A New Set of Problems: The Elimination of Standards. Caveat Empty!

Jeopardy Answer: "A new set of problems"

Question: "What my math teacher gives me when I finish the first set of problems early"

AYK?! While school boards throughout the nation (worldwide, to mention the subject of geography at least in brief) have been grappling with when and how to bring students back into the school setting in the presence of the whatever chapter of the pandemic their state, region, nation is still experiencing, Governor Kate Brown and company, in the state where "The Ducks" reside (University of Oregon, that is, which has become the envy of other colleges not because of the best and the brightest, but the latest and greatest of college football uniforms, thanks largely to Nike -- Just Do it!), with one sweep of the pen, signed her name on legislation removing the requirement for high-school grads to show proficiency in 2/3 R's --writing and 'Rithmetic, that is. Citing "equitable graduation standards" as the rationale, the legislation is also embedded in the vicissitudes (a word you'll certainly learn to spell, pronounce, and write in correct context by the time this bloggist retires this blog) of the pandemic -- due to the increase in  'distance learning' without much preparation by either those preparing the content or the students (and their parent tutors) , as well as the challenge of trying to administer standardized tests in such an environment, which resulted in temporary cessation of standardized testing in a host of districts throughout the nation.

Rise, Run, Fall of Proficiency, Testing - Slippery Slope? "Rise over run" was a simple way for us to remember the equation, in plotting lines on a graph, from the branch of math known as algebra, but has uses in other branches as well (e.g. geometry, calculus), and the concept of slope applies directly to grades or gradients in geography and civil engineering, whose study at the collegiate level will continue to discriminate among the most prepared students in selecting them for their respective programs, regardless of what Kate Brown and gang in their ivory towers decide is best for the rest. The current approach to proficiency testing, at least in this nation, parallels to a degree or so (there, more math, not done with you yet) that of how schools have reported academic grades to parents. In my locale, throughout the four decades of my professional practices, for example, I have witnessed what started out as 'elegance in simplicity', feedback friendly report cards have become far from it, the result perhaps of  Ph.D. curriculum student's creativity -- a report card that neither the teacher nor the parent is able to decipher, that contains so little feedback value it becomes meaningless, unless accompanied by a guidebook and extended conversation between parent and teacher, defeating part of the purpose of "report cards". The background for the increase in proficiency testing itself is fairly easy to trace and explain: An accumulation of dissatisfaction and the confluence of three groups, which included college admissions reps, employers, and parents, all of which observed that a horde of students who were achieving passing (or even above average) grades in their core academic subjects, were less than proficient, underprepared, even unemployable, after exiting from high school and upon arriving at their next destination. Thus, they all cried out for an objective set of assessments in addition to, not in lieu of, the traditional academic grades from the respective teachers and school districts. Initially, these proficiency tests included reading and math and have since grown to now include many other 'core' subjects. While overlapping in content with those of "aptitude" tests, there is also an important difference, which is in both content and intent. That is, they contain what is presumably the minimum needed to be considered "proficient" (similar to licensing tests), comparing you only with the criteria, not other people taking the test concurrently, while aptitude tests tend to cover a wider range of information sampled and compare you with a sample (aka "norm") group, which in the case of ACT/SAT (the two major tests colleges still look at) is usually  the group who took the test concurrently. 

Substandard Reverie: And what, you ask, is the Oregon state board of ed. substituting the traditional standards with, to ensure parents, colleges, employers, as well as the students themselves (the actual consumers) that they are prepared for the future? I dare you to go and read the whole article, straight from the 'ducks' mouths, how they are trying to 'goose' the public...this, while standards governing other settings in which we work and play have only stiffened, ostensibly all to ensure our safety, quality of care, and quality of life elsewhere. And this, while a series of commercials featuring "Just okay is not good enough" (AT&T). Humorous, unless you are the one scheduled for surgery, being ensured the just reinstated surgeon should be "Okay", or similarly the dude under your car tells you "yeh, your brakes should be okay...". Can you imagine such a ducky approach to med schools and other professional groups? Which takes me back a few decades to an annual staff meeting at the hospital with which I am affiliated, a meeting that not only covers the usual rigmarole regarding staff policy updates, etc., but also the anticipation of a mystery guest speaker (which in the past had included a syndicated columnist, college football coach of local notoriety, and the entertaining "Capitol Steps" -- to whom no political party is spared, very entertaining). The meeting had already lulled us into complacency, when a representative from a government-citizen group representing a new movement in quality of care standards was introduced. Who, in turn, began to describe the new standards: "...and the orthopedics will come under the scrutiny of chiropractors (who don't even practice within the walls of the hospital)...and the unit staff will get a vote in the 'peer review' of the surgeons, and..." It took about five minutes before someone amongst us shouted "This is B.S., a load of crap!" After which the head of staff, in an attempt to calm the storm, re-introduced the speaker as being the rep from the group, the acronym of which  indeed spelled out C.R.A.P....We'd been had! After which the speaker was re-introduced "Ladies and gentleman, the comedian..." After which we laughed with him and at ourselves, at believing such sub-standards could actually come about; laughing in relief. A load of crap, indeed. Doesn't add up, if you ask me. If such a trend continues, we could find ourselves in a heap of - - - -! But I don't think it's laughter I hear coming from parents, admissions officers, and potential employers...