The Observer » Unfair

Different teachers + same class = unfair advantage

eplesset — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:44:39 +0000

Every year when students receive their schedule cards, the first thing they do is eagerly scan the teachers they received. News of the “easy” teachers is greeted with shrieks of delight, while others groan at the disappointment of a “hard” teacher.

Unfortunately, as unfair as it may be, teachers who teach the same classes often teach completely differently, giving some students advantages and others disadvantages.

This is not to say that all teachers are easy, hard or teach differently compared to their counterparts. Most teachers who teach the same class as others have uniform assignments, quizzes, projects and tests.

According to social studies resource teacher Rodney Van Tassell, within each department teachers are further subdivided into professional learning communities (PLCs) based on what classes they teach.

Within PLCs, teachers then create lesson plans and assessments. Although tests do not have to be exactly the same, they must be based off common material, carry the same weight and be worth equal points.

All teachers should be required to give out the same tests. If teachers are teaching the same material, the tests on this material should be identical.

According to Principal Joan Benz, teachers do not have to give out the same tests in order to give teachers flexibility.

However, flexibility should be limited to lesson plans and styles, not assessments. When assessments are different, one is usually inadvertently harder.

According to Van Tassell, although tests should be given out on the same date, there is flexibility over when to give out quizzes.

Although some flexibility is needed, this can be especially frustrating when students feel unprepared for a quiz and see that their peers have the same quiz on a later date.

According to Benz, if the administration notices that a teacher is teaching differently, they will work with resource teachers and PLCs to figure out why and correct the problem. However, Benz does acknowledge that certain teachers receive more complaints of being hard or easy than others.

Although all teachers are different and have their own teaching style, there must be a balance between allowing a teacher to teach the way he or she wishes and keeping the difficulty level the same.

If students feel that their teacher is teaching differently than the rest, Benz advises them to anonymously drop a note in her mailbox.

Classes must be taught equally. In many cases, earning an A is easier with some teachers than others, and that is simply not right.

National Merit system unfair for students

Afanaroff — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 17:10:49 +0000

After hours of flipping through vocabulary flashcards and trudging through PSAT practice tests, high-scoring students have been denied the National Merit Scholarship, while recognition is instead granted to individuals who have scored lower than them.
The National Merit Scholarship Corporation (NMSC) allocates a certain percentage of semifinalists from each state based on its proportion of graduating seniors that year. This means that a student in one state can score fewer points than a student in another and still be named a National Merit Finalist. Students deserve recognition for the scores they receive and should have an equal chance to win scholarships; lower scoring students should not be rewarded for living in states with inferior educational systems.
According to collegeplanningsimplified.com a website that provides free college planning information, a student living in Maryland needed to score 220 or higher on the PSAT this school year to be eligible to receive a National Merit Scholarship, while a student in Wyoming only needed to reach 202. By setting an apportioned number of semifinalists to each state, NMSC may recognize the top students in every state, but it also overlooks the best students in the nation as a whole.
According to independent PSAT/SAT trainer Susan Collins, who has tutored students for over 20 years and regularly works with students from CHS, after students are selected as semifinalists, NMSC determines who becomes a finalist by reviewing the students’ grades, essays and activity involvement. Finalists must also be in the 99 percentile of their state, but this number also varies across the country.
The use of separate standards just for the purpose of achieving diversity acknowledges underlying inconsistencies in each state’s educational system and yet provides no incentive for improvement. NMSC favors students in underperforming states, but does not encourage them to strive for high scores.
According to the NMSC’s website, it bases its quotas on state representation in order to ensure that all U.S. students are included in the program. In its effort to recognize students from all parts of the country, it has has forgotten to include the poorer counties within each state. Even by lowering standards in certain states, only the students within the 99 percentile of students will be considered for the scholarship, most likely benefitting students from more affluent counties who have access to better resources. If there were one national standard, the quotas in the highest scoring states, like Maryland, would drop to the average of all the states’ quotas. This would give students in poorer counties of those high-scoring states a better chance of reaching the semifinalist level.
The standards for the scholarship should be the same in every state to ensure equality. The difference between state quotas is too large to be considered fair.
Unfortunately, reform of the National Merit system is not likely to happen in the near future, as state quotas have been in place since the test was first administered in 1955. Despite the flawed system, underclassmen who have yet to take the PSAT can improve their chances of being awarded the National Merit Scholarship by continuing to study. However, if NMSC does not restructure the selection process, there will continue to be an achievement gap among students in the different states.

SAT policy unfair to the underprivileged

admin — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:30:16 +0000

SAT scores have constantly been dramatized as one of the most important components of a college application. For decades the four-hour long test has had the power to completely eclipse four years of high school work, but many colleges, such as Smith College and Wakeforest, are beginning to drop the SAT requirement and disregard the aptitude test as nothing more than a measure of the wealth of a student and the leniency that the College Board grants the test takers instead of as a reliable estimation of the student’s natural intelligence and possible success in college.

Many students rejoiced when receiving an email from the College Board website informing them of a new SAT policy called SAT Score Choice. The new policy allows the student to take the SAT as many times as they please without having to inform the colleges of their choice of the number of times they have taken the test. At first glance, the policy seems harmless enough and extremely helpful to today’s high school student who would love the freedom to take the test as many times as necessary without the fear of damaging their chances of admission. Unfortunately, the policy has opened a flood gate of opportunity for wealthier student while shutting out others.

The new policy seems to have forgotten a major issue in today’s society—the economic recession. In order to take the SAT, students must pay $45. In the privileged area that most CHS students live in, the fee may seem miniscule, but students must adopt a more realistic view of the world outside of the Potomac community.

According to a May 5 Washington Post article, due to the economic downturn, the unemployment rate increased to 4.5 percent over the course of last month. To those families who are struggling even to feed their children, paying the SAT entrance fee multiple times is far from possible.

Through this new policy, wealthier students will, without a doubt, have the upper hand in college admissions. More privileged students have always been able to afford to take the SAT more times than other students, granting them more chances to improve their scores, but these students have always been wary of taking the test more than three times in fear of its effect on their admission’s application. SAT Score Choice has removed the only consequence stopping the wealthy from taking full advantage of their financial status.
The College Board’s creation of SAT Score Choice has already raised suspicion among students. The College Board claims that they created the policy in reaction to students asking for more control over their test score, but students beg to differ.

According to an April 10 Washington Post article, some suspect that the College Board established the new policy for their own personal gain. The more times students take the SAT, the more money the College Board makes.

The SAT was once a well- respected indicator of a student’s academic potential, but the test has slowly transformed into a game of manipulation of the admissions system. The true intelligence of the student is no longer relevant; the only concerns are who can get the most expensive tutor and who can afford to take it enough times to get the desired score. In order to ensure fairness in the admissions process, the weight of the SAT in the application process must be lightened. Money is influential in many aspects of life, but the SAT should not be one of them.