Tests are and will never be fair. But we cannot lower our standards as a nation. Do we lead or follow the world?

I had a great professor who said, in a seminar when taken by a kind of reverie, that one can start with just a single passionate interest and then proceed in a circular manner to related subjects of interest and outward to encompass the entire universe.

In lower grades I learned to study to the test. It was a sheer gift that I encountered professors who had come to the US from a post WWII educational experience and knew something of the greatness of a truly humanistic education...one that inspired continued learning with a mind to serve others and one's community.

A "12th grade education" should be a 12th grade education. The CASHEE is based on 8th and 10th grade basic academic content. A student should not be promoted if he cannot pass this test of "basics." The diploma does not mean anything. What would an employer think of a student that "graduates" high school and receives a diploma, but can't pass 8th and 10th grade basics? Colleges keep wondering why so many incoming freshman are taking remedial classed. HELLO. Why are students being able to graduate from high school with less than an 8th or 10th grade education, regardless of their socio-economic background? School districts/schools should not be promoting those students. period.

Shouldn't the student have repeated a grade earlier on?

Having just moved from California back to Texas, I witnessed the confusion and the problems of teaching the test that have been going on in Texas for some time. I attended graduate classes there and even the professors were not very positive about the testing dilemma and "No child left behind." I am working in a NPS in Texas and have many students who come from California. I believe that uniformity across America is needed concerning paperwork (IEP's), and if testing is necessary, then they should be developed to demonstrate a student's true knowledge. I feel that education has been severly shortchanged due to the elimination of programs making it necessary for most students to pursue an academic tract. This may not be their destiny. Look at the drop out rate in our nation's schools. Lastly, students are bored with the same old curriculum that has been around for decades. Schools should provide the necessary academic subjects, but also courses that students can use for their future.

It is time to reinforce the connection between well planned, high performing, healthy and sustainable school facilities and student learning and community vitality. School buildings play an important role in the education of our children and their opportunities for success. Schools are places of great hope - indeed, they are the building blocks of our communities and our nation. Sustainable schools support culture, the community and the environment.

Ask the kids! They get it and they lend intuitivity, creativity and hopefulness to the design process. Give those kids an opportunity (such as the the CEFPI Foundation's School Building Week Student Design Competition) to think about the learning environment, understand the elements of school planning and design, express their creativity and demonstrate where they think they can learn best and then listen to them. Incorporate their ideas into the buildings we build and renovate -- and then they WILL meet (and very often surpass) those state standards.

While it may seem to be a sweeping generalization, the net result of high stakes testing is an over reliance upon lower order thinking skills. In other words, an infusion of high stakes tests into the education will ultimately lead to poor schooling. The practice is self-defeating.

If a group of students is not meeting minimum proficiencies, we need to develop specific interventions for each student's unique educational needs. We gain no benefit (other than political pacification) by mandating an educational approach that adversely impacts all students.

I think we test our students way too much as it is--besides state tests, there are in-house tests done as well. NWEA, PSAT, PLAN--students and teachers get "acronymed-out" with all the tests. Teaching for the tests has become #1--Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic, leaving out Social Studies/History and Science until the ACT/SAT tests. Personally, I find this path disturbing because there is no balance between subjects, especially in elementary school.

Seniors already have to deal with the pressures of ACT/SAT testing, as well as getting accepted into college, financing college, etc. I'm not saying graduate them all regardless, but I do think that we need to find alternatives to straight testing to determine whether or not the students have the skills required to graduate from high school. In Minnesota we had the Profiles of Learning, which emphasized student portfolios/projects as evidence of achieving the skills required to graduate. Unfortunately the change in the governor's office got rid of that "cutting-edge" program. Now we have a new trend in differentiated learning (teach at different levels/ways for different learners). I'm wondering when Ringling Bros. will start recruiting teachers--we jump through many hoops already just for licensing requirements.

We are testing children in Texas to death. The students start in third grade and are tested until they pass the exit level test in eleventh grade. This is too much testing and pressure to pass the different levels of tests.

I find it difficult to choose between the first and last choices. I do believe we must reduce the number of high stakes testing, none at all would be preferable. Test results can be used for planning, remediation, etc. but not to punish students or teachers or schools.

On the other hand, a rigorous exit exam required for all seeking a high school diploma is necessary if the diploma is to mean anything beyond having hung around high school to acccumulate credits. This test should be constructed so that students who have been provided with equal education opportunity can pass. This means teachers must be allowed to teach actual material and skills, including critical thinking and problem solving; and they should not be rewarded for teaching the test. This means the test must be more than multiple guess; critical thought, problem-solving ability and written language skills must be demonstrated through the test.

In short, yes a test; not a high stakes test that will create money for schools -- or punishment.