NationStates Jolt Archive

Who the hell has time to actually teach?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/12/bush.ap/index.html

Good to know that our president thinks we will become competitive in the world and be prepared for jobs by producing a bunch of automotans who have memorized what they need to pass a test but never actually learn how to think critically or how to truly learn.

Good to know that the only way our president thinks we can have a good school program is to attempt to hold every single student to the exact same standards, which is absolutely idiotic and only ever ends up pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Putting even more standardized testing in high schools will have one of two effects on higher education in this country: (a) Huge increases in freshman failures in colleges and universities or (b)Colleges and Universities will lower their standards even further to keep students graduating, thus making our country less competitive worldwide.

Have fun Bush - go ahead and raise a generation of kids with no ability to think or learn. Once upon a time I was hell-bent that I would find a good school system and that my future children would attend public schools. If this kind of idiocy continues, I won't take my children within viewing distance of a public school in this country.

As far as I can see, what's wrong with testing students for reading writing and arithmetic?

These are basic skills that far too many children graduate from schools lacking in.

I don't like Dubya, or most of his policies, but as far as I can see, this actually looks like a good one.

As far as I can see, what's wrong with testing students for reading writing and arithmetic?

These are basic skills that far too many children graduate from schools lacking in.

I don't like Dubya, or most of his policies, but as far as I can see, this actually looks like a good one.

Constant testing means that teachers will only teach towards the test. In fact, they will be required to do so. This does not encourage true learning - it only encourages memorization of whatever will be on the test. It also doesn't leave much time for teaching kids how to think critically and actually *learn* in the first place.

On top of that, the very idea that every student should succeed is idiotic. If every student succeeds, then our standards are entirely too low. There are people who simply do not have the attributes needed to get through school. This are still others who just don't care. There is no reason that we should think that every student should succeed equally.

The whole point of the tests being discussed isn't to encourage students to think critically.

It's to ensure that they can use math and english at an acceptable level.

The last time I checked, you didn't need to be creative in order to learn how to use spelling and grammar effectively. I'm no wiz kid with spelling or grammar myself, but that doesn't mean future generations shouldn't be.

One should enter into college level education having a basic standard of education that can be relied on. It's pointless teaching kids to think critically if they have got the foundation to build that on.

To me, ensuring a standard level of literacy and numeracy is not something that should be discouraged.

I think Standardized tests is a good thing.

Doesn't it seem to be the norm everywhere else in the world?

Kids can quit school after the age of 15 can't they? But by then they at least know how to read and write, and do basic maths.

Thats the bare minimum for them to succeed, or at least earn a decent living.

Thinking creatively and critically (or learning to think) is only for the smart students. All the rest usually end up doing mind-numbing work in their jobs anyway.

The point of education is beginning to be making kids easily trainable once in the work place. Not to make them knowledgeable.

The whole point of the tests being discussed isn't to encourage students to think critically.

No, but no education system that does not teach kids to think critically can ever be considered a good education system.

It's to ensure that they can use math and english at an acceptable level.

And the way to ensure that is not to have teachers teach towards a test. If you are teaching towards a specific test, you don't actually have to teach students any more than what to do to pass the test. They don't have to understand what they are doing, they just have to do it.

The last time I checked, you didn't need to be creative in order to learn how to use spelling and grammar effectively.

Last I checked, the ability to use proper English does not completely prepare you for higher education or for the working world.

One should enter into college level education having a basic standard of education that can be relied on.

This attitude is exactly why so many fresmen fail out of college.

It's pointless teaching kids to think critically if they have got the foundation to build that on.

It is never pointless to teach kids to think. If they can't actually think, the things that you call the "foundation" are completely useless.

To me, ensuring a standard level of literacy and numeracy is not something that should be discouraged.

The tests do not actually ensure any such thing.

Memorization does not equate to understanding. Without understanding, there is no true usage of knowledge.

I think Standardized tests is a good thing.

Doesn't it seem to be the norm everywhere else in the world?

No.

Thats the bare minimum for them to succeed, or at least earn a decent living.

So the best we should do for our students is the bare minimum? And that will somehow make us "competitive"?

Thinking creatively and critically (or learning to think) is only for the smart students. All the rest usually end up doing mind-numbing work in their jobs anyway.

(a) This is a rather interesting thing to say. Being able to actually think about what you are doing helps in *any* job. It will help *anyone* advance, as they will be able to assess a situation and improve it.

(b) This system of testing does not lend itself to a difference between the "smart students", as you call them, the general students, and the poor students.

I personally got in the year before standardized testing took hold in our school (but we were genuine pigs for the tests they did not “count”)


Personally the biggest bunch of “hoops” to jump through in order to graduate that I have ever scene … and the tests were moronic

People should be taught how to think not recite

No, but no education system that does not teach kids to think critically can ever be considered a good education system.

This, I can agree with you on. Education systems should encourage students to think. This is why there is a variety of classes available. In the UK a standard level of literacy and numeracy is assesed at the age of 16 through what are known as GCSE's (General Certificates of Education). This is classed as the end of compulsory education in the UK. Children have an understanding of English and Numeracy to allow them to lead their lives as they wish, this does not necessarily teach them everything they need to know to be successful in the world.

This is why there exists a further form of education that can be opted into (it is free) known as A levels. These courses are designed to encourage students to think, and a wide variety of classes can be chosen from english literature to language, from mathematics to physics and computing. The equivalent standard of these classes is that of grade 11 and first year college in the US, and although standardised testing for these also exists, examiners are given leeway to (and are encouraged to) award extra marks for original thinking.

And the way to ensure that is not to have teachers teach towards a test. If you are teaching towards a specific test, you don't actually have to teach students any more than what to do to pass the test. They don't have to understand what they are doing, they just have to do it.


What about the converse of this statement? The idea that if teachers have no standard to which they must apply their studies, then there is the danger of them actually teaching less anyway.


Last I checked, the ability to use proper English does not completely prepare you for higher education or for the working world.


No, but it is a REQUIREMENT for higher education and the working world. If students reach higher education and cannot write properly, or have difficulty performing simple math, then they just have to be retrained to do it at this level. Time that would be better spent on teaching them to think.


This attitude is exactly why so many fresmen fail out of college.


Many freshmen fail out of college because they don't put the work in. Many freshmen fail out of college because they can't write a literate essay. Many fall out for monetary reasons, and some fall out because they just don't cut the mustard.


It is never pointless to teach kids to think. If they can't actually think, the things that you call the "foundation" are completely useless.


I agree with you completely that it is never pointless to teach kids to think.

What they think however is pointless if it cannot be expressed in an articulate manner. Writing and numeracy are never pointless, they are used by most people every day, and a good standard of english is REQUIRED for professional jobs by most employers.

This, I can agree with you on. Education systems should encourage students to think. This is why there is a variety of classes available. In the UK a standard level of literacy and numeracy is assesed at the age of 16 through what are known as GCSE's (General Certificates of Education). This is classed as the end of compulsory education in the UK. Children have an understanding of English and Numeracy to allow them to lead their lives as they wish, this does not necessarily teach them everything they need to know to be successful in the world.

This is why there exists a further form of education that can be opted into (it is free) known as A levels. These courses are designed to encourage students to think, and a wide variety of classes can be chosen from english literature to language, from mathematics to physics and computing. The equivalent standard of these classes is that of grade 11 and first year college in the US, and although standardised testing for these also exists, examiners are given leeway to (and are encouraged to) award extra marks for original thinking.



What about the converse of this statement? The idea that if teachers have no standard to which they must apply their studies, then there is the danger of them actually teaching less anyway.



No, but it is a REQUIREMENT for higher education and the working world. If students reach higher education and cannot write properly, or have difficulty performing simple math, then they just have to be retrained to do it at this level. Time that would be better spent on teaching them to think.



Many freshmen fail out of college because they don't put the work in. Many freshmen fail out of college because they can't write a literate essay. Many fall out for monetary reasons, and some fall out because they just don't cut the mustard.



I agree with you completely that it is never pointless to teach kids to think.

What they think however is pointless if it cannot be expressed in an articulate manner. Writing and numeracy are never pointless, they are used by most people every day, and a good standard of english is REQUIRED for professional jobs by most employers.


I don’t think you are understanding the level of testing that goes on … its not just a “pass a math and English test”

When I left high school it was up to a total of 19 Standardized tests required to graduate … got upped to 21

That’s all the classes behind us were doing … studding for those massive idiotic tests (not saying tests are idiotic … but the level these particular ones rise to … )

What about the converse of this statement? The idea that if teachers have no standard to which they must apply their studies, then there is the danger of them actually teaching less anyway.

No one is suggesting that teachers be held to no standard, or that *no* standardized testing should ever occur. However, the system Bush is pushing for is completely based around standardized tests every single year. As such, a teacher really can't do anything but teach towards those tests. The system is also based around the ludicrous idea that every student should be able to succeed equally.

No, but it is a REQUIREMENT for higher education and the working world. If students reach higher education and cannot write properly, or have difficulty performing simple math, then they just have to be retrained to do it at this level. Time that would be better spent on teaching them to think.

I never said that it wasn't. However, constant standardized testing is not actually going to test your ability to write properly or to perform math. All it will test is your ability to pass a test. This is especially true in the US, where your general writing test simply expects that you can construct a complete sentence and understand that paragraphs are indented. What you write does not have to have any substance.

Many freshmen fail out of college because they don't put the work in.

And for most of these, it is because they do not know *how* to put the work in. They never had to apply themselves in school before, so they don't really know how. They get into college classes where they are expected to know how to learn, and they don't. Thus, they fail.

Many freshmen fail out of college because they can't write a literate essay.

A literate essay requires actual substance, not simply proper grammar.

What they think however is pointless if it cannot be expressed in an articulate manner. Writing and numeracy are never pointless, they are used by most people every day, and a good standard of english is REQUIRED for professional jobs by most employers.

Being able to express something in an articulate manner is pointless if you have nothing to express. A system based solely off of standardized tests doesn't leave room for teaching anything but the bare minimum - how to express things. Never mind that the students don't understand what they are doing, they can do it and pass the test.

Ok, I'll meet you halfway.

Standardised testing every year may be seen as too extreme. Here, even though we do have standardised testing, we don't have it every year.

I do beleive that in core subjects such as english and maths, standardised testing is not a bad thing. At highschool level, indeed at any level, one should be encouraged to think about the books one reads. I don't know for sure what it's like there, but here even for standardised testing we were encouraged to think and be original about the books we were required to read. For math, well, you can't really get creative with mathematics, and as far as college goes, having pupils attend college with an equal understanding of mathematics will only ensure that the lecturer knows the level at which his students will begin at. Additionally, as a result, no slow down for students to catch up will be necessary.

For math, well, you can't really get creative with mathematics

I can produce some pretty creative mathematics for you ;)!

I can produce some pretty creative mathematics for you ;)!

At highschool level?:P

I personally got in the year before standardized testing took hold in our school (but we were genuine(Guinea) pigs for the tests(;) they did not “count”)


Personally(some part of the sentence missing here)) the biggest bunch of “hoops” to jump through in order to graduate that I have ever scene(seen) … and the tests were moronic(.)

People should be taught how to think not (how to)recite
(mistakes in the quote between () )
Yeah, and look what standardized test brough to his education!

(Sorry UpwardThrust, couldn't resist. You're not one to make so many mistakes usually and I'm not a grammar nazi but this one seemed appropriate.)

(mistakes in the quote between () )
Yeah, and look what standardized test brough to his education!

(Sorry UpwardThrust, couldn't resist. You're not one to make so many mistakes usually and I'm not a grammar nazi but this one seemed appropriate.)
You are right I did not check through it … and I am not the best speller but manage to get by myself by my ability to think and reason.

I really should have when replying to a topic such as this, I apologize.
(though I went to PRIVATE school for more then half my education … )

At highschool level?:P

;) Actually my maths is pretty good but that comment was made with a hint of sarcasm: I knew some friends who could certainly produce some 'creative' mathematics...so to speak ;) hehe. I wasn't educated in the USA, though, and I'm not American for that matter. I agree with your points that fundamentally literacy and numeracy are the 'pillars', as one might say, of the education system. Neverthess our ideal ways of achieving such strengths may be somewhat different. Maybe we can take these up in a 'friendly' argument later! I see that Depublicents point that if tests are being curbed towards "everyone being able to do equally as well" that this system can be frustrating: in my ideal system the exams would be competitive, but would also be able to identify the particular weaknesses of any student. Maybe not publicly, maybe so. I would trust the teachers on this judgement. Sometimes a little bit of humiliation can go a long way: in the UK a criminal convicted of drink driving several times, only being 13, had his name publisized by a judge to try to recurrences. This logic can not always be applied here: but, somestimes, I believe it can.

Anyway, I'll post later because I have to drink now, and probably watch football. The fun life of a student :) :confused: ;)

You are right I did not check through it … and I am not the best speller but manage to get by myself by my ability to think and reason.

I really should have when replying to a topic such as this, I apologize.
(though I went to PRIVATE school for more then half my education … )
Hey, no biggie. I just found it really ironic. I was really hoping you wouldn't take it personnal.

Here, have a :fluffle:

Hey, no biggie. I just found it really ironic. I was really hoping you wouldn't take it personnal.

Here, have a :fluffle:
Lol I am the one normally giving them out … lol

Lol I am the one normally giving them out … lol
That's what makes it so funny. ;)