Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
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?

Why do the Republicans hate our Constitution and system of government?

[Spanky]

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.

The same is true of passing medical boards. They spend a lot of time teaching to the test and working out test strategies. But would you recommend getting rid of medical boards, or would you want to be treated by someone who has not passed their medical boards?
The testing system is not perfect, but it is a much better way to insure that students are learning the subject than not to use them at all. If you don't test, there is so incentive for the teachers to teach. Yes, most will do their jobs, but many won't. The only way to make sure teachers are doing their jobs is to test the students.

Do you know of some better way to insure that the education system is doing its job?

[Spanky]

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

2. The point of the program was to help the less gifted students and it sounds like it is working. Once nintey percent of the students are learning to read and write then we can worry about coddling the gifted ones.

[Replaced_Texan]

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

FWIW, I thought that the AP tests were adequate to assess general knowledge in the subject matter as well as the application of critical thinking skills to that subject matter. I don't recall needing any extra instruction in how to succeed in the AP classes that I took, and I (and my classmates) did fairly well on the exams (well, enough, in my case, to skip a semester of college).

However, the AP tests were (in part) essay based and therefore much more expensive and time consuming to grade. And, I went to an elite private school that didn't really have that many people struggling with the material. Those taking AP classes have sort of self-slected to do well on the exam.

I have attended one University where the entire degree is contingent on passing the exams at the end of the course. I would be hard pressed to suggest that educational opportunities are missed because of "teaching to the test" occuring there, but the last two terms are pretty much dedicated to studying for the exams. Again, these are (generally) written exams, where the student can choose to answer (say) any five of ten questions and the student population has been self-selected through doing well on previous exams in secondary school and interest in the subject area.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

I agree with you on math -- it is relatively easy to come up with a standardized test for math. But it's not so easy to come up with a standardized test for reading comprehension, and even more not so easy to come up with one for writing.

And who is creating these tests? And grading them? My sister the teacher got all hostile with me about this very issue -- according to a newspaper she emailed me, her state farmed out the grading of writing tests to temps, many of whom turned out not to have the credentials that the testing company hired by the state said they had. She pointed out the campaign contributions paid by the testing companies to the state politicians, noted that the testing companies often sell textbooks that tie into the tests, and was furious about the double-dipping. As she put it, cheating on the qualifications of the test-graders was just adding insult to injury.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
2. The point of the program was to help the less gifted students and it sounds like it is working. Once nintey percent of the students are learning to read and write then we can worry about coddling the gifted ones.

How oddly unamerican of you.

[SlaveNoMore]

It's Jihad, Charlie Brown!!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
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.

,
You think it is hard to teach for reading comprehension? You don't think the LSATs way of doing it worked? Give a paragraph and see how many of the facts they picked up?

Testing for grammar, spelling and reading comprehension is not that hard. Neither is testing for math. Right now swathes of students aren't learning these basics. Once most of the students can read and write and do basic math, then you can worry about the other stuff. But without those basics that can be tested the rest of the skills don't do you much good.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

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'm sure that's true -- but this kid truly is a genius, and the kid isn't complaining, just slogging down the road. She will be fine regardless -- committed parents, lots of money, a boatload of actvities (sports, music lessons, theatre, art, horseback, etc.) I'm sure she'll be in private school next year anyway.

So, I'm not shedding any tears -- just reinforcing Balt's point about the extent to which the schools "teach to the test." (Using VA as an example.) The mom is the one griping, but I just laugh at her mostly. 'Cuz I'm a thoughtful friend.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

I'd like both -- but I see that you can't achieve both with a single federal program.

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
2. The point of the program was to help the less gifted students and it sounds like it is working. Once nintey percent of the students are learning to read and write then we can worry about coddling the gifted ones.

Cite please?

A couple days ago I'd early cited a recent federal study (yes, one funded by the current administration) that concluded results were "mixed" (this is oversimplifying a lengthy study and report, but the basic conclusion); there was a great exchange recently as well in Commonwealth magazine about the Massachusetts experience, with the pro-testing folks basically saying, we know the evidence is inconclusive based on the experience here to date but think it will improve for the following reasons and the anti-testing people pointing out programs with less cost that showed significantly greater results more quickly (such as Head Start). So, I'm not seeing a huge impact from this. As I noted before, it may because Bush hasn't funded his own damn programs.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I agree with you on math -- it is relatively easy to come up with a standardized test for math. But it's not so easy to come up with a standardized test for reading comprehension, and even more not so easy to come up with one for writing.

And who is creating these tests? And grading them? My sister the teacher got all hostile with me about this very issue -- according to a newspaper she emailed me, her state farmed out the grading of writing tests to temps, many of whom turned out not to have the credentials that the testing company hired by the state said they had. She pointed out the campaign contributions paid by the testing companies to the state politicians, noted that the testing companies often sell textbooks that tie into the tests, and was furious about the double-dipping. As she put it, cheating on the qualifications of the test-graders was just adding insult to injury.

Hmmm? I am sure I had reading comp questions on every standardized test I ever took. Multiple-choice.

One concern I have with teaching to the test is that the tendency, then, will be to teach only that. And when you're talking about things like teaching to minimum competency tests, that's a horribly low bar.

RT, I did no prep whatsoever for achievement tests or aptitude tests or advanced placement tests or PSATs or SATs or LSATs. It was a matter of principle for me, stupid as that probably was. But in my few, I should fall exactly where I fell on natural knowledge/ability, not learn "techniques" for a test that have not much to do with what the test is testing for. I know this is simply "not done" these days, but it should be.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Why do the Republicans hate our Constitution and system of government?

That was a very illuminating retort to my posting:

Which was

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Your response did not defend what the teachers assocition does, but to say, well the Republicans do bad stuff also. The problem with you attempt at irony and humor, is that it is debatable whether or not what you say is true (and really is an accusation to general to even support) but I stated a simple fact:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So at least you agree that the California Teachers Association is causing irreperable harm to our students.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Cite please?

A couple days ago I'd early cited a recent federal study (yes, one funded by the current administration) that concluded results were "mixed" (this is oversimplifying a lengthy study and report, but the basic conclusion); there was a great exchange recently as well in Commonwealth magazine about the Massachusetts experience, with the pro-testing folks basically saying, we know the evidence is inconclusive based on the experience here to date but think it will improve for the following reasons and the anti-testing people pointing out programs with less cost that showed significantly greater results more quickly (such as Head Start). So, I'm not seeing a huge impact from this. As I noted before, it may because Bush hasn't funded his own damn programs.

I was going off the facts cited by the other poster. I was assuming what they said was true. If you have a problem with what they said then bring it up with them.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

I thought the next sentence I typed showed that I understand that point. But, if I had a kid in a school affected by the law, I think I would also not like its effects on her education.

That said, I also confessed that I didn't know how to do a more targeted approach to get the same results for the bottom group.

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
That was a very illuminating retort to my posting:

Which was

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Your response did not defend what the teachers assocition does, but to say, well the Republicans do bad stuff also. The problem with you attempt at irony and humor, is that it is debatable whether or not what you say is true (and really is an accusation to general to even support) but I stated a simple fact:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So at least you agree that the California Teachers Association is causing irreperable harm to our students.

My point was about the phrasing of your question.

I couldn't care less about the CTA. While I'm more likely to believe a union made up of people who teach children will have something interesting to say on education than the average television commentator, for example, I'm sure I disagree with them as often as I agree.