Ohio Graduation Test(OGT)

[FishKeeper-16]

I am going to have to take the OGT soon and under Ohio law every high school sophmore has to take the test and you have to pass it in order to graduate from high school and I think that is very stupid. Thats like the state of Ohio is saying that not everyone deserves a diploma to succeed in life and do you guys agree with me? Does your state have a test like that?

 

[Harlock]

Er, Actually I think if any states didn't, the "No Child Left Behind" Act probably took care of that. We've had a basic assessment test in Texas required for graduation for years and years. They are generally very simple tests that believe it or not, are testing your school more than they are testing the students.

Also, I don't see anything wrong with these tests in general excepting the fact that many school districts teach for the test rather than teaching for life. Honestly, I don't feel like the state is saying "that not everyone deserves a diploma to succeed in life". Actually, I think they are saying the opposite. Everyone deserves to have the basic skills to earn a diploma so that they can be more successful in life. In fact, I find this actually increases the value of your diploma, not lessens it. Still, I hate systems that teach for the tests... any teachers out there will know exactly what I am talking about.

 

[Leopardess]

Teaching for tests and not life is the difference of "being" versus "becoming." A lot of teachers say "You need to learn this if you want to become successful" or "If you want to pass the AP test." It should be, instead, "You need to learn this to BE successful." It shouldn't be learning for only some future goal.

Also, an issue I have with a lot of these tests is that they are most always only allowed to be proctored/written in English. This is an issue for a lot of students whose basic knowledge is there, even if they don't know what the word "sexiferous" means. One study I read indicated that a lot of regional vocabulary differences can have an effect on student's scores.

I don't know....in France you have to pass the bac to graduate...a girl in my Education class (from Alaska) had to pass a test to graduate as well. I'm not quite sure how I feel about it. If the tests were more process-based rather than content based, as the vast majority seem to be, I think they wouldn't be so bad. That, however, would require schools to teach process more than content - and that's only very slowly changing.

I'm kind of rambling, though. Fishkeeper, I'm sure you'll do fine on it.

 

[OrionGirl]

Most of the tests cover basic skills that indicate you meet the standards that diploma implies you do. What's wrong with verifying that? It's certainly has more value than grades, where you are judged by an individuals' expectations. But this is coming from someone who always aced standardized testing of any kind, but had some conflicts with teachers that resulted in lower grades...Maybe I'm biased.

 

[mindtonic]

"Teaching for the test" is not necessarily a bad thing.....provided that the test is both valid (actually measures what the test is intended to) and consistent (meaning that every child of the same intellect and experience will score the same every tinme he or she takes it.)

The problem is that many of our achievment tests are neither valid nor consistent.

It takes on average between six to ten years to develope just one version of the SAT, probably the most widely used standardized test in America. Even tests like this which are developed over the course of several years are still subject to cultural biases and scoring inconsistencies.

Is it really wise to have a student's academic future held in the balance by a standardized test--especially since many states did not develope their own tests prior to No Child Left Behind, and have hastily thrown tests together since the bill's passage?

If the tests are so basic and easy, are they really vallid--are they truely measuring if a student has a reasonable understanding of the subject matter and cirriculum?

I am, by no means, an expert on this subject......I just play one on TV.

No, really, my wife is a couple of months away from from her Phd in school psych. Testing and it's reliability has been a common dinner time subject in our house for the last five years.

 

[Leopardess]

Thats the thing though - tests, I think, are fine, if they test process, that is, the act of arriving at the answer. Content (which most curriculums are currently based on - which is changing) is just factual regurgitation. Of course some level of content is required and should be tested for, but the processes behind the knowledge need to be stressed. There is a difference in saying "recite the quadratic equation" and "use the quadratic equation on this question and/or explain situations in which this might be useful."

If a person must be intimately knowledgeable of, say Shakespeare's Sonnet 18, and are taught all about it - but only taught things like "see, this is a simile" or "this is an example of anaphora" they can only apply that to this one text. If you teach the process behind finding this info, such as how to disentangle a text and the terms and approaches you can apply, they could analyze all of SX's sonnets.

To apply this to fishies ( ) it is, in my opinion, a lot more beneficial and useful to explain the processes of cycling rather than saying "You have to wait until the cycle is over to add fish."

Many of these tests require (here at least) the student to have memorized equations or formulas as well as theories. Those things are all easily researched and looked up. It should be more important that they know how to use them rather than recite them. IT shouldn't be all about ritual knowledge or "useless knowledge."

Teaching for a test usually simply requires memorization (which is soon forgotten.) Think how many history tests you took in high school that asked for dates - how many of you honestly remember all that you "learned?"

We've been discussing the concept of being vs. becoming and teaching for a test in my Ed. class for four weeks now, and the concensus seems to be teachign for a test is bad - teaching for life is good. The two aren't always opposing, however. I have some great articles to list when I get home.

These are just some thoughts from a student teacher in a field work class I typed this really quickly and probably didn't make any sense, but oh well.

 

[jonathan03]

It is unfortunate that they make you take the test, but I wouldn't get too worred about passing. Most of the those tests the state makes you take are so easy that you almost can't fail them. Nobody didn't pass the test at my high school. It does depend on the school you go to. If they are decent then you shouldn't have a problem. I don't think it goes on your permanent record either but I may be wrong. I think its just pass/fail. I have never heard of any scholarships given for it.

I would be more worred about the ACT/SAT. Colleges look at those and you can earn scholarships.

So just think of your OGT test as doing something different for a day. It really isn't anything too critical. They have very low standards so it shouldn't be too hard to pass.

One of the parts is writting and there is math too. Everyone finished the test with lots of time left and we just sat there for quite a while after. This was about 5 years ago though.

The SAT/ACT requires you to answer the questions at a much faster rate. So its important to be familiar with the directions for the test ahead of time.

The teachers are probably going over this test because the state makes them. Yes its boring and probably not very useful so bring a pillow ;-) The test gives you all the time you need so you can read the directions 10 times if you need to.

 

[FishKeeper-16]

Well I have until my senior year to pass and my american history teacher said when he was assistant principal that 18 and 19 year boys who failed the old fashioned proficency test said that those kids would break down and crying in his office, that they were not going to get a diploma. Well I guess the kids who recieve F's and don't care about school does not deserve a diploma.

 

[ryknier]

Don't worry dude! Being raised in Wisconsin, being the 2nd in the nation for education so i have read, We have been taking tests like that every third year, and trust me, they are not hard! In fact you should be glad you live in a state that tests! My friend who moved to California, from WI, said they practically praise him, and he pretty much doesn't have to do anything in class because their education is soo... generic? I don't know what word to use, and CA being the 2nd worse in the nation for education!

The tests, like OG said, or basic skills that do see if you are able to do the standardized things like add, know your north east south and west, who is your current idiot leader, and so forth.

If you do fail one of the portions on the test, and you pretty much won't, but if you do, the way you pass is by getting a C or better in that field you failed in


GOOD LUCK!

 

[FishKeeper-16]

Well I know the history part has 38 questions and most of them are extended answer. The first test I have to take is the writing part and I suck at wrtiting.