Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky

Wouldn't anyone argue that a teacher should give absolutely no tests? Of course not. How else would they know that the kids are learning? Yet at the same time people argue that we don't give standardized tests, but without these tests how do we know the teachers are teaching? We don't and as a consequence they aren't.

There is simply no reason to not test.

You're still just not getting it.

It is the concept of standardized tests not administered by professionals that irks me (at least), not testing per se. It is the notion that the tests are put above direct individual assessment.

If you're looking for an advocate of a rigorous education with plenty of hard work, I would be one. I'm deeply appalled by the quality of teachers we have teaching our kids - a product of the incentives provided and the way school systems are managed. But I'm even more appalled at the specious conservative philosophy that posits testing as a panacea.

If you're going to go spending $25 billion on education, I'd focus on class size, special education and direct instruction so that if a kid is failing, they'd get the educational boot camp they need, not just thrown back into the same class where they failed to learn it to begin with. Like I said, a model more focused on Head Start.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
I would be happy with just literacy. I volunteer at the local Juvenile Hall

Certainly our perspectives and prescriptions for educational reform are colored by our own personal experiences, but I didn't expect to see calls for policy changes being dictated by Juvie Hall experiences before Hank arrived to weigh in.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I am with you. Heck, even my sister the teacher is with you.

But -- there are lots of problems with this. (I might note that, thanks to the whole federalism thing, every state -- heck, every school district in every state -- is doing very different things for very different reasons.) First, my sister the teacher might point out that if you simply test a student, it doesn't really tell you how much a student learned in her class. So why would you say that she is doing a crappy job because of one test? She would suggest that teachers and schools should be measured based upon the progress of the student.

Fact -- when the Not Bobette was in elementary school, she did pretty well on a standardized test regardless of who her teacher was. You can't compare her score to that of a girl the same age who didn't speak English at home, or the one whose single parent father didn't have the time or inclination to read to her, or the one who had poor nutrition, etc. And this stuff is cumulative, such that by the third grade, there is a huge disparity between schools made up of haves and those made up of have nots (and, yes, there are individual exceptions).

However, the tests don't take that into account. And I agree that any kid can learn, and you shouldn't dumb down the curriculum, but the fact is that if a kid tests at the beginning of the school year at x less than where she should be, the measure of her teacher ought not to be simply "is she at grade level?" at the end of the year, but ought to consider "how far did she come this year?"

Many of the states that test don't do this. And those states that reward schools and teachers for high test scores will never attract good teachers to the schools where they are most needed.

You make a valid point, the problem is the solution to the problem is more testing. The testing is used just as much to determine which teachers are doing their jobs as it is to see how the students are progressing.

The easy solution to me is to test the kids every year at the end of the year. And then after their test at the end of the year see how the students have progessed from last years test. Of course some classes are easier to teach than other (an inner city school class is harder to teach than an affluent class). So you would compare a teachers progress to another teachers progress that taught a similar class.

In every profession there a people that are not meant for it and often they have to be pushed out. That is just the reality of life. I went to public elementary schools and had some teachers that shouldn't be there. You also need incentives to get people to do their jobs.

With proper testing we know which teachers to give bonuses to and which teachers to get rid off. Of course testing is not perfect, but I know of no other way to get rid of bad teachers and of no better way to determine an incentive program.

Anyone that has been in business knows that a bad department can suck up an infinite amount of money without getting better. If you can't figure out a measuring device and way to incentivise success there is no end of miseary such a department can bring to an organization. So throwing money at the problem is not a solution.

If someone can come up with a better way to improve the system without testing I am all ears. But to date, I certainly haven't heard of such a system.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's a self-interest problem. When I buy a piece of jewelry, I never ask that store to appraise it for me. Where I work, I don't get to evaluate myself and determine my raise or bonus. We provide referees for our kids' sports events.

Our professional may be quite good at knowing how well their students are doing. I simply question how accurately they report that knowledge to us.

I'd love to see a system that had external professionals come in and assess performance in a meaningful way. That's not a standardized test.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
You make a valid point, the problem is the solution to the problem is more testing. The testing is used just as much to determine which teachers are doing their jobs as it is to see how the students are progressing.

The easy solution to me is to test the kids every year at the end of the year. And then after their test at the end of the year see how the students have progessed from last years test. Of course some classes are easier to teach than other (an inner city school class is harder to teach than an affluent class). So you would compare a teachers progress to another teachers progress that taught a similar class.

In every profession there a people that are not meant for it and often they have to be pushed out. That is just the reality of life. I went to public elementary schools and had some teachers that shouldn't be there. You also need incentives to get people to do their jobs.

With proper testing we know which teachers to give bonuses to and which teachers to get rid off. Of course testing is not perfect, but I know of no other way to get rid of bad teachers and of no better way to determine an incentive program.

Anyone that has been in business knows that a bad department can suck up an infinite amount of money without getting better. If you can't figure out a measuring device and way to incentivise success there is no end of miseary such a department can bring to an organization. So throwing money at the problem is not a solution.

If someone can come up with a better way to improve the system without testing I am all ears. But to date, I certainly haven't heard of such a system.

By the way, one interesting element of all this is that in order to test in this way, you have to have a consistent national curriculum. Do you think curriculum ought to be a local decision, subject to local control (so, for example, some localities might want to include Canada in their history lessons while others might want to include Mexico)? Or is it time for the national government to be setting curriculum for all schools?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You're still just not getting it.

It is the concept of standardized tests not administered by professionals that irks me (at least), not testing per se.

Right now the battle lines are drawn over tests. Not the type of test or how they administered. Just simply if we should have standardized tests at all. In California, many of those tests we took as kids have been removed. In California the California Teachers Association (and consequently the Democrat Party) are against any standardized testing. They are also against the firing of teachers unless they pretty much assault a student, they are for social promotion and against merit pay.

The only thing I agree with them is smaller class size.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Right now the battle lines are drawn over tests. Not the type of test or how they administered. Just simply if we should have standardized tests at all. In California, many of those tests we took as kids have been removed. In California the California Teachers Association (and consequently the Democrat Party) are against any standardized testing. They are also against the firing of teachers unless they pretty much assault a student, they are for social promotion and against merit pay.

The only thing I agree with them is smaller class size.

I'd happily give conservatives all the tests they wanted if they'd commit to funding smaller class sizes. But you can't count on them to back up funding commitments they've made, as seen from the NCLB funding.

You may want to double check the positions on standardized testing. They've been around for ever, and few have challenged giving a day or two every two to three years for a battery of tests (though, what can I say, California's always different). It's what you tie to the tests that usually gets challenged.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Spanky
Right now the battle lines are drawn over tests. Not the type of test or how they administered. Just simply if we should have standardized tests at all. In California, many of those tests we took as kids have been removed. In California the California Teachers Association (and consequently the Democrat Party) are against any standardized testing. They are also against the firing of teachers unless they pretty much assault a student, they are for social promotion and against merit pay.

The only thing I agree with them is smaller class size.

Take this conversation to the LWK Board already.

That I have to pay taxes to pay for schools for your rugrats' education is bad enough.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
By the way, one interesting element of all this is that in order to test in this way, you have to have a consistent national curriculum. Do you think curriculum ought to be a local decision, subject to local control (so, for example, some localities might want to include Canada in their history lessons while others might want to include Mexico)? Or is it time for the national government to be setting curriculum for all schools?

This assumes a curriculim that moves beyond reading, writing and math. I don't know about the rest of the country, but in California, in many public schools, teaching stuff beyond that is just a pipe dream. So if you are asking if I believe in a national curriculum of reading, writing and basic math, yes I do. Once a student demostrates that they can competantly read and write and do all basic math leading up to Algebra, then they can leave the whole standardized test sytem behind. But until they get to that point they should be given standardized tests.

The problem with our system is not the education of the top kids, it is pumping out tons of students that can't read and write.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
Right now the battle lines are drawn over tests. Not the type of test or how they administered. Just simply if we should have standardized tests at all. In California, many of those tests we took as kids have been removed. In California the California Teachers Association (and consequently the Democrat Party) are against any standardized testing.

Interestingly, that's not what they say.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'd happily give conservatives all the tests they wanted if they'd commit to funding smaller class sizes. But you can't count on them to back up funding commitments they've made, as seen from the NCLB funding.

You may want to double check the positions on standardized testing. They've been around for ever, and few have challenged giving a day or two every two to three years for a battery of tests (though, what can I say, California's always different). It's what you tie to the tests that usually gets challenged.

In California we had a move to smaller class sizes. We had a Republican governor (Wilson) who pushed for a limit of thirty students up to the seventh grade. That was pushed through. The idea was to limit all classes in California to thirty students - in other words move the rule up to Junior High School and High School) but the new Democrat governor (Davis) decided not to push it through the upper grades. They just decided to increase spending (which they did dramatically) but let the bureaucracy decide what was best, and so the class reduction effort was stopped. So now in California elementary class sizes are limited to thirty but not so in Junior High and High School.

Of course the increase funding didn't improve anything. The new Republican governor, the Governator, tried to push tenuring of public school teachers back to four years from two years and the teachers association put together a huge war chest and defeated his efforts.

In California the single biggest block to good education reform is the California Teachers Association and their Democrat allies.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
In California we had a move to smaller class sizes. We had a Republican governor (Wilson) who pushed for a limit of thirty students up to the seventh grade. That was pushed through. The idea was to limit all classes in California to thirty students - in other words move the rule up to Junior High School and High School) but the new Democrat governor (Davis) decided not to push it through the upper grades. They just decided to increase spending (which they did dramatically) but let the bureaucracy decide what was best, and so the class reduction effort was stopped. So now in California elementary class sizes are limited to thirty but not so in Junior High and High School.

Of course the increase funding didn't improve anything. The new Republican governor, the Governator, tried to push tenuring of public school teachers back to four years from two years and the teachers association put together a huge war chest and defeated his efforts.

In California the single biggest block to good education reform is the California Teachers Association and their Democrat allies.

Did you gradutate from a public school in California?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Interestingly, that's not what they say.

Did you really read what it said? They agree with "fair testing" but not just testing. And they complain about the "testing" industry. Them taking credit for the current testing system is like Clinton taking credit for welfare reform. They have fought standardized testing every step of the way but when public opinion has become so overwhelming they have buckled just as much as they have to, and then try to amend any testing bill to death.

As they point out on the web page, only twenty nine percent of Californians think the current testing system is adequate but the CTAs huge bank account (which California Teachers are forced to pay into) has been used to thwart expansion of standardized teaching every step of the way.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Did you gradutate from a public school in California?

I went to public schools from Kindergarten to sixth grade. So I guess I graduated from a public elementary school.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Did you gradutate from a public school in California?

It's the using the noun instead of the perfectly good existing adjective that gave him away, right?