Talk:Standards of Learning

Virginia Mid‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

4 subject areas?

The article states: "...the Virginia Board of Education approved Standards of Learning in four core content areas - mathematics, science, English, and history and the social sciences - and in computer technology." Now, I'm not a mathematician, but those are not "4 core content areas" - there seem to be 6. History and social sciences go together, and form one core area. I'm not sure about the history, but from my experience "computer technology" isn't considered a core content area, either. So, the sentence "...the Virginia Board of Education approved Standards of Learning in four core content areas - mathematics; science; English; and history and the social sciences" would work much better, and thats what I've put in. If its not correct, please change! » K i G O E | talk 21:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who graduated from a VA high school, there was no "Computer technology" core at the time. AFAIK, there is only physical sciences, mathematics, English grammar, and social sciences. Then again, I graduated in 2003, and a whole new crop of people are in the schools now // 3R1C 15:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section needs work

Alright, first off let me say that this section of the article is rather terrible. Specifically, pointing out that Barack Obama and the No Child Left Behind act has been beneficial is a false claim until I actually see a reference. As a matter of fact, this section of the article barely has any sources that back up these claims. This article definitely needs some work done, especially since SOLs are coming up in about 2-3 weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitelava (talk • contribs) 01:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism?

I personally think we should do away with the whole criticism paragraph. This whole situation applies to any test, not just the SOL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.191.141.208 (talk • contribs).

Here is the section that the user above was talking about. Note that the section did not cite any references, and it appears to be an opinion. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SOL program, and its emphasis on testing, has come under intense criticism by both teachers and parents. Teachers complain that they are now in a situation of "teaching to the test" and are unable to answer questions not related to test matter. It is also, however, very unfair to the students of Virginia. Sometimes the students cannot pass all of the multiple ones they must take and this leads to failure to graduate or to attend a graduation ceremony. The student must take the class over. Situations have occurred where students who have made straight A's in a specific class fail that class's SOL test. If students do fail the SOL in a specific subject, they are given the option to re-take the SOL the following year.

I added a new paragraph and edited the first (it was poorly written). I think that the SOL entry does deserve a criticism section because it is under constant scrutiny and that people should be aware that passing an SOL should be a given, not a cause for celebration. Cmcfarland 03:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section lacks any references, and therefore is an opinion piece. If you would like to post your opinion online, consider using a blog or other tool, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a source for opinions or personal content. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 18:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism for the SOLs in Virginia is widespread beyond personal opinion. We should make an effort to find references so that this can be addressed. Ian Burnet (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag

I tagged the article for neutrality mainly due to the "Controversy" and "Helping students" sections. These sections are a bit over the top, and don't contain enough sources to back up their assertions, particularly regarding VGLA's. A lot of the section on VGLA's sounds like it was written by a teacher who resents having to do all the extra work related to them (my mother, a Virginia teacher, has indicated a lot of the same thoughts). However, as written, the sections are neither neutral nor sufficiently backed by reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The non-neutrality has been recognized and removed by the original author, who is not a SPED teacher, but who knows one quite intimately :). hschatz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hschatz (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ORIGINS OF SOLS?

"The Standards of Learning are supportive of and in direct response to the No Child Left Behind Law which was signed into law in by then President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002." And then later, "In June 1995, the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) approved Standards of Learning in four core content areas"

The article obviously internally contradicts itself. I know that SOLs preceded NCLB; I am actually doing a brief search trying to piece together their history. Better statement if you take out the "and in direct response to (NCLB)..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.154.62 (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring

I'm doing some copyediting for this article, and the first two sentences of the Scoring section are directly contradictory: "A student must get 66 percent (raw score of 400) or higher on their SOL(s) in order to advance to the next grade. A student's advancement to the next grade is not contingent on passing any SOL tests."

Could someone with a little more knowledge of the SOL system sort this out? Thanks, Diadema812 (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the percentages because SOL test scores do not correlate to a percentage of questions correct. They scores are scaled and the tests are now computer adaptive so questions are weighted differently based on difficulty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.58.253 (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The scores of 400, 500, and 600 are all scaled scores. The article is still inaccurate when it uses the term "raw." We teachers do not know what raw score is required for each level (and it probably varies slightly year to year for each test). From VDOE website: "Student performance is graded on a scale of 0-600 with 400 representing the minimum level of acceptable proficiency and 500 representing advanced proficiency. The achievement levels for grades 3-8 reading and mathematics tests are: Pass/Advanced, Pass/Proficient, Fail/Basic, and Fail/Below Basic. The achievement levels for science tests, history tests, and End-of-Course (EOC) tests* are: Pass/Advanced, Pass/Proficient, and Fail/Does Not Meet. The EOC Writing (2010 SOL) test, EOC Reading (2010 SOL) test, and EOC Algebra II (2009 SOL) test have an achievement level of Advanced/College Path in place of the Pass/Advanced achievement level." (http://www.pen.k12.va.us/testing/scoring/index.shtml) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewman222 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]