Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I have heard this from a Republican friend of mine who voted for Bush (at least in 2000) who has a very gifted child in a good Northern Va. public school system. She gets very upset by what she sees as the impact of NCLB on that system and her daughter's education.

i.e. Enforcing and/or leading to mediocrity, while not helping the smart kids at all. I helpfully pointed out to her that her child was not being "left behind", because she didn't need help, and that mediocrity was a step up for many kids. That didn't comfort her much. But I'm not sure how one would/could target a program more appropriately.

S_A_M

there is a large % of educated parents out there who see there kiddies as "gifted." the public schools their kids go to are never doing enough to keep the kiddies challenged. no offense to your friend but most of them are full of shit.

A truly intelligent kid will have to learn to deal with being less than fully challenged at times anyway, throughout life. and we are talking about k-12 which isn't intended to teach a hell of a lot anyway.

I would rather your friend's kid isn't challenged to her capability, but most of her classmates end up being able to read and do basic math so they can function.

ultimately being able to "weave disparate thoughts on historical factors" or whatever GGG is talking about is nice, but not at the expense of a few classrooms full of kids who can't read and have no clue if they jreceived the proper change at the market.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm sure this happens, but isn't eliminating wrong answers, when you are not sure what the right one is, a valuable skill?

(For example: In Iraq, the U.S. should (a) cut and run, (b) stay the course, (c) other).

Until a week ago, anything other that (b) was (a). Now I'm not so sure.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
2.

Many of us have nothing against tests, but it's the standardized test and the curriculum focused on beating the test rather than learning the lesson that I find problematic.

If a standardized test simply asks what is six times seven, or even what is value of x, or the deriviative of x, how does "beating the test" not also help the student learn math.

Prior to college, it seems to me, that creating a test that actually test yours knowledge of a subject isn't that hard to do. In other words, preparing for the test will force you to learn the subject.

What sort of tests can you have in elementary school where "beating the test" doesn't also force you to learn the subject?

And why is the California Teachers Association so against testing students? Why do they defend social promotion?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
My kid's homework looks nothing like this, though he is in private school so maybe that's why.

On the other hand, I once represented a non-profit that developed teaching techniques and materials for schools -- originally focused on teaching reading to elementary school kids, but later expanded to include writing, math, and science, and to reach middle school as well.

This program, which was in over 1000 schools, was extremely drill-oriented. The classes were highly structured. "Self-esteem" teaching did not seem part of the program, at least not from the materials I saw.

I raise this because the program was developed by some of those same, dread "academics" that Bilmore talks about, at one of those dreaded liberal universities that he believes is staffing our schools with teachers who believe that 2+2 can equal 5 if that makes you feel better.

Put differently, I suspect that things are a bit less monolithic that Bilmore argues. This may fall in with the "Dems who commit traitorous acts and support terrorism" line. (i.e., in the category of "complete Bilmore bullshit")


eta: I don't doubt that some teachers and books are like this. But schools throughout the country dominated by the "teach self-esteem" "movement", because that is what university education programs teach? Not so sure.

They why does the California Teachers Association fight every attempt at standarized testing? Why do they support social promotion? What do they not want test to see if you can gradutate from High school?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
there is a large % of educated parents out there who see there kiddies as "gifted." the public schools their kids go to are never doing enough to keep the kiddies challenged. no offense to your friend but most of them are full of shit.

A truly intelligent kid will have to learn to deal with being less than fully challenged at times anyway, throughout life. and we are talking about k-12 which isn't intended to teach a hell of a lot anyway.

I would rather your friend's kid isn't challenged to her capability, but most of her classmates end up being able to read and do basic math so they can function.

One of my sisters works for this company, which hopes to fill the gaps for the bright kids who are bored as hell at school. I think it's a really good resource for schools and systems that are too strapped to concentrate on the kids who very easily master the material that they are given.

They just launched an on-line high school, and I'm curious to see how that plays out. My sister writes cirricula for third through sixth graders in English courses.

ETA Mission statement.

EPGY's Mission
The Education Program for Gifted Youth is an ongoing research project at Stanford University dedicated to developing computer-based multimedia courses in Mathematics, Physics, English, Computer Programming and other subjects, and making these available to students of high ability. EPGY endeavors to

• Provide students with advanced courses regardless of where they live.
• Do so without requiring them to leave their normal school environment.
• Individualize instruction and accommodate individual differences in student learning.
• Allow students to progress at their own paces and to accelerate their education.

EPGY strives to deepen and improve the nature of computer-based distance learning instruction. We revise our courses regularly based on the data we collect on student performance. We also evaluate new technologies as they become available and incorporate them into our courses when we feel it is appropriate to do so. In this way we continue to improve upon the quality of the educational experience we provide.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Good analogy.

S_A_M

2.

[nononono]

Originally posted by bilmore
Just to flesh out a bit - the Minneapolis school system is right now going through this same debate. They adopted some program about six years ago - brought in by the second-to-last (now fired) superintendent - that was dreadfully "feel-goodish." Too many kids were getting failing scores in the old, objective systems. With the "modern" systems, there was little pressure to have kids "know" things when they were finished. The new system in Mpls allowed for passing grades for working hard, collaberatively, to creatively find ways in which answers could be found, if someone were looking for answers. Unfortunately, the kids, who could huddle and discuss theoretical plans, couldn't make change.

Generally, you'll find the most obvious "esteem" kinds of programs in those areas with a history of poor fundamental education. It was, for quite a few years, easier and cheaper to buy those systems than to actually fix the lack of learning that was going on. That was part of the impetus behind Kennedy and Bush's NCLB testing emphasis.

I wouldn't say that inner-city Minneapolis is a good reference point for or barometer of what is going on everywhere (though I agree with you that maybe there's more bad experimentation going on in trouble school systems). Suburban schools, I've been delighted to find, are (so far - we're just 6 weeks into kindergarten) doing phonics, teaching reading, doing math, sending homework...more straight academics than I would have expected.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
If a standardized test simply asks what is six times seven, or even what is value of x, or the deriviative of x, how does "beating the test" not also help the student learn math.

Prior to college, it seems to me, that creating a test that actually test yours knowledge of a subject isn't that hard to do. In other words, preparing for the test will force you to learn the subject.

What sort of tests can you have in elementary school where "beating the test" doesn't also force you to learn the subject?

And why is the California Teachers Association so against testing students? Why do they defend social promotion?

You've got me what the CTA is for or against - they're 3000 miles away.

There is plenty that is difficult to test through standardized tests; standardized tests are focused on fairly narrow deductive reasoning, as opposed to inductive or deductive reasoning; a standardized test can thus test math much better than, for example, reading comprehension. During grammar school, reading is one of the fundamental things that must be learned, and it is one area where if you learning solely from the test preparation will leave enormous holes. While most educators know that, and do their best to provide a full and balanced education, the educators in the toughest school districts have little choice because their funding and accredation are on the line.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
If a standardized test simply asks what is six times seven, or even what is value of x, or the deriviative of x, how does "beating the test" not also help the student learn math.

Prior to college, it seems to me, that creating a test that actually test yours knowledge of a subject isn't that hard to do. In other words, preparing for the test will force you to learn the subject.

It occurs to me that there is an teach to the test example that is much closer to home for most of us. BarBri does swift business in teaching all the material on the bar exam that law school fail to teach - they teach to the test. Nonetheless, lawschools are often ranked by their bar pass rate. Consequently, there has been a move among lower tiered law schools to teach more black letter law - essentially to convert themselves into three years of BarBri. Those schools have improved their bar pass rates.

The question is, do you think the average student coming out of these schools is going to be a better lawyer for having taken the three year BarBri course? Or are there skills useful to a lawyer taught in law school that are not on a bar exam?

[nononono]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I can't speak for Minneapolis, but I went to school in one of the first areas in the country to require passing a standardized test for graduation for high school, and which administered related tests at several other grade levels (although at the younger age there were no negative implications for failure for either the student or the school at that time). Already, then, there was a significant amount of time spent on strategy, especially in the classes attended by the students most likely to be marginal. Even my calculus teacher spent two days on test strategies.

It is possible that as the results of exams have become more critical for both the students and the schools that the pressure to teach in such a way has magically disappeared, but I am sceptical.

I think teaching to the test, along with prep classes (whether in-school or not) ought to be banned. WTF ever happened to merit?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Good points. Age of the children may also play a role.

I quote the line above though, because it is so applicable to something I realized just at lunch about perceptions of media bias. (As if it were some revelation.)

I was reading the Washington Times, which I do every so often because they have a good sports section, and because I get the WaPo at home.

As I was flipping through the paper, I noted a couple of headlines and story leads in this political season, and I thought to myself -- "Boy, you can sure tell this is a conservative paper -- the choice of stories and the way they slant them."

It then struck me that someone might actually think the same thing, from the other side, about the Washington Post -- which I really do think is pretty down the middle. (I admit that the NYT is left of center.) So, the bias and perception of bias is both with the reader and the papers.

Damn. [Not sure why I felt the need to say this, but it really struck me. Guess I'm just simple.]

S_A_M



S_A_M

In general the media has a liberal bias. I can say this because I see if from both angles. As a "social liberal" the mainstream media takes my side. I rarely notice it until I watch something like Fox or read the Washington Times. But generally, when I watch the mainstream media, I always think they do a good job of reporting the social issues (which means there is a strong bias in my direction).

But I am also angry at the way the mainstream media addresses the war, economics (actually with economic it is usually just ignorance), education policy etc. The mainstream media treated Murtha and Cindy Sheehan as heroes, and as unjustly criticized champions of a worthy cause, which drove me nuts. The mainstream media also took Michael J. Foxes side and I loved that.

When a social conservative accuses the mainstream media of being biased against them, I don't argue with them, I just acknowledge it and think to myself, this is a good thing and I am glad you just have to suck it up.

I don't see why in general liberals just don't act the way I do instead of trying to deny the bias.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Okay, fair enough. How about this (SAT) rule: there are never more than three same answers in a row (i.e., if you have four "C"s in a row, at least one of them is wrong).

The above rule is a great example of how one can use the unintended consequence of a rule set up for other purposes to ones advantage, and closely resembles the method used by cryptographers to crack codes (like the Enigma code in WWII), but I'm not sure that's on the curriculum at most schools. Maybe it should be.

A teacher who is teaching that rule is a lousy teacher. That's a stupid "test-taking" technique -- not education.

It's also likely to be wrong.

eta: I make the final point because, as I remember it, one simple technique to counter cheating was to scramble the questions on the test -- you all have the same 100 questions or whatever, but they are all in different orders. If that's true, then you easily can end up with any number of "Cs" in a row. And I'm sure I've seen tests where that is the case.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I ignored the second aspect, but history is an area where teaching to the test really hems in a lot of the point of the class. History is partially about learning facts, but it's also about learning how to find facts (research) and think critically about those facts. If I'm a history teacher charged with getting my students to pass a test on history that will impact not just there own ability to graduate but also my schools funding, the two week long research project where each student researches a different figure from the American revolution and writes an essay on their contributions is gone, and I'm replacing it with drills on dates of battles.

You may be okay with that. But the essay assignment is not exactly radical pedagogy.

I don't disagree with you about history. But right now history is the least of our problems. We are graduating students that can't read or write and can't do basic math. Those are subject you can test objectively for and we should.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
It occurs to me that there is an teach to the test example that is much closer to home for most of us. BarBri does swift business in teaching all the material on the bar exam that law school fail to teach - they teach to the test. Nonetheless, lawschools are often ranked by their bar pass rate. Consequently, there has been a move among lower tiered law schools to teach more black letter law - essentially to convert themselves into three years of BarBri. Those schools have improved their bar pass rates.

The question is, do you think the average student coming out of these schools is going to be a better lawyer for having taken the three year BarBri course? Or are there skills useful to a lawyer taught in law school that are not on a bar exam?

law school is trade school. we have several guys here from The University Of Michigan. Top 10, right?

they had several classes on ethics of what ever the fuck, but they don't know the difference between jurisdiction and venue. If you graduate from Joe's plumbing school, you better know which way to turn the wrench.

but no that matters- the real problem is that last May several million kids graduated high school, who can't read or do math. and guess who's lined up to graduate this May?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Enforcing and/or leading to mediocrity, while not helping the smart kids at all.

Point is, NCLB's explicit goal was to pull up the bottom. No part of it is aimed at "helping the smart kids." It was a remedial, "the bottom kids in the worst schools are getting shafted" measure.