 수십억불이 소요되는 Boston Allston 지역으로의 캠퍼스 확장안을 재검토한다고 발표하였다.

하바드만이 아니다.  코넬, 브라운, 다트머스 대학들도 기금의 가치가 떨어졌다고 발표했다.  코넬은 앞으로 3개월간 건축을 중단한다고 발표했으며, 브라운은 행정, 업무직원 채용을 동결한다고 발표했다.  다트머스는 2억2000만불의 기금이 없어졌으며, 모든 비용을 축소한다고 발표했다.

주정부 연구기금도 축소되었다.  대부분의 대학들은 연구기금과 봉급을 정부기금에 의존하고 있다.  코넬은 2007년 뉴욕주에서 1억7000불의 연구기금을 수령하였다.  올해는 5-10%의 감소가 있을 것으로 알려졌다.

80%의 대학생의 교육을 담당하는 공립대학들의 사정도 좋지 않다.  Cal State 대학들은 6억6000불의 예산을 세움으로써 2009년에는 만 명을 축소한다.  UC 대학들도 예산이 삭감되었다: 10억불의 삭감되었으며, 또한 6억5천불이 더 삭감될 예정이다.  Arizona State 대학은 3억불의 삭감에다 2억5천불이 더 삭감되는 고통을 겪고 있다.  빚을 지는 상황에서 200명의 교수와 계약을 해지했다.  뉴욕주와 플로리다를 포함하는 17개의 모든 주립대학들에서 상당한 예산삭감이 예상되고 있다. 학부모들이 경제사정으로 주립대학을 선호하는 이때, 주립대학에는 원서가 넘쳐나고 있으며, 정원은 줄여야 하는 현상이 생기고 있다.

이런 사실은 무엇을 말해주는가?  하바드대학의 기금이 $30 billion이하가 된다면 경보가 울릴 것인가?  물론이다.  Princeton, Yale, 많은 인문대학들은 경제난으로 민감해지고 있지만, 학생들이 더 어려워진다는 사실을 알고 있다.  그래서 프린스턴에서는 장학금을 $3-4billion을 늘리면서, ‘필요를 무시하는’ 입학사정을 유지하려고 안간힘을 쓰고 있다.  비록 엄청난 기금(University of Texas with $15 billion, and the University of California with $6.4 billion), 을 확보하고 있는 대학들일지라도 대부분을 주정부 기금과 등록금에 많이 의존하고 있다.  기금이 줄면, 교직원의 감소나 학비상승은 어쩔 수 없다.  둘도 바람직하지 않다.  둘다 대학의 교육 경험의 질에 영향을 미칠 것이다.

앞으로의 2년은 학생, 학부모, 대학당국 모두에게 고통이 따를 것이다.    그러므로, 여러분의 FAFSA, CSS/Profile (for private schools), Cal Grants (should you qualify)를 상세히 잘 써야한다.  또한, 어느 대학이 이러한 경제상황에서 어떤 영향을 받을 것인지를 신중히 고려해야 한다: 교수률에 따라 많은 강의가 강사에 의해 이루어 질것이며, 학생들은 풍부한 대학 자료를 접하기 어려울 것이다.  다만, 학생들이 다가오는 도전적인 미래에서 가치있는 기술을 얻을 수 있길 기원한다.

• Do monetary incentives improve student results?
• Baylor University’s SAT incentive program

What is the best way to improve student performance? In the United States, where student performance in science, math and reading is well below the international average (results from the 2006 Performance for International Student Assessment bear this out), we see a lots of ideas: vouchers, No Child Left Behind, publishing test results, hiring highly qualified teachers, giving the schools more autonomy, and granting incentives to teachers who perform. Now, another idea has dawned: rather than incentivize just the teacher for improving student performance, why not just go to the source of all performance issues, the student, and pay the incentives directly to him or her?

Desperate times for some school districts, like those in Washington DC or Dallas, require innovative measures. One such program, the Advanced Placement Incentive Program (APIP), was first implemented in 1996 across 10 Dallas schools. Now it’s expanded to 61 schools in Texas and is set to expand to 150 districts across 20 states.  It gives cash incentives to students and their teachers when a student passes his or her AP exam with a ‘3′ or better. According to recent research by a Cornell economics professor, C. Kirabo Jackson, in “Education Next,” a magazine published by Stanford University’s Hoover Institute, “establishment of APIP results in a 30%increase in the number of students scoring above 1100 on the SAT or above 24 on the ACT, and an 8 percent increase in the number of students at a high school who enroll in college or university…”

Probably one of the better known practitioners of incentivizing student performance is Harvard’s Roland Fryer, who at 30, just became a tenured professor in the economics department. When he was 15, a friend asked him what he’d be doing when he was 30, Fryer responded that he thought he’d be dead by then. At the time Fryer was living with his great-aunt and great-uncle who were running a crack business. Eventually he won a sports scholarship to the University of Texas, discovered he enjoyed studying, and then was recruited by Harvard to join the faculty at the age of 25. Professor Fryer currently oversees a privately funded AP rewards program in New York City, where 10,000 students in 62 schools earn cash and prepaid cell phone minutes for high state test scores and good grades

Naturally, there are many detractors of cash incentive programs. Barry Schwartz, a cognitive psychology professor from Swarthmore believes such programs will hamper study and inquiry, especially when monetary incentives are removed. Bob Schaeffer, of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, bluntly states, “Bribing kids for higher test scores-or paying teachers bounties for their students’ work-is similar to giving them steroids. Short-Term performance might improve but the long-term effects can be very damaging.”  (www.usatoday.com 27 January 2008, “Good Grades pay off literally” by Greg Toppo).

One of the strangest implementations of student cash incentives occurred recently at Baylor University in Texas. Admitted freshman were awarded a $300 credit for retaking the SAT. Those who raised their scores by more than 50 points received a $1,000 a year merit scholarship. Baylor sought to raise its entering class SAT statistics, and thereby boost its US News and World Report ranking. The outcry over the ethics of re-testing admitted students is still echoing throughout campus, leading a Baylor spokesman to announce it’s ending the practice, and, “I think we goofed.” (e-School News, November-December 2008 issue, p.3, “Curing Unemployment” by Gregg Downey).

Whether cash incentives for students will produce scholars or goofs will become evident over the coming years. From the most outrageous ideas comes, sometimes, good results. Let’s hope this is one such case. Getting a “5″ on an AP should certainly give a student as much a rush as winning the jackpot in Las Vegas. This has obviously led some to ask why not combine the two?

Ralph Becker
Founder, Ivy College Prep LLC
————————————–

공부와 돈

• 금전적 보상이 효과가 있는가?
• Baylor 대학의 SAT 보상 프로그램

학생의 학습효과에 가장 효과적인 방법은 무엇인가?  미국은 과학, 수학, 독해에 있어서 국제 평균 수준이하 이다( 2006년 국제 학생 평가 참조).  그래서 다양한 아이디어를 내고 있다: 증빙서류, No Child Left Behind, 시험성적 발표, 우수교사 영입, 학교의 더 많은 자율권, 교사 보상제.  이제 또 하나의 아이디어가 나왔다:  학생의 성적을 향상시킨 교사를 보상하는 대신, 성적을 올린 학생을 직접 보상하는 것은 어떨까?

Washington DC나 Dallas 교육구같이 절망적인 하위권에서는 보상제를 도입한다.

APIP (the Advanced Placement Incentive Program)프로그램은 1996년 달라스10개 고교에서 실시되었다.  현재 Texas 61개 고교와 20개 주의 150 군데의 교육구에서 실시된다.  이 프로그램은 학생이 AP에서 3점이상일 때, 담당교사와 학생에게 현금으로 보상하는 제도이다.  Cornell 대학 경제학 교수인 C. Kirabo Jackson이 잡지에 기고한 글에 따르면, APIP는 SAT에서 1100(1800만점)이상, ACT에서 24(36점 만점)이상의 학생이 30% 증가하였으며, 대학 진학률을 8%이상 상승시켰다.

이런 보상제의 실천가로 일약 30세에 하버드 대학의 경제학교수가 된 Roland Fryer가 있다.  그는 15세에 한 친구에게서 나이 30이 되었을 때 무엇을 하고 있을 것인가라는 질문을 받고 놀랐다고 한다.  그때 그는 마약장사를 하는 친척집에 얻혀 살고 있었다.  그 이후 분발하여, 그는 UT의 운동 장학금을 받았고, 자신이 공부를 즐긴다는 것을 발견했고, 나이 25세에 하버드 대학의 교수가 되었다.  현재 Fryer교수는 뉴욕시에서 AP 보상 프로그램을 운영하고 있으며, 이 프로그램은 성적이 우수한 62개 고교의 만 명의 학생에게 선불 전화기와 현금을 지불하고 있다.

사실, 이러한 현금 보상 프로그램에 대한 반발자도 많다.  심리학 교수인 Barry Schwartz는 이러한 제도 때문에 현금 보상제도가 없어질때는 공부와 연구에 저해요인이 된다고 한다.   또한,  Bob Schaeffer( the National Center for Fair & Open Testing)는 성적향상을 위하여 교사와 아이들을 돈으로 매수하는 것은 그들에게 스테로이드를 주는 것과 같으며, 단기적 효과는 나타나나, 장기적으로 해악을 끼칠 것이라고 단언한다.

또 하나의 학생에 대한 현금 보상제가 Baylor 대학에서 실시되었다.  입학생에게 SAT를 다시 치르게하며 300불을 보상한 것이다.  또한 성적이 50점이상 오른 학생은 년간 1000불의 장학금을 받았다.  Baylor대학은 학교의 SAT 성적을 올려서 US News and World Report 에서 대학의 순위를 끌어올리려는 것이다.  이것의 윤리적인 문제는 많은 반향을 낳고 있다.  이 대학의 대변인은 이 방법이 실수였다고 인정하면서, 이러한 시도는 마지막임을 밝혔다.

현금 보상제가 학자를 만들 것인지, 아니면 바보를 만들 것인지 앞으로의 이슈거리이다.  기발한 아이디어가 계발되면, 좋은 결과가 나올 것이다.  한번 가정해보자.  AP시험에서 5점을 받는 학생에게는 Las Vegas에서 잭팟의 상금을 주어보자.  아마도 이 둘을 관련지어 보상하자는 의견이 나오지 않을까?

• Are half of Korean-American students really dropping out?

According to a news item posted in the October 5th Korea Daily, “almost 1 out of 2 Korean-American students attending America’s top universities drop out.” This news arose from a doctoral dissertation by Samuel S. Kim, presented at Columbia University in late September. His dissertation was based upon a longitudinal study (a study that tracks a group of individuals over a relatively lengthy period of time) of 1400 Korean students enrolled at 14 universities (all the Ivies, Amherst, Duke, Stanford, Georgetown, UC Berkeley, and UC Davis) between 1985 and 2007.

It’s hard to take such information at face value. Doesn’t this defy logic? Don’t most of the students that get into the ‘leading universities’ graduate at very high levels? After all, does anyone pay $50,000 a year to flunk out?  Naturally, it would be nice to see the actual dissertation, which is entitled, “First and Second Generation Conflict in Education of the Asian American Community.” Yet, even without access to it, possibly running some basic numbers will give us a sense of the sample Mr. Kim used, and just how he arrived at his findings.

The chart below contains the schools examined in Mr. Kim’s dissertation, the total number of students attending each school, each school’s reported drop-out rate, the percentage of Asian American students attending each school, the total number of Asian students attending each, and the percent of the sample size each school’s Asian student body represents.

The numbers below were obtained at College Navigator (http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/); this is the site for the NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics), a government institution that is an information clearinghouse for all postsecondary institutions that receive Title IV funding from the federal government. That’s 1,896 postsecondary institutions: all 14 institutions report their information to the NCES. College Drop Out Levels at 14 Leading Universities*

If you take the Ivy League schools, along with Duke, Stanford, Georgetown, and Amherst, and you total all the students who dropped out prior to completing their degrees in 6 years, it comes to 1,087 or 5.7%. That’s the total number of all students, of all races, that dropped out of these schools. If, as Mr. Kim’s dissertation seems to imply, 1 out of every 2 Korean American students in these schools dropped out, be assured  there would be great consternation among the schools, their administration, their professors, and their admissions office. It’s quite unlikely they’d be admitting Korean-Americans, at the rising levels they are, if Korean American student presence on campus simply served to destroy graduation rates (which, by the way, feed into rankings, something most schools do not want to negatively impact.)

Getting back to our review of the numbers, Berkeley and UC Davis have 1,658 drop-outs between them. UC Davis alone has more students drop out than all the other schools combined, excluding Berkeley. In all likelihood there’s a very good chance that Mr. Kim took at least half his sample from Davis and Berkeley, when he arrived at his figure of half the Koreans dropping out of ‘leading universities.’

There are three kinds of lies, according to Mark Twain: “lies, damn lies, and statistics.”  Numbers certainly don’t assure us of anything. They, however, might surely indicate when things have been presented in a less than straightforward manner. It’s always good to question, even doctoral dissertations.  After all, isn’t that why we go to college in the first place?

Ralph Becker
Founder, Ivy College Prep LLC
————————————–

명문대의 재학/졸업률의 실제 상황은 어떠한가

• Korean-American 학생들은 50%정도로 중도하차 하는가?

한국일보 10월 5일자에 따르면, 명문대에 재학중인 2명중 한 명이 학교를 중도 포기한다고 한다.  이 기사는 콜롬비아 대학에 다니는 Samuel S. Kim의 박사학위논문에서 인용되었다.  그의 논문은 longitudinal study(한 그룹의 개인들을 장시간 살펴보는 연구방법)의 방법으로 14개의 명문대(아이비 대학들과 Amherst, Duke, Stanford, Georgetown, UC Berkeley, UC Davis)에 재학하는 1400명의 한인학생들을 1985년에서 2007년까지 연구한 결과를 바탕으로 하였다.

이러한 정보는 표면상의 가치를 논하기 어렵다.  이것은 논리적으로 맞는가?  ‘명문대’에 입학한 대부분의 다른 학생들은 높은 비율로 졸업하는가?  그렇다면, 이들은 결국 일년에 50,000불을 실패하기 위해서 지불하는가?  먼저, 사무엘 김의 박사논문’ “First and Second Generation Conflict in Education of the Asian American Community’을 살펴보는 것이 필요하다.  그러나, 원본을 보지 않고도, 기본 숫자들이 어떻게 쓰였는지 감을 잡을 수 있으며, 사무엘 김이 어떻게 결론에 접근했는지 알 수 있다.

표는 사무엘 김의 논문에서 언급한 학교들의 총 학생수, 중도탈락률, 아시아계 학생수와 전체학생수와 비례한 재학률이 나와있다.  이 숫자는 College Navigator (http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/) 에 나타난 내용이다; 이 사이트는 연방정부의 기금, Title IV를 받는 고등교육기관을 위한 정보제공을 하는 정부기관인 NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics)에서 제공한다.  전체 1,896개의 대학교육기관중에서 14개의 대학들이 NCES에 표와 같이 보고하였다.

아이비리그 대학들과 Duke, Stanford, Georgetown, Amherst를 살펴보면, 6년안에 학위를 받지 못하고 중도탈락하는 학생수는 1,087명으로 5.7%에 해당된다.   물론 전체 학생을 대상으로 인종을 구별하지 않은 것이다.  사무엘 김의 논문에서 암시하는 것은 2명중 1명의 한인학생이 중도 탈락한다는 것이며, 이것이 사실이라면,  대학, 대학행정 당국, 교수, 입학사정실에 경악을 줄 것이다. 이것은 한인학생의 입학률에 좋지 않은 영향을 줄 수 있다.  사실이라면, 한인학생이 단지 졸업률을 낮추는 요인으로 작용한다고 본다(대학등급에서 대부분 대학들은 부정적 영향을 원하지 않는다).

다시 숫자로 돌아가서 볼 때, Berkeley 와 UC Davis에서는 1,658명이 중도탈락한다.  UC Davis 에서의 탈락자는 Berkeley를 제외하고는 다른 어떤 대학보다 많다.  그래서 아마도 사무엘 김은 Davis와Berkeley에서 근거하여 한인학생의 명문대 탈락의 결론을 내렸다고 보아진다.

마크 트웨인에 따르면, 세종류의 거짓말이 있다고 한다: “거짓말, 나쁜 거짓말, 그리고 통계.”  즉, 숫자가 어떤 것도 증명할 수 없다.  그러나 그 숫자들은 어떤 것을 시사하게 되는 것이다.  그러므로 이런 질문을 하는 것- 특히 박사논문에서-은 필요하다.  결론적으로 그래서 우리가 대학이라는 곳에 가는 것이 아닐까?

• Are half of Korean-American students really dropping out?

According to a news item posted in the October 5th Korea Daily, “almost 1 out of 2 Korean-American students attending America’s top universities drop out.” This news arose from a doctoral dissertation by Samuel S. Kim, presented at Columbia University in late September. His dissertation was based upon a longitudinal study (a study that tracks a group of individuals over a relatively lengthy period of time) of 1400 Korean students enrolled at 14 universities (all the Ivies, Amherst, Duke, Stanford, Georgetown, UC Berkeley, and UC Davis) between 1985 and 2007.

It’s hard to take such information at face value. Doesn’t this defy logic? Don’t most of the students that get into the ‘leading universities’ graduate at very high levels? After all, does anyone pay $50,000 a year to flunk out?  Naturally, it would be nice to see the actual dissertation, which is entitled, “First and Second Generation Conflict in Education of the Asian American Community.” Yet, even without access to it, possibly running some basic numbers will give us a sense of the sample Mr. Kim used, and just how he arrived at his findings.

The chart below contains the schools examined in Mr. Kim’s dissertation, the total number of students attending each school, each school’s reported drop-out rate, the percentage of Asian American students attending each school, the total number of Asian students attending each, and the percent of the sample size each school’s Asian student body represents.

The numbers below were obtained at College Navigator (http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/); this is the site for the NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics), a government institution that is an information clearinghouse for all postsecondary institutions that receive Title IV funding from the federal government. That’s 1,896 postsecondary institutions: all 14 institutions report their information to the NCES. College Drop Out Levels at 14 Leading Universities*

If you take the Ivy League schools, along with Duke, Stanford, Georgetown, and Amherst, and you total all the students who dropped out prior to completing their degrees in 6 years, it comes to 1,087 or 5.7%. That’s the total number of all students, of all races, that dropped out of these schools. If, as Mr. Kim’s dissertation seems to imply, 1 out of every 2 Korean American students in these schools dropped out, be assured  there would be great consternation among the schools, their administration, their professors, and their admissions office. It’s quite unlikely they’d be admitting Korean-Americans, at the rising levels they are, if Korean American student presence on campus simply served to destroy graduation rates (which, by the way, feed into rankings, something most schools do not want to negatively impact.)

Getting back to our review of the numbers, Berkeley and UC Davis have 1,658 drop-outs between them. UC Davis alone has more students drop out than all the other schools combined, excluding Berkeley. In all likelihood there’s a very good chance that Mr. Kim took at least half his sample from Davis and Berkeley, when he arrived at his figure of half the Koreans dropping out of ‘leading universities.’

There are three kinds of lies, according to Mark Twain: “lies, damn lies, and statistics.”  Numbers certainly don’t assure us of anything. They, however, might surely indicate when things have been presented in a less than straightforward manner. It’s always good to question, even doctoral dissertations.  After all, isn’t that why we go to college in the first place?

Ralph Becker
Founder, Ivy College Prep LLC
—————————————-

• Why another Test for 8th Grade Students?
• The College Board in ‘Skills Assessment’?

Two weeks ago, the College Board unveiled a new “low stakes” (a phrase used in testing circles that means the results don’t affect student placement or admissions) test called “ReadiStep.”  ReadiStep (details can be found at www.readistep.com) will be designed to give “early feedback to help 8th grade students identify the skills they need to be college ready.” The test, according to the College Board, will align with “the English Language Arts and Mathematics College Board Standards for College Success” and will have “three multiple-choice sections-reading, writing and mathematics.”  The two-hour long test will debut in fall 2009. (ReadiStep Quick Reference from the College Board)

The College Board contends, in its 22 October 2008 press release, that ReadiStep is, “designed to align with the PSAT/NMSQT and SAT exams to help create a complementary suite of skills assessing tests. ReadiStep assesses the same skills as the PSAT/NMSQT and SAT at grade appropriate level.” Yes, you read that correctly; your critical reading skills are still intact: the SAT Reasoning Test, the PSAT, and soon, ReadiStep, will be a suite of tests used to assess student skills.  Somehow, almost miraculously, the College Board has transformed the SAT and PSAT, tests that measure reasoning and logic, into “a series of tests” measuring specific student skills. When did this happen?

Yet, it gets even stranger. When Lee Jones, the Senior VP for college readiness at the College Board, unveiled ReadiStep, reporters queried Jones and others about whether American schools really ‘needed another test?’ They responded by saying that ’school leaders had been asking the College Board to create this test.” Asked for the names of these school leaders, “the College Board declined to release any.”  (“College Board Unveils Test for 8th Graders”, 23 October 2008, Insidehighered.com, by Scott Jaschik). Additionally, “the College Board declined to release sample questions.” (Ibid. Insidehighered.com).In all likelihood, the reason the College Board came up empty with the names of school leaders clamoring for ReadiStep is because this very test, which the College Board is describing, has been in existence for over 17 years; it’s name is EXPLORE, and it is a test designed by the ACT, to measure specific skill levels in math, English, science, and reading for 8th and 9th graders. You can view exactly which skills are measured by EXPLORE on page 7 of the document at: http://www.act.org/explore/pdf/InterpretiveGuide.pdf. Skills that are to be mastered throughout high school, skills essential to a student’s success in college, are also measured by PLAN, which can be taken either sophomore or junior year, and the ACT, which is usually taken junior or senior year.  In short, a suite of skill assessment tests that measures college readiness (and, by the way, is taken by every junior in Colorado, Illinois, and over 50% of graduating high school students in 23 other states) is available now, with a solid track record. Last year over 980,000 students in the 8th or 9th grade took EXPLORE.

Will another test be beneficial to future 8th and 9th grade students? There appear to be already enough standardized tests for these grades. In California there is the STAR Indicator tests (also known as the California Standards Tests–CST) in English Language Arts (ELA), math, science, history and social science. Further, during early high school, students must take the CAHSEE to prove competency in Math and ELA.  In addition, on the “high stakes” test front, an 8th grader wishing to attend a private school will take either the ISEE or the SSAT. For parochial school, she’ll take either the COOP or the HSPT.  Of course, as already noted, there are already EXPLORE, PLAN, ACT, PSAT, and the august SAT (let alone the SAT Subject tests, the AP tests and IB tests).  It’s hard to imagine another test needed to validate what’s already being learned.

As Jesse Mermell, executive director of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, opines, ReadiStep is “a cynical marketing ploy designed to enhance test-maker revenues… [and] to lock 8th graders into the SAT series of exams before they can consider the increasingly popular alternative of the ACT or test-optional admissions.” (insidehighered.com October 23rd)  Ms. Mermell makes some persuasive points. Be ready for a test on this tomorrow.

Ralph Becker
Founder, Ivy College Prep LLC
—————————————

8학년을 위한 칼리지 보드의 ‘ReadiStep’ 시험 알아보기

• 8학년을 위한 또 하나의 시험이 필요한가?
• 칼리지 보드에 대한 ‘능력 평가’ 시험인가?

2주전 칼리지 보드에서는 새로운 “낮은 위험성”( 이유는 시험결과가 학생의 등급이나 입학사정에 영향을 미치지 않기때문)의 “ReadiStep”시험을 발표했다.  ReadiStep (www.readistep.com 참고) 은 ‘8학년에게 대학을 준비하기 위하여 어떤 기능을 갖추어야 하는지를 일찍 알려주기 위함이다.  칼리지 보드에 따르면, 이 시험은 “성공적인 대학을 위한 영어와 수학의 칼리지 보드 기준”에 따른다고 하며 또한 “세 영역의 객관식-독해, 쓰기와 수학” 시험이다.  2009년 가을부터 2시간 반의 시험을 실시한다.   (ReadiStep Quick Reference from the College Board) 칼리지 보드는 2008년 10월 22일 신문에서 ReadiStep은 “PSAT/NMSQT, SAT와 마찬가지로 기능평가를 할 수 있도록 만들어졌으며, 학년수준에 맞추어PSAT/NMSQT, SAT와 같은 기능을 테스트한다.  여러분이 바로 이해한다면, 정말이다; 여러분의 분석적 독해력은 여전히 완전하다: SAT, PSAT, 이제 곧 ReadiStep 의 일련의 시험들이 학생의 능력을 평가할 것이다.  기적같이 칼리지 보드에서는 추리와 논리시험들을 특정 기능을 측정하는 시험으로 변경하였다.

이제 더 낯설어지고 있다.  칼리지 보드의 대학준비 Senior 담당관인 Lee Jones가 ReadiStep를 발표할 때 기자들은 학교에서 정말 ‘또 하나의 다른 시험을 필요로 했는지?’를 물었다.  담당자는 ‘학교 대표들이 칼리지 보드에 이런 시험을 요구해왔다’고 대답했고, 학교 대표들의 이름을 물었을 때, “칼리지 보드는 밝히기를 거부했다.”  또한 “칼리지 보드는 견본 질문도 알려주기를 거부했다.”  (Insidehighered.com).

모든 가능성에도 불구하고, 칼리지 보드에서 ReadiStep를 외친 학교 대표들의 명단을 거부하는 이유는 이와 유사한 시험이 17년이상 지속되어왔기 때문이다: 즉, ACT에서 만든 EXPLORE이며, 8학년과 9학년을 위한 수학, 영어, 과학과 읽기를 측정하는 시험이다.  여러분도 직접http://www.act.org/explore/pdf/InterpretiveGuide.pdf 의 7쪽에서 EXPLORE를 볼 수 있다.  기능들은 고교를 통해 습득할 수 있는 것들이며, 또한 대학공부의 성공을 위한 기능 테스트인 10, 11학년을 위한 PLAN 이 있으며, 11학년과 12학년을 위한 ACT 가 있다.  간단히 말해, 대학준비를 측정하는 모든 학년의 시험들이 이미 있다.  작년98만 명의 8, 9학년들이 EXPLORE를 보았다.

또 다른 시험이 8, 9학년에게 유용할 것인가?  이 학년들을 위한 표준시험은 이미 있다고 볼 수 있다.  가주에서는 STAR (the California Standards Tests–CST)시험이 영어, 수학, 과학, 역사, 사회과목을 테스트한다.  또한 고교 초기에 영어와 수학 능력시험인 CAHSEE를 보아야 한다.  또한 사립고교를 지원하는 학생이 보는 힘든 시험인 ISEE와 SSAT가 있다.  카톨릭학교의 경우는 COOP나HSPT를 요구한다.  이미 언급했듯이 ELPLORE, PLAN ACT, PSAT, SAT (추가적으로SAT Subject tests, the AP tests and IB tests도 있음) 시험들이 있다.  또 하나의 시험이 더 필요하다는 것을 인정하기가 어렵다.

National Center for Fair & Open Testing의 총감독인 Jesse Mermell은 ReadiStep은 ACT가 대입의 선택 시험으로 인기를 차지하기 전에 SAT계열의 시험으로 8학년을 묶어두면서 시험문제 수입을 높이려는 상술이라고 피력한다.  또한 설득력있는 논쟁을 제시한다: 이 문제에 대해 시험볼 준비를 하라.