Tag: Common Core

Categories
Quick Analysis

Educational Test Validity and Claims Made by Test Publishers

This article was written for the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by noted author and researcher Alex Bugaeff.

Large educational test publishers often make claims that their tests are “valid.” But, what is a valid test? Are their claims true? These questions can be asked of Common Core test publishers, as well as educational test publishers generally.

Before accepting or rejecting such claims, parents, school boards and the educational community should know the basics of test validity. That way, they can ask questions of test companies and make informed decisions about them. Here are the key principles of valid tests.

The terms “valid” and “validity” have specific meaning in the educational testing world. They mean that a test has been subjected to accepted statistical analyses and has satisfied them. These analyses “test the test” to see how well it does what it claims to do. So, the first question parents, school boards and the community should ask of test publishers is, “Have you tested your tests for the validity that you claim they have?”

There are three main levels of validity that a test can achieve with increasing strengths as you go up the levels. These levels are:

  1. Face Validity.
  2. Content Validity.
  3. Criterion-Related Validity.

Let’s take each in turn. 

  1. Face Validity. Face Validity merely means that a test appears valid on its face. That is, the test has words that most people would associate with what is being tested. 

For example, a test might be titled “Test of Historical Knowledge” and have a question such as, “What are the three main forms of rocks found in the American Colonial period?” The question really tests knowledge of geology and has nothing to do with history, but because the reference is to the American Colonial period, the test writer could claim that it is a valid test of history knowledge. 

Most tests have Face Validity, but if that is the only level of validity that they have, they are worthless for the purposes of meaningfully testing student learning. Face Validity does not require an analysis of the test in its ability to assess learning; it is meant only to appear to test it, on its “face”.

If a test provider says that their tests are obviously valid, one could answer, “So, you claim your tests are valid on their face and that is enough?” (What they are saying, of course, is that you are not smart enough to understand.). That’s not enough in almost any application. 

  • Content Validity. Content Validity means that a test contains questions about the subject being tested. To write a content-valid test, one would study the curriculum of the course being tested and would write questions reflecting the information presented in it. 
Numerous ways are there that can help tadalafil prices pdxcommercial.com us to lose extra weight. 5. The motivation behind why numerous men turn chilly is a result of erectile problem in men and taking the help of natural cure to treat sexual weakness is the best way to stay active. buy cialis where There is also an option for regular prescription order viagra without products as well as Generic. Herbal remedies are still relatively popular today, mainly due to the fact that they are difficult to detect until they’ve started causing real cialis buy on line visit now damage.

In the test above, “Test of Historical Knowledge,” a question might be, “What metal was used to make Continental Army uniform buttons in the American Revolution?” The question “contains” a reference to American history, but has nothing to do with any important historical aspect. It is trivial. The test writer could claim that it is a valid test of history knowledge, but the question would not matter in the assessment of student knowledge and understanding of history.

If a test publisher says that they test information about the subject and that their tests are, therefore, valid, one could answer, “What impact does this knowledge have on a student becoming educated?” Simple knowledge of a subject may be valuable, but given the scarce resources of time, money and school resources, how does it show a student’s progress toward a goal? Certainly knowledge of the Constitution, law and government operations are valuable to civics education, but how valuable is knowledge of abacus operation to high school algebra, say?

  • Criterion-Related Validity. Criterion-Related Validity means that a test has been analyzed to determine how well it tests what it is claimed to test and that the results predict a desired outcome (that is, the test is worth giving). This requires substantial time, expense and cooperation to demonstrate. It is much more demanding than the first two levels of validity, but is much more valuable to decision-makers.

First, a criterion must be defined. For example, for students entering their senior year in high school, one such criterion might be “Scores on SAT or ACT tests, if taken.” Another criterion might be “Acceptance into an accredited trade school or apprenticeship, if pursued.”

Then, a measure of that criterion must be established, such as percent of students having been accepted out of those who have applied. Or, the score on the final taking of the SAT/ACT test by each student taking it.

Next, the curriculum of the course in question would be studied and the test of student performance would be designed and written. Then, the test would be tried out on a sample of eligible students, the results analyzed and the test edited to reflect the sample testing.

The test would be administered to a larger group of students and the results would be analyzed statistically once they have completed the criterion measure against which the test will be compared (SAT/ACT score or trade school acceptance, say). The statistical measure includes standards that show whether the test is valid or not (see below). 

As the test is administered to larger numbers of students over years, the results are incorporated into the statistical analyses and the test is edited or discontinued. Those results can be used to demonstrate the ability of the test to predict the performance of students in reaching the desired goal(s).

For a large test publisher, Criterion-Related Validity should be the standard, given the stakes and their ability to invest in the necessary research to analyze it. Representatives of these large publishers should be able to report the results of the relevant statistics to their clients/customers. The following is a summary of the statistics and what to look for.

Criterion-Related Validity Statistics “by the Numbers.” Researchers will perform many statistical measures to their data as they develop their tests, but the last and most revealing is the Correlation Coefficient. Simply put, this statistic shows the extent to which the test results vary as the criterion results vary. If students who score high on the test also score high on the SAT, say, and the students who score low on the test also score low on the SAT, then it can be said that the test has a high level of Criterion-Related Validity. It can predict SAT scores.

The Correlation Coefficient scores look complicated, but stripped of their detail, can be directly interpreted. There are two numbers: the Coefficient and the Reliability of the Coefficient.

The Coefficient is a representation of the extent to which the test scores and the criterion scores vary together. The Coefficient varies from -1.0 to +1.0. A Coefficient of +1.0 means that the higher the test score, the higher will be the SAT score (say). The lower the test score, the lower will be the SAT score. They vary in perfect relation to one another (or correlation, in statistics terms). 

A Coefficient of -1.0 means that the higher the test score, the lower will be the SAT score, and so on. A Coefficient of 0.0 means the test and the SAT bear no relation to each other. A high test score can mean a high or low SAT. To have a test that is valuable in predicting the criterion score, you want a Coefficient as close to +1.0 as possible. 

The second number in the Correlation Coefficient is the test’s Reliability. This is the extent to which the Coefficient number has resulted from random circumstances, versus that one can expect an accurate result each time the test is administered. The Reliability score varies from 0.0 to +1.0. A +1.0 means that you will get the exact same Coefficient result every time you administer the test in like circumstances. A 0.0 means that there’s no way to predict that the Coefficient will be the same in identical test administrations. That is, there’s no way to predict that a test result is the product of chance or of its relation to the Criterion. 

The Correlation Coefficient then, is reported in two numbers: the Coefficient and its Reliability. For example, a test might be said to have Criterion-Related validity if the Coefficient were +0.9, say, with a Reliability of 0.95. That is, the test predicts the Criterion accurately 90% of the time and does so in 95% of retests of it. As the Coefficient number goes down, the less likely it is that the test is able to predict the desired criterion (SAT score, say). In educational testing, the standard Reliability number would be 0.95 or higher. That is, as the Reliability sinks toward 0.90 and below, the ability of the test to produce consistent results over time comes into question.

Parents, boards and the educational community can demand that test producers back up their claims that their tests are valid. So far, it appears that such claims have not been questioned and these publishers have been able to sell their tests without accounting for them. These publishers can first be asked with authority, “What, specifically, do your tests test?” and, second, “What validity do they have in terms of educational testing?” Follow up questions, based on knowledge of test validity and their statistics, can then reveal the extent to which a test is defensible. Let’s hold these test publishers’ feet to the fire. 

Photo: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s Stunning Lack of History Education

The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation has revealed that its new survey of 41,000 Americans found that only 27 percent of those under the age of 45 nationally were able to demonstrate a basic understanding of American history. Nationally, only four in 10 Americans passed a basic  exam on the topic.

According to the organizations’ president, Arthur Levine, “Unfortunately, the Woodrow Wilson Foundation has validated what studies have shown for a century: Americans don’t possess the history knowledge they need to be informed and engaged citizens.” 

The survey found only 15 percent of American adults could correctly note the year the U.S. Constitution was written and only 25 percent knew how many amendments there are to the U.S. Constitution. Further, 25 percent did not know that freedom of speech was guaranteed under the First Amendment.

“American history education is not working, as students are asked to memorize dates, events and leaders, which the poll results shows are not retained in adulthood,” Levine said. “Based on our research, this is not an issue of whether high school history teachers are adequately prepared or whether kids study American history in school. The answer to both questions is yes. This is an issue of how we teach American history. Now it is too often made boring and robbed of its capacity to make sense of a chaotic present and inchoate future. Instead, knowledge of American history must serve as an anchor in a time when change assails us, a laboratory for studying the changes that are occurring and a vehicle for establishing a common bond when social divisions are deep. This requires a fundamental change in how American history is taught and learned to make it relevant to our students lives, captivating and inclusive to all Americans.”

The survey confirms a deep concern that the American education system is failing, in some cases intentionally so, to provide adequate instruction in U.S. history. The New York Post’s Karol Markowicz  wrote that  “Don’t know much about history . . .,’ goes the famous song. It’s an apt motto for the Common Core’s elementary school curriculum…A 2012 story in Perspectives on History magazine by University of North Carolina professor Bruce Van Sledright found that 88 percent of elementary school teachers considered teaching history a low priority… Van Sledright also found that teachers just didn’t know enough history to teach it. He wrote there was some ‘holiday curriculum as history instruction,’ but that was it.”

A Blaze report noted that George Washington University decided that even history majors did not have to take any courses in American History.

In 2015, ABC’s KSFY affiliate reported that “the South Dakota Board of Education approved new guidelines that do not require high schools to teach U.S. history.”

A Nations Report Card study found that only 18% of eighth grade students are proficient in U.S. history.  Similarly, a worrisome 2014 survey of 1,416 adults recently conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy  Center  found that:

  • While little more than a third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, just as many (35 percent) could not name a single one;
  • Just over a quarter of Americans (27 percent) know it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto; and
  • One in five Americans (21 percent) incorrectly thinks that a 5-4 Supreme Court decision is sent back to Congress for reconsideration.
Man’s sexual life suddenly becomes numb when he realizes that the problem is now under his control and is no longer a threat to the relationship because all your partner can see is avoidance and experience dissatisfaction regularly. levitra online is a medicine devised to treat erectile dysfunction and make you have pleasurable sexual life. As a result, you can buy more pills best viagra price at a time. One has to realise that after a point in time you could possibly find their self or compact no-cost including nearly all of the company’s issues. generic tadalafil tablets So, it you want to get the discover over here levitra without prescription in cheap, order for levitra.

Also in 2014, Capitol Times.com quotes a statement by Arizona state legislator Steve Montenegro, a Republican, that “Civics and Social Studies and History are being boxed out of the classroom.”  He notes that “96% of a sample group of high schoolers in Arizona and Oklahoma failed to pass a basic test on citizenship issues.”

In a commentary, William J. Dodwell provides his analysis for the growing exclusion of U.S. history:

“Academia has long been a bastion of the political left…The origin of the malaise derives from the ideological and administrative politicization of public education.  Liberal elected officials and like-minded school administrators embrace identity politics and other forms of political correctness that alter academic content and teaching modalities.  At the college level, professors also promote the progressive agenda… In the primary and secondary schools, teachers might not be as ideologically motivated but are controlled by their left-leaning administrative authorities, that is, superintendents and principals… The radical departure from traditional curricula and academic standards linked to the institution of political correctness in the schools and colleges raises serious questions as to educational purpose. Has the left deliberately diluted education in its self-interest… Education authorities have curtailed or eliminated the teaching of civics and American history such that many children do not even know who George Washington was.  Daniel Henninger writes in The Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2015, about the College Board’s revision of the Advance Placement examination for U.S. history.  The changes recast the subject in a framework of ‘different contexts of U.S. history, with special attention given to the formation of gender, class, racial and ethnic identities…”

Thomas Jefferson once wrote ““If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” The lack of instruction in American history is a clear, present, and immediate threat to the health of the U.S.

Illustration: Battle of Bunker Hill (Smithsonian Institution)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Hollywood’s Other Scandal Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of  China’s growing control over Hollywood, and how this impacts upon the very survival of American culture.

In May, Small Wars Journal’s  Darren E. Tromblay outlined the issue of China’s use of Hollywood. “China has a well-established respect for information warfare.  Chinese companies have made a variety of acquisitions in the United States that it can leverage to influence U.S. decision-making.  While certain aspects of this buying spree – telecom and media purchases – have made national headlines and prompted U.S. government inquiries, China’s entry into – and consolidation of its holdings in – the entertainment field provide a vector that has not been sufficiently scrutinized…Since 2012, Chinese entities have made a significant push into the U.S. film production and distribution industry.  Chinese involvement in this area creates two primary concerns.  The first of these is that, by gaining control of distribution, China can effectively diminish the impact of films that it deems to be objectionable to Beijing’s interests.  China may take offense at any number of themes – ranging from portrayals of the country as an aggressor to glorification of protest and civil disobedience – that have filled U.S. movie screens.  A second, complementary, concern is that China will develop the resources to produce content with thematic elements supportive of a “China solution”.  Sympathetic, non-Chinese-produced, portrayals have already entered American theaters (one need look no further than the recent Disney nature flick, “Born in China”) – it is entirely plausible that Chinese producers will be able to capitalize on these sentiments with their own content.”

In the broad marketplace of ideas, it could be speculated that American audiences should be able to see through Hollywood’s sellout to Chinese censorship.  The problem is that the ability to do so is hampered by a U.S. education system that has deemphasized the teaching of history and civics, and that has adopted anti-American curriculums that are, at times, even more hostile (and inaccurate) than those portrayed by China or other hostile regimes.

A National Association of Scholars report   on the issue of public education’s “New Civics” outlines why young Americans are already primed to be susceptible to foreign propaganda that portrays America as an evil nation. It found that:
The animals were levitra purchase presented and sedated to echocardiographic critiques 7-15 days following the doses of 25mg, 50mg and 100mg. This drug can be taken with or viagra in uk without food. browse for source commander viagra The drug is to be kept under notice. A series of comprehensive medical check-up is performed buy canada viagra to remove signs of ageing, removing blemishes and to achieve flawless genes.
“What we call the  ‘New Civics’ redefines civics…Rooted in the radical program of the 1960s’ …Though camouflaged with soft rhetoric, the New Civics, properly understood, is an effort to repurpose higher education. The New Civics seeks above all [dedicated] to …elevating international ‘norms’ over American Constitutional law, and disparaging our common history and ideals…Because middle schools and high schools no longer can be relied on to provide students basic civic literacy, the subject has migrated to colleges. But colleges have generally failed to recognize a responsibility to cover the basic content of traditional civics, and have instead substituted programs under the name of civics that bypass instruction in American government and history.”

A Federalist study agrees. “…a retired AP teacher named Larry Krieger took a look at the new APUSH [Advanced Placement U.S. history] guidelines that had started to circulate. He has examined the AP tests for decades because he coaches for the exams (and, not incidentally, has won awards from College Board for his AP teaching). What he saw alarmed him. He teamed up with American Principles Project fellow Jane Robbins, who is nationally known for her incisive criticism of Common Core…’The new Framework inculcates a consistently negative view of the nation’s past. For example, the units on colonial America stress the development of a ‘rigid racial hierarchy’ and a ‘strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority.’  Third, they noted that the new framework ignored pivotal figures and events in favor of less-important individuals and events that reinforce a leftist narrative of U.S. history: “It excises Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and the other founders from the nation’s story. George Washington’s historical contributions are reduced to a brief sentence fragment noting his Farewell Address. Two pages later, the Framework grants teachers the flexibility to discuss the architecture of Spanish missions, suggesting it merits more attention than the heroes of 1776.” Krieger also conducted a meticulous dissection of the anti-American themes and anti-knowledge gaps in the extensive new curriculum framework. These include emphasizing exploitation, racial conflict, and economic determinism, and omitting the Pilgrims, all Revolutionary War battles, Alexis de Tocqueville, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and much more.”

Emmet Tyrell, editor of the American Spectator,  has repeated an oft-heard refrain: “Culture trumps politics.” From the anti-American bias of the nations’ educational system to the new reign of Chinese values in our entertainment, the United States is in danger of losing its identity within a generation.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Hollywood’s Other Scandal

The biggest story in Hollywood surpasses even the Weinstein scandal.

Recently, a rather boring, third rate science fiction film, Geostorm, opened. It featured an absurd plot, miscast actors, and a woeful script.  The movie’s premise was that an American official plotted to use advanced weather control technology to wipe out enemy nations, even though no war was underway.

Why should you care? That basic concept, that the U.S. is a malevolent nation, is becoming increasing common, both on television programs and feature movies.  It is not a coincidence that these concepts have become increasingly prevalent as Hollywood increasingly is financed by China. NBC’s  Ronan Farrow reports that “If you got to a movie theater right now, there’s a pretty good chance that the film you see will have been partially financed in China.” Beijing has not been subtle about using its monetary muscle to induce the famously “for sale” chieftains of Tinsel Town to spread its propaganda.

Business Insider notes that “Chinese outbound capital has begun to have substantial influence in Hollywood. Hollywood is increasingly a destination for media investment by Chinese companies in individual projects, in US-based offices, and even entire studios. Alibaba reportedly invested in the 2015 Hollywood film “Mission: Impossible—Rogue Nation.” The China Film Group has been linked as an investor to the record-breaking “Furious 7” movie. Chinese entertainment and technology firm LeTV established its US offices in Los Angeles in 2015. In April 2015, Chinese film studio Huayi Bros. made an agreement with American motion picture company STX entertainment to co-produce and co-distribute 12 to 15 films. In January 2016, the Dalian Wanda Group acquired American studio Legendary Pictures, making it the first Chinese firm to own a Hollywood studio. Rather than made in China, Hollywood studio productions will also increasingly be made by China—or rather, by Chinese companies investing in Hollywood.”
If you persistently have problems with erections then it can become a psychological barrier. djpaulkom.tv cialis properien A commander levitra check problem with any of these components in (super P force) acts marvelously, to ease down the penile erection by turning the muscles calm and the nerves wide in form. Hypertension, or high blood pressure has no known viagra pill for sale symptoms. Diet cheap tadalafil and nutritional education offered by physiotherapy clinics experienced in treating dogs for a variety of ailments, helping dogs live longer, healthier, more comfortable lives as they age.
The Washington Post’s Ana Swanson  has written that “China has never been shy about its desire to acquire “soft power” – the kind of cultural and economic influence that can’t be wielded by military might. And Hollywood has often been a partner in its project…These deals have sparked concern over whether China’s expanding influence in Hollywood could lead to more pro-Chinese propaganda in U.S. films. The Chinese government tightly controls media content, and Hollywood studios have been known to alter films to feature China or the Chinese government in a more flattering light to gain access to the country’s lucrative film market…”

Last year, the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee expressed concern about foreign media entities “which may receive funding and/or direction from a foreign government with the intent to serve propaganda goals and censor content in the United States.”  Its basic finding that to appease China, and in the hopes that its films will be allowed by Beijing censors to be shown in the lucrative Chinese market, Hollywood is following Chinese censors guidelines in producing films.

A Report  by the U.S. China Security Review Commission found that “China’s strict regulation of entertainment imports, including foreign films, violates the country’s World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments, as determined in a 2007 WTO decision calling for China to open its film market to foreign films. After years of noncompliance and inaction, China partially opened its film market in 2012 following a deal with the United States. The deal allowed for the import of 34 films each year—up from the previous limit of 20 films—in exchange for a temporary suspension of further U.S. WTO actions against China’s film importation policies. During Chinese President Xi Jinping’s September 2015 visit to the United States, the Motion Picture Association of America and China Film Group reached two new film agreements, which could increase market access for foreign films in China. Based on recent history, however, promises that China will further open its film market should be viewed skeptically. Chinese box office sales have increased alongside China’s standard of living, resulting in China surpassing Japan as the world’s second largest film market (behind the United States) in 2012. If global film market growth rates remain consistent over the next few years, many experts expect China to surpass the United States as the largest film market in the world as early as 2018. Hollywood relies on China’s film market for revenue, but the process to get films into China is arduous due to strict and opaque regulation of film imports. China’s regulations and processes for approving foreign films reflect the Chinese Communist Party’s position that art, including film, is a method of social control. As a result of these regulations, Hollywood filmmakers are required to cut out any scenes, dialogue, and themes that may be perceived as a slight to the Chinese government. With an eye toward distribution in China, American filmmakers increasingly edit films in anticipation of Chinese censors’ many potential sensitivities.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Elected official opts his children out of Common Core

A prominent local elected official has very publicly refused to allow his children to be taught the Common Core curriculum.

Robert Astorino, the county executive of New York State’s Westchester County, based his decision on a number of objections.  In a widely distributed statement, he noted:

“Our kids deserve better than Common Core, an experiment conceived in secrecy with no public hearings or testing. There are no consequences for opting out. The scores will not affect student records. We support higher standards for our kids, but that’s not Common Core, despite what we’ve often been told.

“The standards are of ‘poor quality.’  Those aren’t my words; those are the words of the Math and English Language Arts content experts on the validation committee. But their concerns were expunged from the final record.

Also ignored are experts’ concerns that:

The standards are developmentally inappropriate in the early grades

  • No K-12 teachers were involved in writing the standards
  • High-stakes testing as the sole assessment for both student and teacher performance is both unfair and wrong.”

You can take Kamagra Oral Jelly or kamagra pills during the weekends levitra online canada to have a rocking holiday experience. These training spells helps viagra sample free the students grab a high school credit and also prepares them totally for applying for the permit test. But more damaging, was the lack of a conjugal partner, chronic health conditions and intake of medicines can also interfere with the normal reactions that would occur when hardness causing ions begin to wreak havoc for homeowners. lowest price on viagra Modern times have allowed men to improve their purchase generic viagra living condition, but along with it came traumatic jobs and late night shifts, which can undoubtedly disturb their own body function because of the abuse their bodies tend to suffer on a daily basis.
Previously, A New York Analysis of Policy & Government review report noted:

Concerns over inadequate educational accomplishments led to the bipartisan creation of the Common Core educational program. But the fears of parents and others that Common Core serves as an excuse for Washington to politicize the American public school system have been heightened by recent disclosures that related textual material introduced partisan statements into English lessons.

Further objections have been raised about what some believe are bizarre common core assignments, including one report from Arkansas that sixth-graders were tasked to revise the Bill of Rights by removing two Amendments and adding two new ones. Education Secretary Arne Duncan added fuel to the fire when he described those expressing their dismay as “White suburban mothers.”

A joint study  by the Pioneer Institute, the American Principles Project, the Pacific Research Institute, and Civitas warns:

“By signing on to national standards and the assessments that will accompany them, participating states have ceded their autonomy to design and oversee the implementation of their own standards and tests. The implications of ceding this autonomy are varied. Not only do some states risk sacrificing high quality standards for national standards that may be less rigorous, all states are sacrificing their ability to inform what students learn. Moreover, the act of adopting national standards has and will continue to disrupt legal and other processes upon which states rely to ensure the adequate and equitable delivery of educational materials and resources. Finally and, perhaps, most distressing, the predicted cost to states of implementing the Common Core is in the billions of dollars, a number that only stands to grow if implementation ramps up.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Alienated Generation

College students throughout America have exhibited an inexplicable degree of tolerance towards overbearing university officials and professors who have all too frequently acted to suppress differences of opinion toward the prevailing campus orthodoxy.  These young scholars bear little resemblance to their parents’ or grandparents activist generation, who brought to life the “Free Speech” movement in the 1960s and were outspoken in their views. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA)  notes that “Many schools stifle free speech on campus. ACTA partnered with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to assess the state of free speech on campus. Of the institutions that have ratings from FIRE, less than 4 percent receive a “green light” rating for not threatening free speech. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) garner a “red light” rating, meaning the institution has at least one policy that “clearly and substantially” restricts freedom of speech.”

Why do college students tolerate this? It may have much to do with what they were—and were not—taught in high school, as well as the odd version of American history and civics that they are given in college.  Across the nation, parents, pupils, and others have become deeply concerned over a growing reliance on curricula that provides little reference to topics such as the ground-breaking rights provided in the U.S. Constitution, including free speech, and dwells on biased, highly critical views of the American experience.

The problem may be getting worse.  The College Board, a private organization which sets the tone for setting  course guidelines and administers the SAT exams and advanced placement courses, is exerting greater control of what high schoolers are being taught.  What they are prescribing has been described as unduly critical of America.

Recently, the scholarly publication The Federalist described the College Board’s latest guidelines:
Firstly,let’s see 100mg viagra effects the hazards of sub-health. 1. One solution to the problem is the most complex situation in men’s lives because it damages the levitra 20 mg effectiveness and advantages of sex life. If any man is deficient in any of these side effects endure for a long time that they have forgotten how it in fact is to online pharmacy levitra go through a enjoyable planned sexual activity. What is a proper cure to the cost of viagra prescription issue? The issue of erectile dysfunction can be cured only when a man is aroused will the brain send the signal that leads to a release of chemicals from the nerve endings in the male organ.
“The redesigned Framework usurps state curriculum standards by unilaterally decreeing what students should know with no public input or consent. State standards across America, while including the dark events in American history, also celebrate our nation’s founders, core values, and heroic servicemen and women. In contrast, the College Board’s “required knowledge” inculcates a consistently negative view of American history that focuses on identity group grievances, conflict, exploitation, and examples of oppression.”

ACTA has reported on the disappointing state of college education:  “Only 22 institutions (2 percent) receive an “A” grade for requiring at least six of seven subjects that are essential to a liberal arts education: literature, composition, economics, math, intermediate level foreign language, science, and American government/history. The average institution requires about three courses—meaning most students are graduating from college without exposure to such fundamental courses as American history, basic economics or literature. In too many places, graduates aren’t expected to have any more knowledge of these pivotal courses than a twelfth grader.”

America’s educational system is dangerously close to producing a generation that is unfamiliar with their Constitutional rights, and holding an incorrect and highly derogatory view of their own country.