Employers presently don't ask whether a student passes UBSCT because most don't know about it. It's still a new program.

Employers aren't going to change all their forms and processes to check for both a diploma and a skills test. A GED indicates a level of knowlege; a diploma represents the knowledge plus the skills, dedication, and commitment. Diplomas should be revoked if the tests aren't passed.

The fact that Utah uses a test that measures 8th grade level competency as what is needed to graduate shows that the entire structure of the test and that graduation requirements are flawed.

You get a high school diploma by staying in school until you are 18. It measures the ability to sit in a chair.

Someone with a GED must take a series of exams and PASS them.

I would rather hire someone with that proof of not only skill, but initiative -- they had to GO take the exams -- instead of someone who spent 12 years being "kept with his class."

When the test was first discussed, in the legislative accountability task force, the object was to improve education in Utah. If there were students that didn't pass the test the schools were to help them learn the information needed to pass the next time the test was administered. Many schools, like our local high school, haven't taken the time to help students individually improve. Many students have just given up.

The legislture's intent was to not have students get any diploma if they didn't pass the test. Our hope was that the schools would improve education at the lower levels so the high school students would be prepared when it came time to take the test. It is too bad the state office has made the decision to give the alternative diploma. They've taken away the incentive to improve.

Standardized tests, while they do have some value in measuring the effectiveness of learning and teaching, are absolutely the wrong tool for determining whether a student should graduate from High School. Standardized tests can be gamed by students and teachers to increase the pass rate. That is one big problem with any standardization scheme. The other problem is related to the population of students that have learned well, can cope and communicate in society, but for any number of reasons cannot test well in the typical high-stakes standardized test environment.

There is a great temptation to rely on "objective" quantitative measures like standardized tests because they permit us to distance ourselves from the students being evaluated. We then don't have to deal with the human consequences of effectively invalidating student's entire academic records just because they are not able to perform in an all or nothing scenario.

Excellent editorial. I completely agree. We should be raising the bar of academic achievement in Utah. Doing so will encourage students, parents, and teachers to stretch their efforts.

Letting students graduate without passing UBSCT makes us feel good about ourselves and how merciful we are. However, such a policy teaches a poor life lesson. The lesson students learn from failing UBSCT but graduating anyway is that mediocore performance is sufficient in life. It rewards students for taking the path of least resistance.

I say hold them to a higher standard!

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. This little saying means that the rider knows that there is a long dry ride ahead, but the horse doesn't and so since it isn't thirsty at the moment it choose not to drink. Telling many elementary students to learn now, because later he/she will not graduate from high school is meaningless. It probably has little affect even on a middle school student. Then in high school at the end of the ride, the student suffers, due to the unwillingness to "drink" at the beginning. Then we must also remember that there are students, that are unable to ever pass the test.

There is more to passing this test than the school environment, there is home and neighborhood. Expecting the school alone to control the culture seems a little far fetched. Utah schools do very well considering the level of funding, last among 50 states, but above average on standardized tests. This however, doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement.

I find all the posts interesting. However, the one from James caught my attention. Whether we like it or not competition (testing) is a part and reality of life. Foreign kids are weened on this and sink or swim accordingly.. This is one reason they are eating "our" lunch. That being said I am not partial to that system because it is too draconian and final for those who cannot perform at an accelerated pace. But to say that students, who have been through testing for 12 years, cannot pass the standard 8th grade test because "they just do not test well," is carrying the argument way too far. What is educationally being asked of them is minimal at best and if they can't pass or are not willing to take the test then THEY have failed the great gift of public education. The entire system should not be more watered down then it already is.

Many that don't pass UBSCT are ESL, mentally handicapped, learning disabled.

What to do about them? ?

Standardized tests can be both good and bad. They are good for the average to below average student because it can give information to the school on where a particular student needs help.

However, for the above average student, they can be a burden. In my experience, I had an AP Physics class, and thanks to standardized testing, after studying for and completing the AP physics test, the district required that I take a standardized physics test, to see if I could do basic physics. Granted the test was easy, and the class passed it easily, it was a waste of time.

If standardized tests are to be used, they should be used for identifying the needs of students, and to evaluate the abilities of the teachers.

If a student can go through 4 years of highschool and have passing grades, and not be able to pass the test, the grading practices of the teachers should be looked at.

To "science teacher" I really don't think the students we are talking about are the mentally disabled. Obviously these special students requirer a different set of standards. But these are seperate issues

There are people who don't do well in academics who none the less do well in practical things such as certain types of jobs.

Lawmakers don't need to worry that employeers don't pay close attention to who passed the skills test. If any employeer deems it in their interest they will look at this.

If they don't bother to look it is because it isn't an issue for them. Those with a diploma, skills test passed or not, are obviously doing a good enough job.

Leave well enough alone, and don't further burden the poor people who can't pass the skills test. The legislature ought to instead, offer tutoring to help them pass, even after graduation. Once they pass the test even after graduation, the diploma ought to be updated.

This will help these people move up the ladder and help them in their life.

Teachers do not need UBSCT to know who is or is not understanding the material presented - trust me they know already. The test takes too long to score and grade. UBSCT is a waste of time and money.

Jim makes some statements based on really poor assumptions. He said that "Foreign kids are weened on this and sink or swim accordingly. This is one reason they are eating "our" lunch." What is not mentioned here is that the nations that he is referring to all have selective education systems where most children are shuffled off to vocational education and only an elite few even seen the kinds of achievement tests that most children in the U.S. see as a matter of course.

He also said that "whether we like it or not competition (testing) is a part and reality of life." This is where he really goes wrong. The purpose of testing and evaluation in education is not to have a game with winners and losers. The purpose is to evaluate individual learning and teaching effectiveness against established benchmarks.

Yes, testing is used to restrict access to limited resources like student openings in medical schools and law schools. However, that has much more to do with resource allocation and the professional establishment maintaining those professions as a scarce and therefore expensive resource than any special intellectual ability required for those programs.

Why are our schools cranking out the dumbest kids in history?

Legislature Has Wrong Approach wrote, "Leave well enough alone, and don't further burden the poor people who can't pass the skills test. The legislature ought to instead, offer tutoring to help them pass."

It does. In 2006, the Legislature appropriated $7,500,000 (non-lapsing) to provide remedial help for students repeatedly failing the UBSCT.

To "Anonymous | 4:12 p.m." to answer your question is simple. Political correctness. You can have winners or losers, or people that are better than other people. In an effort to make everybody equal, thay can only teach to the slowest person in the class.

Just look at where a school district spends a lot of their money, it typically ends up in special ed.