--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDI00003 Date: 09/13/96 From: RON MCDERMOTT Time: 04:12pm \/To: DAN TRIPLETT (Read 1 times) Subj: WHOLE LANGUAGE 2 1/2 RM>Inferences are sometimes correct, but often RM>incorrect as well. I don't think this is a good way to RM>operate if you have an alternative process available. DT>And what is the alternative process? REAL research... Take what you're calling a "study", make sure it limits variables as much as possible, repeat it to verify results, then try modifying the variables (run an experiment) to determine the dependencies, etc... DT>Do you mean that only Qualitative research is to be DT>considered reliable? First of all, I think you mean quantitative, and, no, it isn't essential to be numerical (though that often helps), but it IS essential that it be RESEARCH and not unstructured observation.... DT>I think others have argued that research in general can be slanted DT>to prove this or that theory. Research can't be slanted if it is performed properly.. DATA can often be interpreted "creatively" if one wishes to do so, however... Usually, this creative interpretation applies to "studies" more so than to research, simply because research has very little "wiggle room". Usually the worst that can happen with research is to come up with no clear conclusion. Studies often have MANY variables involved, some hidden, and "conclusions" are often suspect, imo... The vagueness of what is being tested allows one great latitude in inferring what the results mean.... I guess I have to point out that for me, research involves scientific method, not simply thrashing about hoping to stumble across something by collecting observations more or less randomly... DT>If I understand you correctly I am assuming that you refer to single, DT>unsupported research when you say that conclusions are inferential. Yes, certainly that, but also studies that are not formulated in a scientific way... Part of our problem here is our different interpretations of "research" and "studies"... DT>We can confidently go beyond mere inferences when a large body of DT>research brings us to the same or similar conclusions. I think our confidence in the DATA improves, but the meaning of the data is in question if the process of collecting it is haphazard... For example... Suppose an alien wished to draw conclusions about human behavior. Each day "he" goes out and observes humans. Does it in a few cities, towns, etc. Someone else repeats the study. End result is a list of activities of humans. The list DOESN'T include sleeping (which occupies a large part of a human's day).... Why? Observations were not conducted scientifically, and no one thought to vary the time of the observations to include night. Are the conclusions valid? Does it matter how many times "they" repeat the study? A flawed study is suspect (as is flawed research). Now this is an extreme illustration, admittedly, but the principle applies to a lesser degree in almost any study, and to some research as well (but at least with research, an effort is made to catch all these little details)... DT>... it can also be said that it is unnecessary to run an DT>experiment every time one conducts a study. Absolutely, as long as one realizes that any conclusions are questionable and unverified without running further tests, and conducting experiments which modify variables. DT>Not every study requires an experiment or control groups. Then, frankly, any conclusions that one may be tempted to draw as a result are meaningless.... DT>Qualitative research methods are employed not out of convenience or DT>expediency, but because that which is being studied can best be examined DT>using a qualitative research approach. Now here I'm at a loss.... Qualitative is non-numerical.. Previously it appeared that you were confusing qualitative with quantitative, but in this context I'm not so sure.. Some things do not easily lend themselves to quantification. Emotions, for example... Most research IS quantified simply because quantification conveys additional information (A is related to B is not as good as A = 2*B)... We always seek . --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a * Origin: The Dolphin BBS Pleasant Valley NY 914-635-3303 (1:2624/302) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDI00004 Date: 09/13/96 From: RON MCDERMOTT Time: 04:12pm \/To: DAN TRIPLETT (Read 1 times) Subj: WHOLE LANGUAGE 2 2/2 quantification for this reason, but numbers in and of themselves aren't enough if the meaning of numbers cannot be determined because the process is not sufficiently limited. Simply collecting raw data and drawing conclusions is meaningless: Birth rate is higher where storks are found flying... People live longer in the USA than in many other countries.. There are more asians than any other ethnic group... Population density is highest around oceans... What do you conclude from the above (btw, I think these are all correct)? My point is that you can conclude any NUMBER of things from this collection of raw and unstructured data, and not have the SLIGHTEST assurance than your conclusions are worth the air required to give them voice... ___ * MR/2 2.26 * When DOS grows up it wants to be OS/2! --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a * Origin: The Dolphin BBS Pleasant Valley NY 914-635-3303 (1:2624/302) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDJ00000 Date: 09/14/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 10:53am \/To: RON MCDERMOTT (Read 2 times) Subj: WHOLE LANGUAGE 2 1/2 RON MCDERMOTT spoke of WHOLE LANGUAGE 2 1/2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 09- 13-96 RM>DT>And what is the alternative process? RM>REAL research... Take what you're calling a "study", make RM>sure it limits variables as much as possible, repeat it to RM>verify results, then try modifying the variables (run an RM>experiment) to determine the dependencies, etc... Then you are saying that a "study" can be conducted and be considered research if certain conditions exist? RM>DT>Do you mean that only Qualitative (should read Quantitative) research is to be considered reliable? RM>First of all, I think you mean quantitative, and, no, it RM>isn't essential to be numerical (though that often helps), RM>but it IS essential that it be RESEARCH and not unstructured RM>observation.... Yes I do mean quantitative.....and I don't know what you mean by unstructured. Do you mean the data collecting must be structured or the environment must be structured? RM>DT>I think others have argued that research in general can be slanted RM>DT>to prove this or that theory. RM>Research can't be slanted if it is performed properly.. DATA RM>can often be interpreted "creatively" if one wishes to do so, RM>however... Usually, this creative interpretation applies to RM>"studies" more so than to research, simply because research RM>has very little "wiggle room". Usually the worst that can RM>happen with research is to come up with no clear conclusion. RM>Studies often have MANY variables involved, some hidden, and RM>"conclusions" are often suspect, imo... The vagueness of what RM>is being tested allows one great latitude in inferring what RM>the results mean.... I have never been a big fan of the "research can be slanted" theory but it does go around and around. I think that research can be considered valid when other research supports findings. I see you use studies and research separately. You have a narrow definition of research I think. Studies are conducted by researchers, their work is considered research (as in the case of field-studies) and the scientific community accepts these "studies" as research. Why do you differentiate between the two? RM>I guess I have to point out that for me, research involves RM>scientific method, not simply thrashing about hoping to RM>stumble across something by collecting observations more or RM>less randomly... Qualitative research is scientific and is far from "thrashing" about hoping to find something. It is systematic and each research strategy is specific in its approach. RM>DT>If I understand you correctly I am assuming that you refer to RM>DT>single, unsupported research when you say that conclusions are RM>DT>inferential. RM>I think our confidence in the DATA improves, but the meaning RM>of the data is in question if the process of collecting it RM>is haphazard... This would be true no matter what the study was.....I am not arguing that simply because a study is conducted that constitutes validity. But studies can be highly reliable. Many are. RM>DT>... it can also be said that it is unnecessary to run an RM>DT>experiment every time one conducts a study. RM>Absolutely, as long as one realizes that any conclusions RM>are questionable and unverified without running further RM>tests, and conducting experiments which modify variables. I'm not sure this is a necessary procedure in every research project. RM>DT>Not every study requires an experiment or control groups. RM>Then, frankly, any conclusions that one may be tempted to RM>draw as a result are meaningless.... Then explain how one must conduct an experiment or have control groups in case studies. A case study is a detailed examination of a particular setting, subject, documents, or events. How could one do a control group for a historical organizational case study? Suppose I want to do research on the origins of a particular group of folk-lore or gorillas in the wild. What about anthropological studies as applied to American education? Such studies are rigorous and systematic but how does one apply the control variables as you suggest? (Consider the work of Margaret Mead) RM>DT>Qualitative research methods are employed not out of convenience RM>DT>or expediency, but because that which is being studied can best RM>DT>be examined using a qualitative research approach. RM>Now here I'm at a loss.... Qualitative is non-numerical.. RM>Previously it appeared that you were confusing qualitative RM>with quantitative, but in this context I'm not so sure.. I'm not confusing the two. I am referring to qualitative vrs quantitative. I am saying that there are some things in education we wish to know more about that a qualitative approach is more appropriate. Dan..... CMPQwk 1.42 445p "ATHEISM: A non-prophet organization. * ++++++ * _ /| ACK! \'o.O' / =(__)+ U --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: R-Squared BBS (1:352/28.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDJ00001 Date: 09/14/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 11:02am \/To: RON MCDERMOTT (Read 2 times) Subj: WHOLE LANGUAGE 2 2/2 RON MCDERMOTT spoke of WHOLE LANGUAGE 2 2/2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 09- 13-96 RM> Simply collecting raw data and drawing conclusions RM>is meaningless: Meaningless? It has no value? It can tell us nothing? RM>Birth rate is higher where storks are found flying... RM>People live longer in the USA than in many other countries.. RM>There are more asians than any other ethnic group... RM>Population density is highest around oceans... RM>What do you conclude from the above (btw, I think these are RM>all correct)? My point is that you can conclude any RM>NUMBER of things from this collection of raw and unstructured RM>data, and not have the SLIGHTEST assurance than your RM>conclusions are worth the air required to give them voice... Just because some studies or "data collecting" may not yield meaningful information doesn't mean that all data collecting is meaningless. If done properly and systematically the data can be very useful. It's easy to cite an absurd example to make a point. No one can argue that to make conclusions on the above "facts" is unscientific. I'm not talking about this kind of data anyway. I think you must know there is a difference between fact finding and research. Dan CMPQwk 1.42 445p ... I still have a full deck; I just shuffle slower now. * ++++++ * _ /| ACK! \'o.O' / =(__)+ U --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: R-Squared BBS (1:352/28.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDJ00002 Date: 09/14/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 11:17am \/To: RUTH LEBLANC (Read 2 times) Subj: The Real Story 2 RUTH LEBLANC spoke of The Real Story 2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-12-96 RL>Will you change grades next year if the opportunity comes up? What RL>grade would you like to go into? It remains to be seen if I will change grade levels. I have some goals for myself this year and I am trying a few new approaches (which require more work on my part). If it feels good I may stick around and grow here a bit longer :). L>DT> She then has a period of time that they can have a RL> >RL>free choice of what they do and where they go at the centres - RL> >RL>is this more what you are after? No...I have that already. I just want to fill in the gaps in my program. Transitions are always a problem for me. They take too long. I'm trying to eliminate some of them. They eat up too much of the day. I would like to kids to learn to transition from one activity to another completely on their own. Like self-directed learning. My day is broken up with assigned stations in the morning where the children go to a particular station with an assigned group. Each day they shift to another station until they have completed the cycle. We also have afternoon stations where the children rotate from between 4 work stations. I usually have an art station, a game station (puzzles, games, abc bingo, 123 bingo, playdough, lotto, etc) writing station, and a math station. Last I have choice time where the children can go to any of the centers I have "opened" for the day. Stations: computer, writing, reading, listening, science, dome, house (dramatic play), white board writing, math, easel painting, water table, art table, games, big blocks, puppet center, large movement area, plus a few more from time-to- time). With circle time, recess, lunch, reading buddies, and the many other things we do in our classroom, there are many little "time gaps." I am trying to fill these with meaningful activities and make transitions more natural and fluid. RL>I'm very lucky to work for a board that does a lot of inservicing and RL>leads the way in curriculum development etc. They have specific RL>inservicing just for kindergarten in early literacy, math, reporting RL>outcomes, portfolios, etc. etc. Early literacy is very important RL>here. As it should be....take care, Dan RL>--- RL> QMPro 1.53 ...So easy, a child can do it! Child sold RL>separately... RL> * Origin: FidoNet: CAP/CANADA Support BBS : 416 287-0234 (1:250/710) CMPQwk 1.42 445p * To tell the sex of a chromosome, pull down its genes. * * ++++++ * _ /| ACK! \'o.O' / =(__)+ U --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: R-Squared BBS (1:352/28.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDJ00003 Date: 09/14/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 12:19pm \/To: SHEILA KING (Read 2 times) Subj: Whole Language 1 1/ SHEILA KING spoke of Whole Language 1 1/ to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-13- 96 SK>I do think you make a valid point about observations being useful for SK>drawing conclusions about development. However, in order to determine SK>which of two teaching philosophies is better (i.e. Whole Language or SK>Traditional) one would need to conduct studies which compare them SK>against each other and obtain quantitative data. Otherwise it is mere SK>unsupported conjecture. The case for WL is very supported. (as in approximated spelling....this WL idea has been around even in traditional classrooms...it doesn't need a quantitative study....there is a great deal of information to support the concept and _many_ studies have been conducted.) I have said this before: WL ideas are borne of research...studies are supported by a large body of research. If one investigates WL properly one can find a great deal of information and data we already possess. We also have a great deal of data regarding traditional methods. For example, research data clearly shows the traditional methods of teaching spelling to be inferior. We have supported research that clearly shows what works best (and it's not the traditional method). Now the practices of WL in some classrooms is another matter. I don't care what it is called, WL or traditional, if the practice isn't sound or supported, children shouldn't be subjected to it. SK>-> Your own observations of children are research to a degree SK>-> in-and-of -themselves and through these observations you have SK>-> learned a great deal about your area of teaching. You do not SK>-> believe that your experience in education has taught you anything SK>-> about children? SK>I do believe that I have learned a great deal about teaching and SK>children through my career as a teacher, but I would never venture to SK>call it research. It is experience, and nothing more. It's not research in the systematic sense, but your experience has taught you some "truths" about teaching and you have incorporated these "findings" into your teaching. I realize it's not scientific in nature, but experience counts for much of the way any teacher approaches the practice of teaching. I think of it as on the job research. It may be job specific and it may not yield itself to generalizations, but it is important information (one which a researcher conducting interviews might want to include in a particular study). SK>-> I have noticed for example, that 5 year old children who enter SK>-> kindergarten able to write their names correctly, will nearly SK>-> always go through a period where they write their names SK>-> _backwards._ SK>That is odd. I have never heard of that before. I neither of my two SK>children did that, and I don't recall myself or any of my siblings SK>doing it either, although those memories are certainly less reliable SK>than the ones of my own two children. I have never done a study on this (it would be difficult to teach and keep records consistently) but I think that if you view children's work in kindergarten you would notice a great many children (throughout the year...not all at once) who write their name backwards and then forward. I have observed for example that sometime children will write backwards when starting from the left. I usually see backward writing when children begin on the right side of the page. Often I see children write their names beginning on the right side of the page and running out of room. The just continue below (where ever there is room). I'd be interested to know just how common this is. I have many early childhood books around my home and there are examples of children's writings with many reversed letters. Some examples include backward names as well. I would bet (no way to prove it though) that your children and you as well wrote some letters backwards as they/you were learning to form the letters. It is very common. SK>-> I have drawn some conclusions regarding this backward writing and SK>-> believe it has to do with perceptual development. If I wanted to SK>-> conduct a study I would systematically collect information that SK>-> would tell me how common this backward phase is. I hypothesize SK>-> that it is as high as 90%. I have never conducted a study but if SK>-> I did, I would not need a control group here (who can really SK>-> control 5-year-olds anyway? ). SK>This is an interesting idea. I don't know enough about studies and SK>proper procedures to gainsay what you write here. It sounds SK>reasonable. But what you are suggesting is mere observation to find SK>the frequency of a certain occurance. That is simply collecting data. SK>I don't know that you prove anything by that other than that this SK>phenomenon occurs a certain percentage of the time. I think it could tell us more than that. If I saw it happen over an over for a long period of time and if I saw the phenomenon in many samples and a consistent pattern developed I could draw some reasonable conclusions. Supportive studies would be necessary but the information could lead to further studies. From what I know of perceptual development I may be on the right track. SK>What we were discussing before, is the relative merits of certain SK>types of instruction, and how to determine which is the best teaching SK>methodology, or combination thereof. This can not be done by mere SK>data collecting and observation of a qualitative measure as you SK>suggest above. If you want to compare the relative merits of two SK>different strategies, you must pit them one against the other in a SK>quantitative study. Your hypothesis would be something like "whole SK>language teaching methodologies result in better reading SK>comprehension" or something along those lines. This statement is much SK>too vague, of course. But then the traditional method would be used SK>on your control group and you would try to prove that you got better SK>results by evaluating students on the same type of instrument. This SK>is the only way to draw a valid conclusion about which method is SK>better. I see where you are coming from but I see this idea from a different angle. I see WL being borne out of studies that clearly show how children learn best. Literature based instruction is one idea that has been studied and many researchers have concluded that the basil approach is inferior for many reasons. It is a detailed argument so I won't go into it here. What I am driving at is that no study is necessary to compare traditional vrs WL. We have data right now that we can look at that will tell us what are good and sound teaching practices. In spelling instruction alone there is enough data already that concludes the traditional method is ineffective. We also have information that clearly shows what works. Why do another study and subject a control group to an incompetent approach? Dan.... By the way...I have found through the course of the discussions here, the reading I have done and the conversations I have had with educators around the country regarding WL that there is good cause for alarm. What interest me most is not WL but effective teaching practices. If one considers him/her-self a WL teacher then they must fully understand each individual practice _clearly._ Phonics is a good example. Some WL practitioners believed that phonics was _totally_ unnecessary. WL does not subscribe to this idea. Traditionalists may consider it foundational. WL doesn't subscribe to this either. I include some phonics instruction in kindergarten and I have a variety of approaches I use...all of which are valid practices. Some are found in the more traditional method and others are not. It's not being eclectic that is important here....it's practicing what really works. Take care.... CMPQwk 1.42 445p Silly wabbit.....QWKs are for QWKidds. * ++++++ * _ /| ACK! \'o.O' / =(__)+ U --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: R-Squared BBS (1:352/28.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDJ00004 Date: 09/14/96 From: SHEILA KING Time: 11:52am \/To: DAN TRIPLETT (Read 2 times) Subj: Spelling... -> So using the spelling tools they have (decoding skills and sight -> words) they make an approximation. It's close, but no cigar. Over -> time this approximated spelling _disappears_ completely. I think what has most people (parents, and teachers who disagree with the "invented" spelling practice in the classroom) disagreeing with this practice, is that they DON'T see is disappearing completely. Children need some incentive or impetus to want to learn to spell correctly (or at least some of them do). Some teachers who are allowing "approximated" spelling in their classrooms, are seeming (at least from the kids point of view) to accept their spellings as being OK. What message does this send to the student? For some students, they come away with the message that they don't need to learn to spell the words correctly. Now, you may say that these teachers are implementing this idea incorrectly in their classrooms, and I would agree. But, it is occuring, and that is where the seemingly "irrational" objections are coming from that do not seem to be based on "knowledge and understanding". Sheila --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10 * Origin: Castle of the Four Winds...subjective reality? (1:218/804) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDJ00005 Date: 09/14/96 From: SHEILA KING Time: 11:54am \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Turtle Correction I noticed that in a message I sent out yesterday I had written: -> We have a lab with 28 stand alone 486 students, Clearly the word "students" should be replaced with "computers". Ooops. I'm willing to bet that Ron McDermott makes some cute remark about it before he sees this correction statement. ;-) Sheila --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10 * Origin: Castle of the Four Winds...subjective reality? (1:218/804) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDJ00006 Date: 09/14/96 From: SHEILA KING Time: 12:13pm \/To: CARL BOGARDUS (Read 2 times) Subj: Ford, discipline, etc. -> Well, I am the lab instructor, here are some of the things I do: ...... -> Almost every 8th grade student comes to my class at least once a day. -> There is no set curriculum in the state - nor has the district come -> up with one yet. ...... -> When all else fails, I teach standard office products, (letters, -> forms, memos, invoices, etc.). I also teach students the following: Sounds like you have come up with a pretty good list of things to do and teach on your own. -> Students are amazed when I pull a computer apart to repair or add a -> card to it. Most have never seen a teacher work on equipment and very -> few have seen the naked computer. -> One student was looking at the motherboard of a computer, and said, -> "Looks like a city, the little wires look like streets and the chips -> look like buildings where work or storage is done". I told her that -> was an excellent analogy. We have on old 386 motherboard sitting around at home. I was thinking of passing it around the class when we talk about hardware (which we have done some, and I've assigned reading on it, but I haven't really discussed it as much as I'd like). On the first day of class I had the students fill out a survey for me, and two of the questions were: 1. Have you ever seen the inside of a computer? and 2. Have you ever installed a card, memory, drive, or other hardware? I think the overwhelming majority of them have seen the insides of the computer. And a significant minority (1/3 maybe) have either installed hardware or helped/watched someone else do it. I had even thought about taking the case off one of the computers in the lab to show the insides to the class. But I am thinking now that that may not be so wise, since I have had several head-buttings with the tech who is supposed to maintain the lab, and he and my dept. chair may not think that is such a wise thing to do. Besides which, several of the machines seem to have lots of dust inside them, and I don't want to open one and show the kids THAT! :-( But, I guess I may still take the motherboard and pass it around. I do remember one of the teacher ed courses I had to take for my credential on computers, the instructor opened up a computer to show the insides. I thought that was pretty cool, although I'd seen it before since my husband does a lot of work on our machines at home. The other teachers in the class seemed quite impressed. -> Soon we will have our bbs up and running, so they will have lots to -> learn, more rules, common sense, good manners, etc. will have to be -> discussed and learned. How exciting. Just out of curiousity, what BBS software will you be running? Is it going to be a local BBS or are you planning to dial out for mail and participate in any networks? What conferences do you plan to carry, if you are dialing out for mail? -> I am writing a grant for a cooperative geometry project using LOGO. I -> will be working with both math teacher on a project. -> I am on the school's grant writing team and we have done pretty good -> so far. I am looking for others though. Good luck. Let us know how it goes. Sheila --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10 * Origin: Castle of the Four Winds...subjective reality? (1:218/804) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DDJ00007 Date: 09/14/96 From: SHEILA KING Time: 12:25pm \/To: CHARLES BEAMS (Read 2 times) Subj: Cbest -> "Though the story questioned the academic qualifications of some of -> those who did not pass the CBEST, many graduates of "elite" -> universities have failed it. -> For example, in the 1991-92 school year, 11 percent of the 749 -> graduates of the -> University of California at Berkeley who took the test for the first -> time did not pass. Is it really plausible that Berkeley graduated -> more than 75 students -> who cannot perform at what the state claims is merely a 10th grade -> level?" I think this certainly IS possible. Of course, one has to realize that the math portion is (or at least, at one time _was_) fairly specialized. It would be to our students benefit, however, if even non-math teachers had a good understanding of math, so that they could discuss surveys and trends intelligently within their subject area. What is so alarming about a number of the persons who do not pass, is that they cannot pass the _writing_ portion of the exam. -> one section on lighthouses, for example, is criticized as being -> culturally biased (not many lighthouses in inner-city ghettos) and -> another reading selection on fruit juices is criticized for being -> more of a question of logic than of reading skills. Monty supports -> his contention that the CBEST is culturally biased by reporting on -> some studies done by the Educational Testing Service (the company -> which wrote the CBEST) in the 1970's in which they were able to -> produce tests on which minority candidates scored higher than whites. This is entirely possible. I wouldn't be surprised in the least that the exam is culturally biased. I think it is very difficult to write an exam that is in no way culturally biased. -> Monty further criticizes the CBEST for its difficult math questions -> and it's poor selection of writing topics. He felt that both were -> irrelevant to most of -> the test takers and the time restraints may cause undue pressure. The writing topics that I have seen (while few) should have been relevant to any educated person. For instance, they ask you to describe some memorable event from your childhood, or they give a political statement and ask you to agree with or disagree with it and support your point of view. While I imagine that Monty Niel has a good point that the exam is biased, I think he may be reaching for some of his objections in order to make his list of objections longer. -> But reducing the definition of high-quality to the ability to pass a -> test does not protect or serve the public interest; it merely -> perpetuates the latest excuse for racial exclusion - that test scores -> equal merit." This statement does bear some thought. Sheila --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10 * Origin: Castle of the Four Winds...subjective reality? (1:218/804)