NationStates Jolt Archive

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14638573/site/newsweek/?GT1=8506

The article is mostly focused on earlier grades (kindergarten seems popular), but its contents are somewhat worrying to me.
Kids falling asleep in the first grade? I remember our school had a nap time, and NOBODY went to sleep in that space. If your class is putting a SIX YEAR OLD to sleep, then you seriously need to look at your teaching technique.
Other than that, the constant testing, the striking of (IMO) important subjects like art and science, all in the interest of supposedly 'catching up' with other countries?
Ill just say this, Im glad I grew up when I did, kindergarten sounds like a concentration camp now.

Im reminded of a certain Greek epic. Are we sacrificing children on the 'alter of progress' in our own self interest?

I think it's an unfortunate byproduct of the drive to improve our education system. Standardized testing is one of the few ways that a large number of students can be tested efficiently in order to ensure that they have developed the skills necessary to succeed at higher grade levels; of course, you can see how that trickles down to become both pressure on younger students and the standardization of curriculum to testing requirements, both of which turn learning for young students from an experience to a stressful chore.

Also, those standardized tests determine how much federal funding a school gets and how much teachers get paid or whether they get a raise. You're stuck in a situation where not measuring students would lead to severe deterioration in the quality of education and testing them results in the elimination of "smart" teaching (i.e. teaching designed in response to students' learning needS) in favor of teaching to standardized testing with all of its flaws. We have to measure students, but the standardized testing is coming with a lot of negative side-effects. Obviously, to help the problem we need to expand our indicators beyond just a battery of tests; standardized testing has major benefits, but it also has major drawbacks and it's our goal to minimize them by diversifying our indicators of student progress.

Harmonia Mortus Redux;11645545'] I remember our school had a nap time, and NOBODY went to sleep in that space.

I was always of the opinion that nap time should be moved from elementary school to high school.

people expect too much from kids and then don't even give them the basic skills needed to meet the expectations.

I know kids who are 5 and 6 years old, out until past 10pm, asleep by midnight, up by 7am and expected to go to school and learn, they didn't have time to do their homework because they were "too busy" doing other things that their parents wanted them to do.

It's crazy.

I think it's an unfortunate byproduct of the drive to improve our education system. Standardized testing is one of the few ways that a large number of students can be tested efficiently in order to ensure that they have developed the skills necessary to succeed at higher grade levels; of course, you can see how that trickles down to become both pressure on younger students and the standardization of curriculum to testing requirements, both of which turn learning for young students from an experience to a stressful chore.

Also, those standardized tests determine how much federal funding a school gets and how much teachers get paid or whether they get a raise. You're stuck in a situation where not measuring students would lead to severe deterioration in the quality of education and testing them results in the elimination of "smart" teaching (i.e. teaching designed in response to students' learning needS) in favor of teaching to standardized testing with all of its flaws. We have to measure students, but the standardized testing is coming with a lot of negative side-effects. Obviously, to help the problem we need to expand our indicators beyond just a battery of tests; standardized testing has major benefits, but it also has major drawbacks and it's our goal to minimize them by diversifying our indicators of student progress.

Bureaucrats love standardized tests because the tests allow them to say, "Well, School District A, your 4th-graders scored 86.125 on the reading comprehension test, but School District B's 4th-graders scored 92.5, so we're going to punish District A by taking away some of your budget until you can improve those scores." And so what happens? The schools begin teaching to the tests. Getting the kids to score well on the standardized tests becomes the general goal, not educating them. It's all a vast winged conspiracy! And then you end up with people saying, "See, the public schools suck, we should do away with them." Meh.:rolleyes: (I'm rolling my eyes a lot today.)

Yanno what's useful? 12 kids in a class. Now if only that were at all possible. *shrug* Oh well.

I thought my days of trouble in the principal's office were over, but I'm going to be spending a lot of time in there shouting. I foresee it. :(

It seems the American educational system is more concerned about the things they shouldnt teach kids than what they actually are supposed to.
i heard that this middle schooler who is fully american was supposed to find the US on an un-labled map... this kid pointed to china becuase it was the biggest land mass there was, thus assuming it was America. They are preventing the teaching of evolution because it doesn't fit on whats in the bible. Teachers are paid so little that there is a big dip in new teachers this generation. Everything is crashing down.
And i sooo agree that nap time should be in high school aswell. Or better yet....it is proven that high schoolers are at there prime thinking in the afternoon (about 12 or 1)....why not start school during that time heh?

i heard that this middle schooler who is fully american was supposed to find the US on an un-labled map... this kid pointed to china becuase it was the biggest land mass there was, thus assuming it was America.
Wouldn't they point to Russia instead of China? Russia is the biggest country, then Canada...

Wouldn't they point to Russia instead of China? Russia is the biggest country, then Canada...

That's what makes it even worse, eh?

I dont know where you live, but everybody Ive met who wasnt mentally disabled or five could point out the US, China, most European countries, most American (north and south) countries and most Middle Eastern countries on a map. About half dont know where Tajikistan is, but nobody really cares about Tajikistan anyway. African countries also give some trouble, but that is understandable since a few of them had different names when most of the present high school kids learned them :P
I DO know that many people who think of themselves as 'politically aware' have pretty much memorized the map of the Middle East :P

But I guess geography doesnt matter as much as producing as many engineers as China and India now, does it?
Of course, it wont matter, because Chinese and Indian engineers are willing to work for significantly less than US engineers, unless we drastically reduce the quality of US engineers, which would be rather pointless.

This is sickening. I'm sorry but I keep hearing this, and it gets worse and worse.

Kids are supposed to be allowed to be kids. This generation is already going to grow up with severe back problems with the weight of our backpacks, so now they want the next generation to grow up bitter too, all to boost some bullshit numbers and raise the real-estate values...?

Is childhood getting shorter, or is it just me? Or could it be that today's parents and administrators are just more cold...? I keep hearing from my mom about how she has to keep pushing her kindergarteners harder and harder due to new "standards", almost to the point where reccess is left out. She's advocated against such actions, and I'd like to think that she's making an impact...but the principle is a bitch.

For God's sake they're KIDS! You're killing thier childhoods you pricks!

...I could go on and on about this, but by the time I finish I would have probably developed an ulcer...so I'm going to go calm down. You know my views, roll with it.

The administrators don't spend enough time in the classroom before they move to administration.

And they grab whatever the new theory is and run miles with it rather than analyzing the theory first. And even if the theory is a good one, they should phase it in, not just dump the old system in the blink of an eye.

I think it's an unfortunate byproduct of the drive to improve our education system. Standardized testing is one of the few ways that a large number of students can be tested efficiently in order to ensure that they have developed the skills necessary to succeed at higher grade levels; of course, you can see how that trickles down to become both pressure on younger students and the standardization of curriculum to testing requirements, both of which turn learning for young students from an experience to a stressful chore.

Also, those standardized tests determine how much federal funding a school gets and how much teachers get paid or whether they get a raise. You're stuck in a situation where not measuring students would lead to severe deterioration in the quality of education and testing them results in the elimination of "smart" teaching (i.e. teaching designed in response to students' learning needS) in favor of teaching to standardized testing with all of its flaws. We have to measure students, but the standardized testing is coming with a lot of negative side-effects. Obviously, to help the problem we need to expand our indicators beyond just a battery of tests; standardized testing has major benefits, but it also has major drawbacks and it's our goal to minimize them by diversifying our indicators of student progress.
The answer, of course, is to get the imperial Federal government out of the business of education. If they want to re-distribute our wages, then let them do it on a per-capita basis, normalized by the cost of living in that district. Better yet -- Vouchers.

The administrators don't spend enough time in the classroom before they move to administration.

And they grab whatever the new theory is and run miles with it rather than analyzing the theory first. And even if the theory is a good one, they should phase it in, not just dump the old system in the blink of an eye.
Unfortunately, this has NOTHING to do with adminstrators or teachers and everything to do with the state legislatures and the federal government.

NCLB and other testing standards, ya gotta love what they do to the kids in the name of poltical goals.

The answer, of course, is to get the imperial Federal government out of the business of education. If they want to re-distribute our wages, then let them do it on a per-capita basis, normalized by the cost of living in that district. Better yet -- Vouchers.
1. The federal government isn't IN the buisness of education. The US doesn't HAVE centeralized education. NCLB actually is the largest federal mandate ever to come down the plank.

2. The federal government doesn't really fund schools, that's state legislatures and local school boards. I suggest you learn how school funding actually works before going off on a crusade, may save you some embarresment.

3. Go to the vouchers thread to find out why they don't work out too well either.

Wouldn't they point to Russia instead of China? Russia is the biggest country, then Canada...
and then china, and only then america.

I was always of the opinion that nap time should be moved from elementary school to high school.

We call it Consumer Math.

The administrators don't spend enough time in the classroom before they move to administration.

And they grab whatever the new theory is and run miles with it rather than analyzing the theory first. And even if the theory is a good one, they should phase it in, not just dump the old system in the blink of an eye.

so you are not bushanomics. if you were then you would be saying stuff about how bush is great because of the no child left behind act.

The SAT Essay is a great example. Implemented by a state where it means little (very cheap, easy entry, good state schools), there is a direct correlation between length and score. You could say Abe Lincoln led the charge at the Bay of Pigs and was shot by Charles Guiteau, and still get a six out of six. Les Perelman, an MIT professor, performed calculations and compiled a set of data that indicates length was directly correlated with score.

Public schools are government indoctrination camps based on suppressing any aspect of free or critical thought.

Public schools are government indoctrination camps based on suppressing any aspect of free or critical thought.

amen. ;)

amen. ;)

You wonder why homeschooled kids test so much better...

Unfortunately, this has NOTHING to do with adminstrators or teachers and everything to do with the state legislatures and the federal government.

Ahh, but it does. The theorists are the administrators who are called by the legislature to tell them what to do, so they can get votes because they "furthured the cause of our children's education."

Public schools are government indoctrination camps based on suppressing any aspect of free or critical thought.

True.

so you are not bushanomics. if you were then you would be saying stuff about how bush is great because of the no child left behind act.

I utterly and totally hate No Child Left Behind. And the Patriot Act. Not that the Patriot Act has anything to do with this thread, but it shows that I'm not a Bush fan. In fact, I think Bush is pretty dumb. I just think he's better than the alternatives were.

Bureaucrats love standardized tests because the tests allow them to say, "Well, School District A, your 4th-graders scored 86.125 on the reading comprehension test, but School District B's 4th-graders scored 92.5, so we're going to punish District A by taking away some of your budget until you can improve those scores." And so what happens? The schools begin teaching to the tests. Getting the kids to score well on the standardized tests becomes the general goal, not educating them. It's all a vast winged conspiracy! And then you end up with people saying, "See, the public schools suck, we should do away with them." Meh.:rolleyes: (I'm rolling my eyes a lot today.)
The teachers can't teach to the test if they don't see it first.

Standardised tests are the best means I have yet seen to compare results from school to school. Without that sort of quantitative measure, how can anyone tell whether one school is succeeding while another fails?

But if the kids are sleeping in class, I actually want to blame their carb-heavy diets. Someone feed these kids some meat.

1. The federal government isn't IN the buisness of education. The US doesn't HAVE centeralized education. NCLB actually is the largest federal mandate ever to come down the plank.

2. The federal government doesn't really fund schools, that's state legislatures and local school boards. I suggest you learn how school funding actually works before going off on a crusade, may save you some embarresment.

3. Go to the vouchers thread to find out why they don't work out too well either.

1. You're kidding yourself or maybe just playing the semantic game. I don't know which, but when federal funding requires that a school do X, Y, and Z in order to qualify, I consider that to be the act of an active partner.

2. The fed provides about 17 percent of funds for school districts. That's significant. Especially when there are strings attached.

3. The fact that a few NS generalites don't think vouchers are the right thing to do, doesn't bother me at all. Although y'all can argue up a storm, most of you don't pay taxes and don't really appreciate value for money spent, either.

I utterly and totally hate No Child Left Behind. And the Patriot Act. Not that the Patriot Act has anything to do with this thread, but it shows that I'm not a Bush fan. In fact, I think Bush is pretty dumb. I just think he's better than the alternatives were.
i know. I'm saying your not bushanomics bease of this, because bushanomics likes those laws. Its that "christian conservative" thing that sparked my question "are you bushanomics", and now i see the answer is no. and i hate them to. I'm just telling you what bushanomics would say.

and then china, and only then america.
Um, no. It's Russia, Canada, the United States, and THEN China. In total land area, the US is bigger.

Ahh, but it does. The theorists are the administrators who are called by the legislature to tell them what to do, so they can get votes because they "furthured the cause of our children's education."
Actually, no. If you look up the people who helped craft NCLB, you find folks like the president of Shell and other major corporations. Very few actual teachers were called in and I've seen the way the Great School Board that meets in the captial works, they don't bother calling in teachers and administrators either.

They love histerical parents though.

1. You're kidding yourself or maybe just playing the semantic game. I don't know which, but when federal funding requires that a school do X, Y, and Z in order to qualify, I consider that to be the act of an active partner.
When the feds say you must do x, y, and z the x, y, and z are usually feed them, equal sports, special education laws, and possibly civics. Considering that there are no national standards to be met, the government does not regulate teachers, or curricula, books, or anything else (even the NCLB tests are left more to the actual states to come up with, there's no one government test) it's hard to say that they have any real control over the schools.

As much as you guys love to hate the Dept of Education, it actually has very little control in the running of your local school.

2. The fed provides about 17 percent of funds for school districts. That's significant. Especially when there are strings attached.
Equally, such fundings always say if you feed childre on reduced or free lunch, you get X ammount of dollars. But, in any case, while 17% is significant, it pales next to state and local contrabutions which have even MORE stings. The inequalities are not due to federal funding, but local issues (namely as school are almost always funded through property taxes).

3. The fact that a few NS generalites don't think vouchers are the right thing to do, doesn't bother me at all. Although y'all can argue up a storm, most of you don't pay taxes and don't really appreciate value for money spent, either.
My dear sir, I do not argue as an NS Generalites (Who, BTW, has been paying taxes every year for over a decade), I argue it as an actual teacher. The people who join me in this argue it as THEY are teachers or teachers in training. You know, the people who actually read the journal articles about this because it's our career fields. There are some massive problems with vouchers that are not based upon what I think, but what has been shown.

The teachers can't teach to the test if they don't see it first.
What an amazing IDEA... oh, wait, no, no. That only works if we were dumb as posts and didn't bother to, you know, check the websites and past tests of the testing companies to see what kind of questions they have historically used... :rolleyes:

Standardised tests are the best means I have yet seen to compare results from school to school. Without that sort of quantitative measure, how can anyone tell whether one school is succeeding while another fails?
Because standardized tests don't actually do that? They show a snap shot of about 3% of what is taught in the school. They also do not show the process of thought that leads the child to conclude the answer. Filling out a little bubble does not tell me if my kids have mastered a particular skill that I wanted them to master. I don't know if they actually know something, guessed, did it wrong but got the right answer anyway, or a combination of the above.

When looking at comparative scores, you're still not getting good information. How many students of school A are special education or ESL students? How many in school B were taught ONLY the test and nothing but the test? How many kids were asked to stay home that day (This is a problem in Texas, BTW)? Did school A improve? Did school B drop? What have they been teaching in schools A and B that lead to the improvements or drops?

There's a lot of data that goes missing in looking at percentile scores.

The United States Public School system is a joke. You wanna know why?

In a New Scientist magazine, sorry that I don't have the issue on hand, saying that Biology classes in the State of California were taught significantly by Coaches who had absolutely no formal training beyond Highschool or College Bio, around 75% if I recall. The standards for teachers in our school system is ridiculously low. That Education degree? That should only really apply until maybe 8th grade.

Highschools should be taught by people in those fields. Nobody in those fields want to teach highschool? Why? Because the pay sucks, you get no respect and the kids hate you. Why? Because the kids are forced to go there and take certain classes. Here in Texas, if you don't go to Highschool, and you aren't 18, you or your parents or both can go to jail.

This is what should be done. Take ALL the money away from the enforcement of truancy, allow cops to worry about real criminals, and put that money towards putting a stricter code on teaching standards for Highschool education. With that standard in place, I'd be proud to take an increase in my taxes to know that it directly went to these new teachers.

Harmonia Mortus Redux;11645545']http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14638573/site/newsweek/?GT1=8506

The article is mostly focused on earlier grades (kindergarten seems popular), but its contents are somewhat worrying to me.
Kids falling asleep in the first grade? I remember our school had a nap time, and NOBODY went to sleep in that space. If your class is putting a SIX YEAR OLD to sleep, then you seriously need to look at your teaching technique.
Other than that, the constant testing, the striking of (IMO) important subjects like art and science, all in the interest of supposedly 'catching up' with other countries?
Ill just say this, Im glad I grew up when I did, kindergarten sounds like a concentration camp now.

Im reminded of a certain Greek epic. Are we sacrificing children on the 'alter of progress' in our own self interest?

Yah. Has nothing to do with letting six year olds stay up to ten at night, or having to wake them at five am to put them on a school bus.

Has nothing to do with parents not feeding the kid properly so that he actually has energy to learn and run without falling asleep.

Please, blame the teachers. We loved 1/2 day kindergarten where kids played; my sister in laws' sister bitched out her kid's nursery school teacher because the teacher was "too lax" and did not send a three year old home with at least an hour's worth of homework.

Right. Three years old. One hour of homework.

Parents want a six hour baby-sitting service, which is what they got, and then blame the teachers because the kid is not psychologically or physically able to deal with six hours of teaching. And some also believe that unless the kid in enrolled in six different activities, all of which stress the kid and conflict with, oh, getting the demanded homework done and prevent her from getting proper rest, the kid's life is not complete.

Yeah, please. Blame the teachers.

The United States Public School system is a joke. You wanna know why?

In a New Scientist magazine, sorry that I don't have the issue on hand, saying that Biology classes in the State of California were taught significantly by Coaches who had absolutely no formal training beyond Highschool or College Bio, around 75% if I recall. The standards for teachers in our school system is ridiculously low. That Education degree? That should only really apply until maybe 8th grade.
Alright, let's look at this one for a second.

First, those education degrees usually come in elementary and secondary. Elementary is designed to give a broad approach as one teacher needs to teach everything. Secondary focuses on junior high/middle school and high school and specializes in one or two fields. Those fields are what are endorsed on your teaching license and is what you can teach. As for me, since I hold a Secondary Ed, English, the course of study I went through was 3 classes shy of a regular English degree. The same with all the sciences and Math degees in terms of classes taken for a teaching major (every state is different before you start yelling at me about how such and such state is like whatever).

Second, Those education degrees also teach us how to teach. If you've been to university I am sure you've had the wonderful experiance of being in a class with a professor who is brilliant, gifted, knows his stuff (probably WROTE the stuff) and can't teach worth squat. Sadly, teaching does not just invlove standing at the front of the classroom and spouting off your wisdom and the students absorbing it like eager sponges. It'd be nice, but... The education degrees teach everything from educational law (what you can or cannot do, or as my professor put it, how to get the monkey off your back before you're sued or jailed), to growth and development of children/teens, special education, and curriculms and how to actually make interesting and effective lessons.

It even covers seating arrangements, seriously, this is part of classroom control (Needed as they won't let us use cattle prods and whips).

Finally, about the coaches... this is a very real problem that has two other issues in it. We have an extream lack of Science and Math teachers due to poor pay and other problems which you mentioned. The other reason being that parents, administrators, and PTAs love to see winning sports teams. Before the laws were changed, schools would compete and pay very, very high salaries for coaches (think college sports). These coches would do nothing but coach. It was decided that in order to stop this, coaches would HAVE to teach something. Usually they ended up teaching wherever there was a lack in the system under an emergency license. Now they know they're there to coach not actually teach, the schools know it, and the parents and students know it.

I'd really like to change that part, but given the US regards to school sports and the power a winning football team has, I know my efforts would be like selling sno-cones in Hell.

i know. I'm saying your not bushanomics bease of this, because bushanomics likes those laws. Its that "christian conservative" thing that sparked my question "are you bushanomics", and now i see the answer is no. and i hate them to. I'm just telling you what bushanomics would say.

If you want to know the truth, I'm a theocrat. It just happens that the Republicans agree the most with what I believe should be happening socially right now.

Actually, no. If you look up the people who helped craft NCLB, you find folks like the president of Shell and other major corporations. Very few actual teachers were called in and I've seen the way the Great School Board that meets in the captial works, they don't bother calling in teachers and administrators either.

Okay, you're right. But I still think that the administrators (on the whole) are a big part of the problem for the reasons I mentioned.

My only regret regarding standardized testing is that I took the SAT hungover and without a calculator.

My dear sir, I do not argue as an NS Generalites (Who, BTW, has been paying taxes every year for over a decade), I argue it as an actual teacher. The people who join me in this argue it as THEY are teachers or teachers in training. You know, the people who actually read the journal articles about this because it's our career fields. There are some massive problems with vouchers that are not based upon what I think, but what has been shown.

Now we come to the piano part. Only specialists are qualified to make decisions in their specialty. Nonsense. This is the attitude that I encounter from every teacher that I discuss this with. You have a very vested interest in avoiding vouchers, to the point where I don't think a teacher can argue the point effectively. One reason I see is that no teacher wants to be evaluated against their peers. That's something that would certainly happen in a voucher-friendly environment. The other thing is that no teacher or administrator wants to compete with private schools. They can't. But the sad thing is that the cost per pupil in Atlanta city schools is higher than some good, secular private schools.

I read the article a couple of days ago.
US early education sounds uncannily like HK early education (where I'm now teaching).

The problems with standardised testing is just that: They're standardised.

There's no leeway of consideration given for the standards of that school's students.
Now this might sound like a cop-out, but I'm referring to extremes of schools.

I've taught at a school here in HK where the majority of kids' parents were from mainland China (and indeed a lot of the students were as well).
Problem? They were coming into a completely new environment and expected to catch up and learn not just English (which is extremely common here in HK but not so in China) but also for many of them, Cantonese (a language found only in Southern China) which every class is conducted in. Every class, including English (excepting the ones I ran).
Yet they were still given the exact same tests as every other school and the blame for their (inevitable) failures were placed on the students and the school.

This just put far too much pressure on the students and on the teachers, when it's obviously to anyone else that it's something completely out of their control.

So the school reacts by handing out extra homework and forcing the students to stay longer for before-school classes, lunch-time tutorials, after-school classes, Saturday classes (which run from 9am to 5pm), and telling the parents their child needs tutorial classes on top of that.

First job I had here I was teaching in a tutorial centre, until 9pm 6 days a week. I was teaching kids under 10 to 9pm weekdays, and they were going home to a further 2 hours of homework.

What sort of life is that for a child?

I remember my childhood - my bedtime was 8.30pm when I was 9/10, and when I've asked the students here when they go to bed, the answer is always well after 10pm even for kids as young as 6. They're up doing homework until then.

As a result suicide is the leading cause of death among teenagers here in Hong Kong.

Now we come to the piano part. Only specialists are qualified to make decisions in their specialty. Nonsense. This is the attitude that I encounter from every teacher that I discuss this with. You have a very vested interest in avoiding vouchers, to the point where I don't think a teacher can argue the point effectively. One reason I see is that no teacher wants to be evaluated against their peers. That's something that would certainly happen in a voucher-friendly environment. The other thing is that no teacher or administrator wants to compete with private schools. They can't. But the sad thing is that the cost per pupil in Atlanta city schools is higher than some good, secular private schools.
What a load of crap.
Because someone has trained to work in the system, has actually worked in the system and has a far greater understanding of the system, they therefore shouldn't be allowed to comment on the efficiency of said system because they have a 'vested' interest in it.

Next I suppose you'll be saying doctors shouldn't be asked what's best for their patients, cause they have a 'vested' interest in their patient's health?

Just typical neocon counter. Because someone shows them up with a far greater understanding they're dismissed due to not wanting the best for the system. Oh of course. Someone with no educational training or background is far better at understanding how a school should be run than the actual people who run it. Tell me, when you get your car fixed do you wander down to the mechanics with a book on cars and proceed to tell them how to do their job?

fyi, if you actually bothered to do any research you'd find that many public schools actually stack up very well against comparable private schools. A lot do better.

Now we come to the piano part. Only specialists are qualified to make decisions in their specialty. Nonsense. This is the attitude that I encounter from every teacher that I discuss this with. You have a very vested interest in avoiding vouchers, to the point where I don't think a teacher can argue the point effectively. One reason I see is that no teacher wants to be evaluated against their peers. That's something that would certainly happen in a voucher-friendly environment. The other thing is that no teacher or administrator wants to compete with private schools. They can't. But the sad thing is that the cost per pupil in Atlanta city schools is higher than some good, secular private schools.
So you won't listen to teachers, you won't listen to teachers quoting academic journals which says there are issues with the voucher systems that have not been addressed, and you won't listen to anyone else on General due to "They don't pay taxes" so who the hell are you listening to? Yourself only? Then why are you even in this thread, except to troll?

Furthermore I see, you have NO qualms then about me coming into YOUR work place and telling you how to do YOUR job then, correct? Because I have to be able to better evaluate you than you or your peers because you have a vested interest.

Give me a break, I have seen you rip into people for daring to crit military proceedures when they were never in the military but, yet, somehow MY job is somehow so opened that you can feel free to dictate to ME how to do it and how to do it better even though you probably haven't set foot in a classroom since you left school?

So you won't listen to teachers, you won't listen to teachers quoting academic journals which says there are issues with the voucher systems that have not been addressed, and you won't listen to anyone else on General due to "They don't pay taxes" so who the hell are you listening to? Yourself only? Then why are you even in this thread, except to troll?

Furthermore I see, you have NO qualms then about me coming into YOUR work place and telling you how to do YOUR job then, correct? Because I have to be able to better evaluate you than you or your peers because you have a vested interest.

Give me a break, I have seen you rip into people for daring to crit military proceedures when they were never in the military but, yet, somehow MY job is somehow so opened that you can feel free to dictate to ME how to do it and how to do it better even though you probably haven't set foot in a classroom since you left school?
You seem to have a very selective memory. If you look back a little deeper, you'll find that I've also stood in front of a class and taught physics. I've never said that teacher's opinions should be ignored, just that they should be looked at with a grain of salt. Reading about the way education should be reformed in a education journal, peer-reviewed or not, is like reading about gun control in the NRA magazine. They have a point of view and that creates bias.

In fact, just a scan of the NEA's web page yields absolutely no information about how to improve education, but about how to improve teaching conditions. It's all about the teachers, not the students. It's left to the parents and voters to determine how to improve education because the teachers aren't. That's where you are dead wrong about what I wrote. I wrote that competition, not micro-management will improve education. I don't want to tell you how to do your job. I just want to be able to select alternative uses for my tax money.

I pay about $4000 in direct school taxes every year and I should be able to direct that money where it does the most good. That's why I'm so keen on discussions with those that have the same interests. Without some interest in the funding of schools versus the use of vouchers, the arguments for and against are just abstract. There's enough of that kind of talk, already.

Now, I'm going away and you can have the last word. Please don't waste it with the irrationality and personal attacks that were the sole content of your last post.

What an amazing IDEA... oh, wait, no, no. That only works if we were dumb as posts and didn't bother to, you know, check the websites and past tests of the testing companies to see what kind of questions they have historically used... :rolleyes:

Because standardized tests don't actually do that? They show a snap shot of about 3% of what is taught in the school. They also do not show the process of thought that leads the child to conclude the answer. Filling out a little bubble does not tell me if my kids have mastered a particular skill that I wanted them to master. I don't know if they actually know something, guessed, did it wrong but got the right answer anyway, or a combination of the above.

When looking at comparative scores, you're still not getting good information. How many students of school A are special education or ESL students? How many in school B were taught ONLY the test and nothing but the test? How many kids were asked to stay home that day (This is a problem in Texas, BTW)? Did school A improve? Did school B drop? What have they been teaching in schools A and B that lead to the improvements or drops?

There's a lot of data that goes missing in looking at percentile scores.
You're presupposing theworst possible application of the results. You can adjust standardised scores based on expected results based on the socio-economic profile of the school. You can examine the gender gap in the results. You can examine the gap between the standardised test scores and the other grades handed out by the school to see if schools are inflating grades.

And, frankly, I don't care how the student reaches the answer. As long as he gets the right one, he's learned what he needs to learn. Maybe he's a math whiz who derives a brand-new solution to every problem, but he's always right.

School's job is to teach children how to learn. As long as they manage to learn, I don't really care on what method they've settled.

The reason why the US Education system keeps getting worse and never better is partly due to the teacher’s union. The union adamantly opposes any reform of the education system unless it is to make a teacher’s job easier or more secure (basically better pay and better benefits with no chance of being ever fired).

New teachers do not make much money, but that is not a universal problem. Teachers who have been working for more than 20 years earn around 50k. That’s way above median income and they get 2 months off every summer (in addition to personal leave). They really don’t get any sympathy from me when they cry about not making much.

Public schools are also a sinkhole of money – many of them get more funding than local private schools charge in tuition. I know quite a few teachers and most of them agree that more money is not a solution; it is just throwing good money after bad.

When implementing voucher or charter school programs, the board of education keeps adjusting the rules and goals to make sure those programs fail. The charter school program in DC is a great example of that. There was a good charter school that took in failing students (high school students who could barely read – throwing out some arguments that the only reason why private schools do better is by cherry picking overachievers) and taught them far better than the public school system ever could have done. The same demographic of students who stayed in the public schools hardly improved while the charter school kids made amazing advancements, rapidly catching up to where they were supposed to be. The board of education (wanting to ‘prove’ charter schools don’t work) decided that they would declare it a failure and close it down because those students were not any better than the average student coming out of the public schools.

Many public school teachers, and the teacher’s union, have a vested interest in making sure they are never held accountable. They want to keep tenure (never having the fear of being fired no matter how bad you are) and want to doggedly continue doing the exact same thing they’ve always done, even though it doesn’t work and things keep getting worse.

The reason why the US Education system keeps getting worse and never better is partly due to the teacher’s union. The union adamantly opposes any reform of the education system unless it is to make a teacher’s job easier or more secure (basically better pay and better benefits with no chance of being ever fired).

New teachers do not make much money, but that is not a universal problem. Teachers who have been working for more than 20 years earn around 50k. That’s way above median income and they get 2 months off every summer (in addition to personal leave). They really don’t get any sympathy from me when they cry about not making much.
Wow. 50k after 20 years service. Such a lot.
Tell me: How much would one be making after 20 years in other white collar, professional jobs where one needs 4 years of University study, including 1 year of post-grad? Like for example, as a lawyer?

Compare like with like. You want better teachers, you need to make it more attractive a vocation. Given the option of 4 years of varsity study, and the massive student loan that accompanies said study, one set of study will result in 20 years time being on 50k (not much more than the average wage of $39k incidently and below the average for someone with a Bachelor's degree or better which is >$60k) and another similar length of study will result in being on 100k+ after 20 years. Which do you think most would choose?

As for 2 months holiday over Summer - have you ever asked a teacher what they do during that Summer break. Most of it is used up in planning and administration, as well as summer school.

fyi, the teacher's union adamantly opposes any 'reforms' which have been proved time and time again to have no benefit for the students, the educational system or the teachers themselves. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Reading about the way education should be reformed in a education journal, peer-reviewed or not, is like reading about gun control in the NRA magazine. They have a point of view and that creates bias.
So who do we listen to then? You listen to the general when he tells you about troops, you listen to a doctor when she tells you about health, you listen to scientists when they tell you about biology, but teachers and education researchers are obviously so biased that they MUST not be listened to? You have a very strange world view.

In fact, just a scan of the NEA's web page yields absolutely no information about how to improve education, but about how to improve teaching conditions. It's all about the teachers, not the students. It's left to the parents and voters to determine how to improve education because the teachers aren't.
Well, one, it's a union and it's main job is to represent teachers (Do you fault the United Auto Workers Union for not saying how to build a better car on their page?). Two, the NEA puts on a whole hell of a lot of confrences, workshops, and in service events just to do that, talk about what is new in education, what's working, and what isn't.

That's where you are dead wrong about what I wrote. I wrote that competition, not micro-management will improve education. I don't want to tell you how to do your job. I just want to be able to select alternative uses for my tax money.
How, please tell me in all seriousness just how competition will improve education? I'm all ears because everytime this comes up I hear screams about the NEA (which is odd, since actually the NEA is a national usually is not your local teacher's union), I hear about the evil federal government's invlovement (which it really isn't), and I hear about the glories of compeititon, but I never hear how this is supposed to actually work.

I pay about $4000 in direct school taxes every year and I should be able to direct that money where it does the most good. That's why I'm so keen on discussions with those that have the same interests. Without some interest in the funding of schools versus the use of vouchers, the arguments for and against are just abstract. There's enough of that kind of talk, already.
Then I'd suggest you would be much happier somewhere else than here. If you fail to listen to people who are and have been teaching, who are waving red flags up and down saying, "Wait a minute, there's a problem with this plan..." please don't be surprised when I come right back and challenge you on it. You automatically dismissed everyone else who doesn't agree with you, so I am quite confused as to why you posted in the first place here of all places.

Now, I'm going away and you can have the last word. Please don't waste it with the irrationality and personal attacks that were the sole content of your last post.
You know what they say, ask a silly question...

Only specialists are qualified to make decisions in their specialty. Nonsense. This is the attitude that I encounter from every teacher that I discuss this with.

Ok. When did you want me to do that oral surgery on you? I mean I'm not a specialist but certainly I should be able to decide which of your teeth is in need of root canal.

You're presupposing theworst possible application of the results. You can adjust standardised scores based on expected results based on the socio-economic profile of the school. You can examine the gender gap in the results. You can examine the gap between the standardised test scores and the other grades handed out by the school to see if schools are inflating grades.
Actually I am being as realistic as possible because these are what is being seen in education right now. Tests and quizes normally give snapshot answers, multi choice tests give even less. In other words, most of the time the tests cannot really even answer if they are really testing what they say they are testing for.

The problem is that tests are a tool, and a good tool, but they have been elevated as the end all be all of education.

And, frankly, I don't care how the student reaches the answer. As long as he gets the right one, he's learned what he needs to learn. Maybe he's a math whiz who derives a brand-new solution to every problem, but he's always right.
*sighs* My job is to teach English to a group of Japanese junior high school students. Some of my students constantly score extreamly high on their tests. They go to cram schools, they constantly work on the grammar, and they have mastered test taking.

However, when I go up to these same students and say, "How are you?" I get "I good... eh... I amu please meet you".

Their tests say they know English, speaking to them however...

School's job is to teach children how to learn. As long as they manage to learn, I don't really care on what method they've settled.
That's the point though, standardized tests don't show if we did that or not.

*snip of all posts*
So...are we gonna just alternate these threads now? ;)

Meh. My biggest problem with public schools is that so much time is spent on standardized bullshit that the kids never learn anything about logic or develop any critical thinking skills. That and the unfair distribution of wealth between districts.

The United States Public School system is a joke. You wanna know why?

In a New Scientist magazine, sorry that I don't have the issue on hand, saying that Biology classes in the State of California were taught significantly by Coaches who had absolutely no formal training beyond Highschool or College Bio, around 75% if I recall. The standards for teachers in our school system is ridiculously low. That Education degree? That should only really apply until maybe 8th grade.

Highschools should be taught by people in those fields. Nobody in those fields want to teach highschool? Why? Because the pay sucks, you get no respect and the kids hate you. Why? Because the kids are forced to go there and take certain classes. Here in Texas, if you don't go to Highschool, and you aren't 18, you or your parents or both can go to jail.

This is what should be done. Take ALL the money away from the enforcement of truancy, allow cops to worry about real criminals, and put that money towards putting a stricter code on teaching standards for Highschool education. With that standard in place, I'd be proud to take an increase in my taxes to know that it directly went to these new teachers.
It seems to me that you are very clearly stating that there is no bottom line requirement of a tertiary degree in a particular field in order to qualify to teach that that subject at high-school.:eek:

While it definately appears (to me) that you are unambiguously stating as much, this idea is so mind-blowing to me I feel the need to recheck. Have I interpreted your comments correctly? I mean surely friggen not?!?!?!? Surely in order to teach high-school in the US you need (at least) need both a relevent tertiary degree and some specialised teaching certification?

Surely!

Surely?:(

So...are we gonna just alternate these threads now? ;)
I guess so. ;)

I think it's an unfortunate byproduct of the drive to improve our education system. Standardized testing is one of the few ways that a large number of students can be tested efficiently in order to ensure that they have developed the skills necessary to succeed at higher grade levels; of course, you can see how that trickles down to become both pressure on younger students and the standardization of curriculum to testing requirements, both of which turn learning for young students from an experience to a stressful chore.

Also, those standardized tests determine how much federal funding a school gets and how much teachers get paid or whether they get a raise. You're stuck in a situation where not measuring students would lead to severe deterioration in the quality of education and testing them results in the elimination of "smart" teaching (i.e. teaching designed in response to students' learning needS) in favor of teaching to standardized testing with all of its flaws. We have to measure students, but the standardized testing is coming with a lot of negative side-effects. Obviously, to help the problem we need to expand our indicators beyond just a battery of tests; standardized testing has major benefits, but it also has major drawbacks and it's our goal to minimize them by diversifying our indicators of student progress.
Another thing to hate Bush for...:)

Ok. When did you want me to do that oral surgery on you? I mean I'm not a specialist but certainly I should be able to decide which of your teeth is in need of root canal.

You're missing the point with a trite and facetious example. But that's the NEA talking point, isn't it?

I don't want to tell teachers how to make bulletin boards and take attendance. Although I would like to tell some of the math teachers to throw out the calculators until the kids learn basic arithmetic.

I want to be included in a discussion of the operations of the public school systems in my district. That is something that we elect a school board to do, as our representatives. Even more than that, I want to be included in a discussion of how my taxes are spent. That's what we elect legislators to do, as our representatives.

Because the policy makers are our representatives, I have every bit of standing I need to voice an opinion. They have every right to listen to a teacher's opinion, as they represent them, too. But the idea that only those employed in the field of education are qualified to determine any and all policy involving education is silly.