NationStates Jolt Archive

Should school grades be judged purly on book work? Because some people cant write what they think on a piece of paper?

any ideas?

Yes: If you can't convey it then it's pretty useless knowledge.

Oh, can we continue the party now?

It's true that some people have difficulty getting what they know down on paper, but practical considerations make it extremely difficult to test people any other way. That's why exams were introduced the way they are now in the first place.

Yes: If you can't convey it then it's pretty useless knowledge.

Oh, can we continue the party now?

Ohh shut up.

We should take each child as an individual, and make sure that we use what is best for that individual.

Should school grades be judged purly on book work? Because some people cant write what they think on a piece of paper?

any ideas?

Sorry, those are bothering me a lot.

I think that, if you can communicate what you learned, then hey. You should get a good grade. It's why I like the classes in my major... it's less written tests, and more "Can you do this?" (Unrelated, but we had a proficiency in one of my classes yesterday and I rocked. Went in the studio and proved not only do I know signal flow, but I can actually make it work on a console.)

It's like my science classes in high school. The "essay" questions on tests were usually "Tell me this information in whatever way you can", which meant if you couldn't say it in a sentence but you could draw a perfect graph/diagram/whatever explaining the answer to the question exactly (and clearly), that'd be correct.

grades should be based on a valid assessment method. If the knowledge will be needed to be expressed in a writen format in the world outside school then the essay is fine. If you need in the world outside school to be able to use the information in a practical way then the test should take this into account.

Grades are used as indicators of your ability to preform a task so should reflect the nature of the task at hand.

Most schools rely on the old written exam as its easy to administer and doesn't call for subjective views of competence.

It costs more in time and resources to use different valid and reliable tests for subjects but i reckon its the way to go

I think yes especially if it happens to be an English literature test :p

any other method is costly and time consuming for at best a marginal difference

Ohh shut up.

We should take each child as an individual, and make sure that we use what is best for that individual.

Oh, and in 10 years time when I goto the doctor and they cannot tell me what's wrong... Or if I want to build a house and the architect doesn't know how to display what they plan... Or how about if I need a lawyer and the lawyer can't write down a defense/prossecution plan? It's for the kids own good... Sure, some people do have developmental issues, but using it as an excuse for the kid not to attempt to get better is not right. If they want to be able to succeed in the future (ie. Not been totally reliant on somebody) then they will have to be able to communicate: Both written, visually and vocally!

Seriously, you can bubble wrap kids as much as you want, but the moment they leave school, they are going to be expected to be capable of doing their job just as well as any other person in the society. Think of this:

You have a english exam where you have to take the themes out. How are they going to express that? Sure, they can tell the teacher, but what if they want to tell the world! Besides, English is also a measure of how you write and communicate English.

Maths: OK, so the kid can writes down the answer to a long problem without any working... how can the kid prove that they didn't just bash it into the calculator? Will the kid be able to explain how to do it? by speech?

In summary: treating people as an individual is only good if they are been taught individually: not assessed individually.

Oh, and in 10 years time when I goto the doctor and they cannot tell me what's wrong... Or if I want to build a house and the architect doesn't know how to display what they plan... Or how about if I need a lawyer and the lawyer can't write down a defense/prossecution plan? It's for the kids own good... Sure, some people do have developmental issues, but using it as an excuse for the kid not to attempt to get better is not right. If they want to be able to succeed in the future (ie. Not been totally reliant on somebody) then they will have to be able to communicate: Both written, visually and vocally!

Seriously, you can bubble wrap kids as much as you want, but the moment they leave school, they are going to be expected to be capable of doing their job just as well as any other person in the society. Think of this:

You have a english exam where you have to take the themes out. How are they going to express that? Sure, they can tell the teacher, but what if they want to tell the world! Besides, English is also a measure of how you write and communicate English.

Maths: OK, so the kid can writes down the answer to a long problem without any working... how can the kid prove that they didn't just bash it into the calculator? Will the kid be able to explain how to do it? by speech?

In summary: treating people as an individual is only good if they are been taught individually: not assessed individually.

What the hell are you on about here? We are talking about kids not adults, what is the correlation that you see bewteen how a child is tested and how an adult solicitor cannot write?

The point is not wether or not they have learnt but how to test what they have learnt.

What the hell are you on about here? We are talking about kids not adults, what is the correlation that you see bewteen how a child is tested and how an adult solicitor cannot write?

Okay, I assume you are 14-15. I'll give you a heads up:
When you turn 18 you DO NOT instantly discover how to perform written communication. It is a common misconception that it will somehow be downloaded into your brain. Thus, it is advisable for you to start practicing now.

The point is not wether or not they have learnt but how to test what they have learnt.
What good is someone who knows their stuff yet cannot express it? It's like a builder who knows the theory behind building, yet can't hammer a nail in or cut a piece of wood.

I just reread the initial post, and missed 'purely' For the record I believe that book work should probably be a large part of assessment, but naturally, not everything. (because there are things you won't learn from written exams)

Okay, I assume you are 14-15. I'll give you a heads up:

Ohh you cheecky fucker, nope I'm older than that.


When you turn 18 you DO NOT instantly discover how to perform written communication. It is a common misconception that it will somehow be downloaded into your brain. Thus, it is advisable for you to start practicing now.

Again I'll ask what has that got to do with how we test children? I'm not on about how and what they should, learn, the OP asked about testing what they have learnt.

If a child has dificulties writting, that does not mean he shall never be able to write, but it does seem stupid to test a childs comprension of a subject by asking him to take a written exam, if it is known that he has problems with his writting.


What good is someone who knows their stuff yet cannot express it? It's like a builder who knows the theory behind building, yet can't hammer a nail in or cut a piece of wood.


I'll ask again how you have deemed that a child that may have problems with writting, will have the same disability as an adult?

Purely? No, there's a lot of subjects that are taught where bookwork only based curricula would be next to useless. Language arts for example, the sciences as well.

That being said, essay tests are a very important testing tool as they let me figure out just where my students are coming from when they answer the question. This is valuable as it lets me see just what they actually have learned, and more importantly, how they are using that knowledge in creation of either new knowledge or opinion (Ya know, what we're supposed to be teaching you guys). While I can sympathize with students who struggle a lot with writing, you have to understand that there are some 30 of you and only one of me, per class, and I teach 4 or more classes a day.

Or to put it another way, when I do speaking tests for my Japanese students, just doing the 6 classes in one grade takes me about a month. There just simply not enough time in the school year to constantly let every kid come and tell me about what they have learned.

Again I'll ask what has that got to do with how we test children? I'm not on about how and what they should, learn, the OP asked about testing what they have learnt.

If a child has dificulties writting, that does not mean he shall never be able to write, but it does seem stupid to test a childs comprension of a subject by asking him to take a written exam, if it is known that he has problems with his writting.

Suggest a method then, that is actually a practical way of implementing it that will not pose a bias to other students.

If the kid can't express what they supposedly learnt, how do you know that they know?

In any subject I have ever taken, there has always been a practical and a written component. The Practical is there to prove that they know what they are doing. The written is to prove that they know what they are doing plus that they know how to express it in the method required. Knowing one without the other is completely useless.

Like I said, the child should be treated different when learning, not when been assessed, otherwise in 10 years time we are going to have alot of incompetent doctors/builders/lawyers running around.

If a student is unable to complete comprehension activities at the required level, then they should not be able to progress until they can.

It might sound a bit brutal, but in the end it will help the kid, and all the people he/she deals with in the future.


I'll ask again how you have deemed that a child that may have problems with writting, will have the same disability as an adult?I'll flip that one back at you: What makes you think that they won't have the same problem? When do you think they are going to learn the skill?

I believe most of you are forgetting something here. Your typical exam in school is NOT intended to test just factual knowledge of a certain subject, however much it might seem like that to a kid in school.

A typical exam (essay questions, as implied by the OP) is designed to test, among others:


ability to use the general language of instruction in its correct written form

command of the subject-specific language/jargon

ability to perform under a certain pressure and within a certain time limit

ability to coherently structure one's thoughts and explanations

ability to explain one's reasoning

etc


These things are not also tested because the form of a written test just happens to make it so, but the assessment of these skills are an intended integral part of school testing.

Nobody would ever dream of saying "The time limit with tests is so unfair to kids who just think more slowly; they have the same knowledge in their heads but only need more time and thus special/different arrangements should be made to test them!", because everyone knows and accepts that performing within a set time limit is an important skill that is also tested.
The same way, "Essay tests are so unfair to kids who fail at writing texts; they have the knowledge but just need other means of getting it out thus special arrangements should be made!" isn't a valid argument. Communicating the knowledge effectively via the written form is one skill that is part of the repertoire that kids are being taught and expected to be able to do, and are thus tested.

Of course, all this goes for healthy kids. If, say, an arthritic kid just can't hold a pencil long / hard enough to write an essay, alternative arrangements should be made because their inability to perform the standard is not based on an intrinsic failure at one of the required skills, but merely a technical problem.

Suggest a method then, that is actually a practical way of implementing it that will not pose a bias to other students.

Oral.


If the kid can't express what they supposedly learnt, how do you know that they know?

And thats the point, how do you know what the kid knows or doesn't if you only have the one way for him to express it? It's like testing a deaf child and asking him to talk to you without using sign language.


Like I said, the child should be treated different when learning, not when been assessed, otherwise in 10 years time we are going to have alot of incompetent doctors/builders/lawyers running around.

Again, how does that logicaly follow then? Because you use a differant method of testing child A from child B, that means that when child A grows into an adult he is going to be imcompetent at his choosen career, how?


I'll flip that one back at you: What makes you think that they won't have the same problem? When do you think they are going to learn the skill?

Tell you what you answer me first.

Of course, all this goes for healthy kids. If, say, an arthritic kid just can't hold a pencil long / hard enough to write an essay, alternative arrangements should be made because their inability to perform the standard is not based on an intrinsic failure at one of the required skills, but merely a technical problem.

So you are prepeard to treat phyisical disabilities differantly, but not mental. Why?

Oral.
Then whats the problem, if they can express themselves orally, they could just write that down, it's no different than writing.

Should school grades be judged purly on book work? Because some people cant write what they think on a piece of paper?

any ideas?

I have an idea: learn to convey what you're thinking.

Then whats the problem, if they can express themselves orally, they could just write that down, it's no different than writing.

You really can't see any differance in writting and speaking?

It seems like you are about 13-15 in the first few years of high school.

From the type of book work mark I was given in high school it was basically on how we had presented our homework (and if we had done it or not) how we had laid out our notes (i.e date in the top right hand corner, margin down the side etc.), how organised our book was (handouts were in some sort of order), generally how neat our book was.

Now I wasn't the most what you would call organised person I had things all over the place and I didn't always but a margin down the side , and my hand writing was a bit messy. And I was penalized for it, however, I thought that because my handouts in weren't in exactly the same order as what the teacher wanted (my handouts were all over the place but if you told me to grab one I would know exactly where it was) and my handwriting may have been a bit messy (really who cared they were my notes to help when i studied for tests and assignments as long as I could read them why did it matter) why should I get a poor grade it was stupid and to say that I might fail a topic or get a lower mark then I deserved was ridiculous. So no students shouldn't be marked on their book work.

If it is an assignment or an essay in which you haven't written your thoughts and arguments in a cogent manner then yes you should be penalized but if it is in the case mentioned above then no it shouldn't happen

Oral.
Impractical. Very much so.

Should school grades be judged purly on book work? Because some people cant write what they think on a piece of paper?

any ideas?
it dun't mater weather ppl cn xpres wot dey no n dis way ne more. spln & grmr their like SO last w33k, yeh. dont u no english iz a Dynamic Langage/. calling sum 1's spln iz just like so uncool its like d inter net age, get wid the program, yeh?/? we dont need prpr wrtng ne more neway cos we got txt innit. langege shud b fr33!!!! not caged in like sum cage yeh. dont opres my n my languge fool

:rolleyes:

/returns to real world.

You really can't see any differance in writting and speaking?

Then tell me the difference between writing and speaking.

I also like how you treat the exceptions like the norm. Those mentally handicapped already get their crutches.

Impractical. Very much so.

Never said it wasn't, but essential yes.

So you are prepeard to treat phyisical disabilities differantly, but not mental. Why?

Because the entire point of the testing is to gauge mental capability?

Then tell me the difference between writing and speaking.

I also like how you treat the exceptions like the norm. Those mentally handicapped already get their crutches.

The fact that you have attempted to correct my writting tells me you know full well the differance.

What rubbish, if you suffer from a learning difficulty you do not automaticly get all of the help you need in school, it has to be fought for.

Then tell me the difference between writing and speaking.
The written word is actually very different from the spoken one (At least in English, some other languages vary). Spoken English is a heck of a lot more flexible than written English, allowing you to infer, drop parts of grammar, adjust rhythm and tone for better meaning (Which gets us into a lot of trouble here when sarcasm is taken seriously as it is hard to convey in writing). Written English is far, far more structured than it's spoken cousin and is usually quite a bit behind the times; or to put it another way, the written word is usually not how people are currently speaking, but how they spoke about 20 years ago.

Because the entire point of the testing is to gauge mental capability?

Annnnd if you have problem with written communication, you should then be given the chance for testers to gauge you mental capability in another manor, yes?

Annnnd if you have problem with written communication, you should then be given the chance for testers to gauge you mental capability in another manor, yes?
Posh schools, eh? We had to have our lessons in a pre-fab shed.

Never said it wasn't, but essential yes.
No, impractical to the point of not working. How on earth do you plan to give a 10 page essay orally with a full bib? You're also looking at about 5 minutes per page, that's one full class period JUST for one student.

Tutoring, a good writing center, and more time for those students with a documented LD would be the way to go.

Teachers should use a variety of assessment methods to ascertain the understanding and application a student has of their subject matter. This could include but are not limited to: Oral presentation, group assignments, portfolio assessment, hands-on projects requiring the practical application of said knowledge, online tests/quizzes, internet webquests and using templates, internet scavenger hunts with accompanying worksheets, etc. All of these alternative assessments must go with a rubric that applies to each student. This is the only way to ensure some sense of objectivity. Limiting the way in which you assess a student only plays to one type of intelligence, and does not take into account different learning styles. Those who believe the only way to show what you know is by written work would say that Helen Keller, Albert Einstein, Beethoven, and Stephen Hawkin were all stupid.

The written word is actually very different from the spoken one (At least in English, some other languages vary). Spoken English is a heck of a lot more flexible than written English, allowing you to infer, drop parts of grammar, adjust rhythm and tone for better meaning (Which gets us into a lot of trouble here when sarcasm is taken seriously as it is hard to convey in writing). Written English is far, far more structured than it's spoken cousin and is usually quite a bit behind the times; or to put it another way, the written word is usually not how people are currently speaking, but how they spoke about 20 years ago.

I know the actual difference, but unless a student is being tested on grammar, it should not be counted as long as it is comprehensive.

So you are prepared to treat physical disabilities differently, but not mental. Why?
Because I feel that the respective deficiencies lie in different areas that are of different importance to the skills required / tested for.

I believe that "the cognitive ability to remember certain information and to reproduce said information in a coherent manner", "the cognitive ability to communicate the information within the written language", and "the cognitive ability to use [the language] correctly in a manner appropriate to the task in both form and meaning" are, among others, skills that we require in children, that we teach and test for.

Please NB how with this reformulation, I've made it absolutely clear that these are all cognitive skills. If somebody is physically handicapped in a way that interferes with the regular way of showing these cognitive skills, i.e. writing an essay by hand, then alternative means should be found to allow this student to demonstrate their cognitive abilities.

Mental disabilities are a different matter. Mental disabilities interfere not with the way a person may or may not demonstrate a certain cognitive skill, but they interfere with the very cognitive skill itself. Dyslexia does not prevent a kid who knows how to spell a word in their head, i.e. who has the "cognitive skill to use the language correctly [...] in form", to write that word correctly, but it prevents that the kid can consistently know/learn how to spell that word correctly, i.e. it prevents that it can acquire the skill that we demand in a school kid as a part of their performance. (NB: You will never, ever hear me say that any of these mental disabilities make the kids "stupid" or anything. I'd never say or feel that a dyslexic isn't just as smart as his 'healthy' counterpart. Just because a certain cognitive skill is taught and required in school does not automatically mean that someone who doesn't have it is stupid, but it does mean that someone who doesn't have it cannot be given good grades when that skill is assessed).

Posh schools, eh? We had to have our lessons in a pre-fab shed.

Bwhahah!

No, impractical to the point of not working. How on earth do you plan to give a 10 page essay orally with a full bib? You're also looking at about 5 minutes per page, that's one full class period JUST for one student.

Tutoring, a good writing center, and more time for those students with a documented LD would be the way to go.

More staff, speicalised examiners, there are ways around most things, nothing is 'unworkable'. But yes extra help for those who need it also.

Impractical. Very much so.

I am not saying you are wrong and I am not saying you are right, but can you please explain to me how it is impractical.

I went to school with a kid who had a physical disability meaning that he couldn't write as fast or in a tidy manner. Most of his tests were taken orally with the teacher and another supervisor, they would ask him a question and he would give the answer.

For example, What were Woodrow Wilson's fourteen points in regards to the treaty of Versailles.

Ohh and I was in agreement with you until this bit.


Mental disabilities are a different matter. Mental disabilities interfere not with the way a person may or may not demonstrate a certain cognitive skill, but they interfere with the very cognitive skill itself. Dyslexia does not prevent a kid who knows how to spell a word in their head, i.e. who has the "cognitive skill to use the language correctly [...] in form", to write that word correctly, but it prevents that the kid can consistently know/learn how to spell that word correctly, i.e. it prevents that it can acquire the skill that we demand in a school kid as a part of their performance.

It does not prevent the learning nor the aquiring of any skill, what it does do is make it harder, and force you to find other technieqes to enable you to stick the data into your head.

Annnnd if you have problems with written communication, you should then be given the chance for testers to gauge you mental capability in another manner, yes?

You appear to take the stance that school testing is designed to test "mental capability" as a vague concept, as if school is there to assess "intelligence" or "smarts" or whatever.

It isn't. It is there to teach (and test) certain rather clearly outlined skills, many of them cognitive, some of them as they apply to essay tests outlined in previous post. School success does not measure "mental capacity" per se, and it is not intended to, either. If you aren't all too "intelligent" (whatever that means) but know how to study hard and drill your writing skills so that you can convey the information in the manner prescribed in an academic setting, you will get good grades because you perform the skills asked for.

If you're highly "intelligent" and can solve footlong equations in your head within seconds, or memorize whole tables of information on first sight, but do not have the accompanying skills to express those abilities of yours, you will deservedly get bad grades in school because school is not there to teach or assess "mental capacity" but a certain set of skills which also include cognitive ability to express yourself in the written form.


Teachers should use a variety of assessment methods to ascertain the understanding and application a student has of their subject matter. [...] Limiting the way in which you assess a student only plays to one type of intelligence, and does not take into account different learning styles. Those who believe the only way to show what you know is by written work would say that Helen Keller, Albert Einstein, Beethoven, and Stephen Hawkin were all stupid.

I believe that you are making the same mistake as Peep. School neither teaches nor assesses "intelligence", or "non-stupidness", nor does it limit itself and its tests to the "understanding and application of a subject matter". School teaches and assesses both the understanding of a certain subject as well as certain pre-defined skills regarding its communication. If you fail at those latter skills, this does not mean you are 'stupid', but it means you fail at the goals school sets.

I'm physically handicapped; I'm missing my left hand. If I were to be assessed for knitting, I'd get bad grades because even though I have the theory down pat, I'm lacking further essential skills that are part of the repertoire for knitting. This does not mean that I'm stupid, or generally bad at physical things. I just plain old have different types of (physical) abilities. But having those other abilities still does not make me a better knitter, and if I fail to display good knitting skills, I have no reason whatsoever to complain about bad knitting grades. I'd ask for half the credit for my display of the theoretical knowledge about knitting (just as the other 'health' students do), but I'd lay no claim to the half of the credit that goes to (physical) skills I didn't display.

That bad knitting grade would not mean I am the physical equivalent of stupid. It does not say anything about my different capacity for and with other skills, It just says that I failed at important skills tested for in knitting, and it does so justifiedly.

You appear to take the stance that school testing is designed to test "mental capability" as a vague concept, as if school is there to assess "intelligence" or "smarts" or whatever.

It isn't. It is there to teach (and test) certain rather clearly outlined skills, many of them cognitive, some of them as they apply to essay tests outlined in previous post. School success does not measure "mental capacity" per se, and it is not intended to, either. If you aren't all too "intelligent" (whatever that means) but know how to study hard and drill your writing skills so that you can convey the information in the manner prescribed in an academic setting, you will get good grades because you perform the skills asked for.

If you're highly "intelligent" and can solve footlong equations in your head within seconds, or memorize whole tables of information on first sight, but do not have the accompanying skills to express those abilities of yours, you will deservedly get bad grades in school because school is not there to teach or assess "mental capacity" but a certain set of skills which also include cognitive ability to express yourself in the written form.

Not at all I in fact take the stance that a test at school is to determine a whole gamult of congnative abilities, and if you do have problems with the written medium, then you should not be forced into a bad grade if you can be tested another way. Obviously English, or other languages can be exempt from this.

Ohh and I was in agreement with you until this bit.
[..]
It does not prevent the learning nor the acquiring of any skill, what it does do is make it harder, and force you to find other techniques to enable you to stick the data into your head.

Well, maybe that was a badly chosen example then, which I gladly concede. If any disability makes it 'harder' for you to master a certain skill like orthographic correctness, then there isn't much of a question - different people need to work a different amount in order to achieve certain things, and the fact that you'll have to go a harder route for this one thing does not excuse you from doing what it takes to achieve it, if you can.

What I was talking about was disabilities that, well, disable you to acquire a certain skill. So, for that post, just substitute "dyslexia" with "[mental disability that makes it impossible for the sufferer to acquire sufficient spelling skills]".

Not at all I in fact take the stance that a test at school is to determine a whole gamut of cognitive abilities, and if you do have problems with the written medium, then you should not be forced into a bad grade if you can be tested another way. Obviously English, or other languages can be exempt from this.

See, herein lies our disagreement (I hope you still had a chance to read my edit in re my answer to Liuzzo). I believe that school teaches and tests not a random, let alone comprehensive, "gamut" of cognitive abilities, but a very well-defined and limited set of certain cognitive abilities, and that success in school does neither depend on nor signify possession of "a general range of cognitive abilities", but a very specific range of cognitive abilities. Being "generally smart" or having lots of varying cognitive abilities isn't what schools test for, or give good grades for, it is a specific set of skills which you must have.

To create yet another analogy (for we started off with the physical vs mental thing):

You appear to argue that school, in regard to "mental capacity per se", is like sports in general is to "physical ability per se". If you are good at the whole mental thing in general, with only certain areas you don't do well, you should get a good grade because school is about this general mental capacity. It looks to me like for you, it's just like if there were a central institution that'd measure physical/sporty ability per se, it ought to give you a good grade if you excel at all sorts of physical feats even though you may fail at, say, basketball, because you demonstrate overall good physical skills.

I argue differently. I say that school in regard to mental capacity is like, say, athletics is to sporty abilities per se. If you've got all sorts of sporty abilities and are a fantastic basketball player and skiing master and whatnot, but somehow fail at athletics, then you'll get a bad grade in athletics because well, you can't do it, no matter how well you do in other sporty/related skills. The same goes for school and its pre-defined set of cognitive abilities. It doesn't matter whether you have this huge other range of mental skills, if you fail to display those that are central to school, you'll get bad grades at school, because school isn't there to teach or test metal capacity per se, but only certain select cognitive skills.

I know the actual difference, but unless a student is being tested on grammar, it should not be counted as long as it is comprehensive.
It's not just the grammar though, even the very structure of the written word is different from the spoken. You don't really run into people who speak the way they write and vice versa.

See, herein lies our disagreement (I hope you still had a chance to read my edit in re my answer to Liuzzo). I believe that school teaches and tests not a random, let alone comprehensive, "gamut" of cognitive abilities, but a very well-defined and limited set of certain cognitive abilities, and that success in school does neither depend on nor signify possession of "a general range of cognitive abilities", but a very specific range of cognitive abilities. Being "generally smart" or having lots of varying cognitive abilities isn't what schools test for, or give good grades for, it is a specific set of skills which you must have.

No you wrong, we do not diagree on that score.

However when you are taking say 8-9 subjects, then why should there be a written test in all of them, if they can gain an insight into this part of your abilities with a written English exam, then why not take an oral Science, if it is clear that by not doing so your science grade will suffer?

I liked your knitting analogy, but in cases like that alowing you to use a kniting machine, would show testers your grasp of knitting theory and artistry. While not alowing you access to a machine, would give you a low grade in knitting; not because you had no artestry, or your were lacking in theory, but because by not offering you a differant way to test, the skills and knowledge that you do have can not be shown.

More staff, speicalised examiners, there are ways around most things, nothing is 'unworkable'.
At current funding levels with the extreme need for special education teachers (Bless their hearts), yes it is. I'd LIKE to have those resources available to me and for my students (Dear God I would love that), but sadly I don't have that and unless the world gets turned upside down, I probably never will.

But yes extra help for those who need it also.
It's the compromise, but it works for the bulk of special ed students, leaving more teacher time for those who really can't write.

I am not saying you are wrong and I am not saying you are right, but can you please explain to me how it is impractical.

I went to school with a kid who had a physical disability meaning that he couldn't write as fast or in a tidy manner. Most of his tests were taken orally with the teacher and another supervisor, they would ask him a question and he would give the answer.

For example, What were Woodrow Wilson's fourteen points in regards to the treaty of Versailles.
Ok, the reason why it is impractical is that, as I noted, if you're asking short answer questions it might work. If you're asking for a ten page paper on Romeo and Juliet with a bib sheet attached, that's much harder to deliver orally. Assuming about 5 minutes per page (A fair estimate) that paper would take about an hour to give to a teacher.

For ONE student, such a system could be workable. But for every learning disabled student? Then we start getting into trouble. I teach at a school with over 1,200 students. Of them, I'm currently responsible for English education for about 700 of them. Of that 700, I have about 7 or so students with some form of LD or other special education concern. I just physically do not have the time to provide an extra 7 hours each time I need to assess those kids. It's a matter of not having the resources needed to do that, especially when most of them can be handled in other ways that meets their needs and still leaves me free enough to give them the special attention they do deserve without taking me away from my other 693 kids who also deserve my attention (Whether they want it or not is another story).

At current funding levels with the extreme need for special education teachers (Bless their hearts), yes it is. I'd LIKE to have those resources available to me and for my students (Dear God I would love that), but sadly I don't have that and unless the world gets turned upside down, I probably never will.

Ahhhh education, education, education. More money yes please, so then we can agree that with more money it is workable.

Ahhhh education, education, education. More money yes please, so then we can agree that with more money it is workable.
Within reason (Such as a 10 page research paper type of problem), but yes, give me enough money to hire special education teachers and enough of them to hire and we could then afford to sit a teacher on each kid and have them deliver it orally.

Nobody would ever dream of saying "The time limit with tests is so unfair to kids who just think more slowly; they have the same knowledge in their heads but only need more time and thus special/different arrangements should be made to test them!", because everyone knows and accepts that performing within a set time limit is an important skill that is also tested.

Actually, in New York state, time limit extensions are one of the most common testing accommodations given to students with learning disabilities. Some students can even get tests read to them if they have problems with reading.

However when you are taking say 8-9 subjects, then why should there be a written test in all of them, if they can gain an insight into this part of your abilities with a written English exam, then why not take an oral Science, if it is clear that by not doing so your science grade will suffer?
An insight into which abilities? Surely, you mean the ability to remember the information that's been given to you. And surely, there are other ways of testing whether a student knows all the information they're required to know.

But, as stated before, the ability to remember the information isn't the only ability schools teach and test. The ability to convey your knowledge in the written form is another, equally valid and important, ability that they do teach and test as well, and that ability cannot be looked into via an oral test.

You really must realize that, unlike hat one has thought as a kid, "school" is not only about knowing stuff, but it is just as much about other less obvious cognitive skills. Just because those are taught and tested for less overtly does not mean they aren't as explicitly tested for, and that mastery of those skills isn't as important as mastery of the overt 'knowledge' skills.

I liked your knitting analogy, but in cases like that allowing you to use a knitting machine, would show testers your grasp of knitting theory and artistry.
Thank you, and yes, it would show my grasp of knitting theory, which I why I'd definitely claim that 50% of the grade.
And while good work with the machine would certainly show my "knitting artistry with a knitting machine", it would not show my "knitting artistry with manual knitting needles", which is the skill being tested for.

If I'm in my choir class (yes, we had this in school as a mandatory course) and I memorized all sorts of music theory crap but can't sing for my life, I'd be justly awarded my half grade for the theory, but none for the singing skills - and it wouldn't matter whether I' d be able to demonstrate my general music artistry by, say, rhythmically reciting the lyrics or whatever.
And in my arts class, I always got the theory-related credit points and always a failing grade for my crappy artwork, but no one would ever have suggested offering me to create similar work on a computer, print it out and hand it in alternatively, because the skill asked for was not "create an artwork that looks like this or that", but "create appropriate artwork using these utensils".

While not allowing you access to a machine, would give you a low grade in knitting; not because you had no artistry, or your were lacking in theory, but because by not offering you a different way to test, the skills and knowledge that you do have can not be shown.
Of course all the other skills and knowledge that I do have cannot be shown by an exam that tests for only the two skills "knitting theory" and "knitting a certain piece using knitting needles", but even if coincidentally the test showed other remarkable skills of mine, like machine knitting or licking my elbow (I can!) , that would be inconsequential and not affect my grade because well, those aren't the skills tested for.

Ok, the reason why it is impractical is that, as I noted, if you're asking short answer questions it might work. If you're asking for a ten page paper on Romeo and Juliet with a bib sheet attached, that's much harder to deliver orally. Assuming about 5 minutes per page (A fair estimate) that paper would take about an hour to give to a teacher.

For ONE student, such a system could be workable. But for every learning disabled student? Then we start getting into trouble. I teach at a school with over 1,200 students. Of them, I'm currently responsible for English education for about 700 of them. Of that 700, I have about 7 or so students with some form of LD or other special education concern. I just physically do not have the time to provide an extra 7 hours each time I need to assess those kids. It's a matter of not having the resources needed to do that, especially when most of them can be handled in other ways that meets their needs and still leaves me free enough to give them the special attention they do deserve without taking me away from my other 693 kids who also deserve my attention (Whether they want it or not is another story).

Yes indeed I agree with you, essay style questions that require lengthy answers would be impractical especially under exam conditions. Surely there must be something in which to give them a fair enough chance to try and overcome their disabilities, I know we could just let them get some basics so they can get some menial job when they are older but as much as a right wing cold hearted bastard that I am I still believe in some sort of social justice and giving everybody a fair go (maybe its the Australian in me).

I wish to ask you a question in regards to your work, and while I know that they exist it is almost unbelievable to me that a school has 1200 students (My school only had 400 total covering 6 grades), Do you really teach 700 kids or are you some sort of coordinator? Also which country do you teach in, it just seems amazing that there is only one teacher to cover English for 700 kids even the larger schools in Australia have a few at least.

An insight into which abilities? Surely, you mean the ability to remember the information that's been given to you. And surely, there are other ways of testing whether a student knows all the information they're required to know.<snip>

I guess you are still no getting me huh.

Yes the ability to convey your knowledge in the written form is the ability I talked about during an English exam. As I have asked, if this has been covered in the English exam, then why cover it again in all of the rest?

If as a result of poor writing in your science exam, you get a lower grade, then what use is that?

Back to your kniting, the point is that by using a machine to show your theory of knitting is sound, and that your understanding of the artesty of knitting is also sound, you are bypassing the handicap that using manual kneedles would imposs on you. The test meaures the same things theory and artistry, and only your manual knitting skills are shown to be lacking(because of a physical disablity).

While if you were not given the chance to use the machine, and forced to use kneedles, your theory and artestry, as measured by the exam piece you are required to produce, will be marked as a lower level than you actualy are.

Actually, in New York state, time limit extensions are one of the most common testing accommodations given to students with learning disabilities. Some students can even get tests read to them if they have problems with reading.

I am aware of these and many other choices schools / boards of education make that I may or may not agree with.

If a student takes certain test under different circumstances, or with different help, than other students, I believe that it is not correct to imply that they did the very same thing by grading and reporting the tests the same as all the others. NB: "Different" does not, especially not here, imply "worse". Actually, I guess that many students with learning disabilities who are given certain help and then achieve similar test scores as regular students have put more effort into it and therefore, in a way, have achieved more or did 'better' than the regular students. However, I don't believe they ought to be recorded as having done the same thing.

To put it into yet another sports analogy:

"Healthy" people at a certain level compete in, say, the Olympic Games (let's assume here that these contests are actually won by ability, okay?). Handicapped people will, by the nature of their handicap, never be able to achieve the same (numeric) result as the non-handicapped do, and therefore compete under different circumstances, with different sorts of help, with other similarly afflicted people in the Special Olympics. I believe that having won the Special Olympics is (at least) the same feat as winning the Regular Olympics, it shows (at least) the same amounts of effort etc., but no one would report the Special Olympics winner to be the winner of a non-handicapped contest.

As far as I'm concerned, I believe the same holds true for cognitive skills tests. I believe that kids with learning disabilities (in the strict sense) should be allowed teaching and tests that cater to their needs, and that allows them to achieve maximum results if they apply maximum efforts. However, these results should be recorded as results achieved under those special circumstances, and not as results for the same test as everyone else.

Yes indeed I agree with you, essay style questions that require lengthy answers would be impractical especially under exam conditions. Surely there must be something in which to give them a fair enough chance to try and overcome their disabilities, I know we could just let them get some basics so they can get some menial job when they are older but as much as a right wing cold hearted bastard that I am I still believe in some sort of social justice and giving everybody a fair go (maybe its the Australian in me).
There are many ways, as I mentioned, a writing center or one-on-one tutoring. A lot of LD kids (Myself included) don't need to have classwork entirely re-arranged, just given a bit more time or an extra leg up to perform to standards.

I wish to ask you a question in regards to your work, and while I know that they exist it is almost unbelievable to me that a school has 1200 students (My school only had 400 total covering 6 grades), Do you really teach 700 kids or are you some sort of coordinator? Also which country do you teach in, it just seems amazing that there is only one teacher to cover English for 700 kids even the larger schools in Australia have a few at least.
I teach EFL in Japan at an elementary school in the middle of Nagano Prefecture. And yes, I DO indeed teach over 700 kids and the elementary school I teach in does indeed have over 1,200; over the course of a year I teach them all. I'm a coordinator only in the sense that there's just two English teachers for the school and we split up the various duties that we have and so I end up running around with various projects that I try and get the homeroom teachers in on.

I guess you are still no getting me huh.
I believe the misunderstanding is mutual.

Yes the ability to convey your knowledge in the written form is the ability I talked about during an English exam. As I have asked, if this has been covered in the English exam, then why cover it again in all of the rest?

Two answers:

a) Because conveying your science knowledge in the written form is a distinct skill very different from conveying English lesson content in the written form and thus needs to be tested separately

b) Because written communication is a skill that is an integral part of all subjects, and not a skill you demonstrate once and then check off on your list. It's not like you can prove you can run during an athletics stint and then expect good grades in football, basketball and the like when you're just standing around on the field catching, kicking and throwing balls but not moving because well, you have already demonstrated that you can run so why do it again?

If as a result of poor writing in your science exam, you get a lower grade, then what use is that?
To show that you have a deficit in one of the central skills that are tested for in science exams, i.e. the ability to convey the knowledge in the written form.

Science exams are not only for testing science knowledge, but also for a range of other, partly implicit, skills, such as written communication. A grade for such tests reflects the ability to demonstrate all skills required, and a bad grade is used t show that you lack one or more of these skills.

I am aware of these and many other choices schools / boards of education make that I may or may not agree with.

If a student takes certain test under different circumstances, or with different help, than other students, I believe that it is not correct to imply that they did the very same thing by grading and reporting the tests the same as all the others. NB: "Different" does not, especially not here, imply "worse". Actually, I guess that many students with learning disabilities who are given certain help and then achieve similar test scores as regular students have put more effort into it and therefore, in a way, have achieved more or did 'better' than the regular students. However, I don't believe they ought to be recorded as having done the same thing.

To put it into yet another sports analogy:

"Healthy" people at a certain level compete in, say, the Olympic Games (let's assume here that these contests are actually won by ability, okay?). Handicapped people will, by the nature of their handicap, never be able to achieve the same (numeric) result as the non-handicapped do, and therefore compete under different circumstances, with different sorts of help, with other similarly afflicted people in the Special Olympics. I believe that having won the Special Olympics is (at least) the same feat as winning the Regular Olympics, it shows (at least) the same amounts of effort etc., but no one would report the Special Olympics winner to be the winner of a non-handicapped contest.

As far as I'm concerned, I believe the same holds true for cognitive skills tests. I believe that kids with learning disabilities (in the strict sense) should be allowed teaching and tests that cater to their needs, and that allows them to achieve maximum results if they apply maximum efforts. However, these results should be recorded as results achieved under those special circumstances, and not as results for the same test as everyone else.
The problem with your analogy is that we're not training athletes who go out and compete with others of their caliber, we're teaching students who are going to go out and live. Now, they may be competing out there, they may not, but the whole point of allowing special education is to give each student, regardless of their ability, the skills needed to go out into the world and succeed on their terms, not others.

I was special ed (Actually I manged to hit all the categories for special ed being LD, GT, and have a Sec. 504. I'm special :D), the only thing I needed to get that leg up was access to a spell checker on non-spelling assignments and a bit of extra tutoring. I also now have both a BA and MS in education and plan to start in on my Ph.D. within the next few years once I mange to tear myself away from Japan. By all reasonable measures, I'm exactly the type of person that schools love to point to proudly as an alum in terms of achievements, but I was able to get there with that little bit of help. That's what special education and doing such tweaks is for, in many cases it can mean a successful student and a drop out.

In the end, the only person anyone in education is competing against is his or her own self.

It should be noted than when you enter the working world, no one is going to stick a scan-tron in front of you with a series of questions. You will have to write a resume, and with that resume you will have to demonstrate your comprehension of the relevant subject matter. In many places, it is demonstrated in your GPA coming out of uni, but especially at higher levels, that isn't enough. Consequently, you will probably have to give them a nice long thesis to digest.

And they are justified in asking for a thesis instead of a scan-tron. Scientists, for example, have to publish their findings, which does not only mean talking to other scientists. They still have to get funding, which means explaining it to people who are not well versed in science, so throwing down a series of equations and bullet points isn't going to mean shyte to them.

School is about conveying knowledge, but it is also about applying that knowledge to be successful in life. You cannot apply your knowledge if you cannot accurately and effectively convey that knowledge to other people.

Two answers:

a) Because conveying your science knowledge in the written form is a distinct skill very different from conveying English lesson content in the written form and thus needs to be tested separately

b) Because written communication is a skill that is an integral part of all subjects, and not a skill you demonstrate once and then check off on your list. It's not like you can prove you can run during an athletics stint and then expect good grades in football, basketball and the like when you're just standing around on the field catching, kicking and throwing balls but not moving because well, you have already demonstrated that you can run so why do it again? .


A) Point taken.
B) Point taken, yet an oral exam using questions like, 'how would you write this?' can still show that the knoweldge is there.

As a child I found writting very, very hard(as youmay have guessed) but now of course as I have gotten older, it has markedly improved.

The problem I have with your POV, is that it does not take into account the fact that children get better, that a child who has difficulties now, will not always have them; and so to penalise the child now by not opening up to them a differant way to be tested, a way that more truely reflects their skill and knowledge, is mightly unfair.

I am only talking about giving each child the same chance, no matter what the handicap.

School is about conveying knowledge, but it is also about applying that knowledge to be successful in life. You cannot apply your knowledge if you cannot accurately and effectively convey that knowledge to other people.

Yes agreed, which is why it is important to find other ways in which children can do this, in a testing enviroment.

This post addresses matters in the USA only as I have no experience with outside nations. This is the only disclaimer that will be made in this post and ignoring it will result in having your pillow stuffed with 10,000 radioactive gerbils infested with super-fleas.

It seems to me that there are a couple of issues that have not been addressed.

Unless I'm mistaken the format of education and testing in its modern format came out not so much due to a drive to standardize teaching and testing for the sake of the teachers and students but more as an aid to industry. It may have evolved since then, possibly significantly, but at its core it's still a method of sorting out and/or training children to be proper fodder for American industry.

Furthermore, as things stand many public teachers are underpaid with over-sized classes and often have neither the time nor the freedom to "break the mold" of standard practices for teaching and testing.

I went through 13 years of public education and a bit over 2 years of college and I actively remember darn little of it and passively remember substantially less than "half" of all the "knowledge" I learned over the majority of my life.

This isn't because I'm slow or stupid, far from it really. This is because most of that information was fed to me by rote memorization and I was tested more on how well I could remember that information over short periods of time, not whether or not I actually learned and could use it for any length of time.

This is one of the greatest failings of the current teaching style prevalent in many schools. It promotes short-term memorization and recitation, not true learning, and children walk away truly learning and subsequently remembering only a small fraction of it.

Furthermore, while it does make for a more well-rounded individual who has a better chance at comprehending the world around them modern education throws so much crap at children in addition to useful material that expecting them to learn and remember all of it is ludicrous.

When I went to school in the 3rd grade the teacher expected us to "show our work" when doing math. I usually lost a lot of points when I showed my work because my mind automatically breaks down steps and reassembles them slightly out of sequence. I look at simple math problems and more often than not my brain automatically pulls up the appropriate numbers for me to work with. Case in point would be 12 x 13. I don't mentally do "(12 x 10) + (12 x 3) = 120 + 36," I often skip to the last part. In the testing era I was in that would often lose points if not get me accused of using a calculator.

That example also goes to prove that not everyone does things the same way and that forcing them to "show what you know" in the same fashion as everyone else, even if it's contrary to how you actually do it yourself, can be very harmful to a developing mind as it induces frustration and, as it did in my case, can result in them telling "the system" to "piss off" as it were.

I can do 9 to the 4th or 5th power in my head, just writing the sums down on paper I can take it to the 9th power. I went from knowing nothing about the RPG programming language after 2 months of class to the #1 programmer in the class in under a week as soon as similarities between it and other languages clicked in my brain. I slept or read non-pertinant books all throughout a college level government/politics class and passed with an A, incidentally annoying the teacher rather badly, and could maintain a C average in high school language classes without even trying. Heck, I was in the top 5% of my biology classes until the classroom got so hot I couldn't stay awake during classes.

All of that ability and I for the life of me cannot understand the concept of trigonometric proofs and matrices in calculus are guess and guess again for me. Absolute proof that to my mind that no matter how intelligent a person is there will always be some people who simply do not, and very likely will not ever, "get it" when it comes to certain concepts/subjects. I mean after all, you'd think someone with a near genius-level IQ (I routinely test 130-140 range, or at least used to when I considered a test that was originally designed by a French psychologist to determine mental retardation in children a valid intelligence test of healthy people) wouldn't have problems with basic stuff, right? It's not rocket surgery after all. :headbang:

Frankly though, just like the QWERTY keyboard which was introduced to slow down typers and keep them from jamming up typewriters, the current teaching/testing system is too firmly entrenched to change without great cost and confusion. It's up to us to make the best of it and help out as best we can as friends, neighbors, and family to children who dont fit the proverbial mold.

As for all the bushwah about "putting your thoughts on paper" type arguments, consider this, and ignore that 90% of all statistics are made up... A recent (and by recent I mean within the last 5 years or so) study indicated that nearly 30% of all high school graduates were functionally illiterate. One in three children are unable to properly use the primary language of the USA after over a decade of teaching on it.

Frankly, it would be nice if teaching was more personal and more individual, all the more reason to support larger teaching budgets and more computer usage in schools, because then the children might learn and might find the joy of learning and not merely memorize whatever is put in front of them for 2 weeks and then forget about it for the next 6-9 months if not the rest of their life.

Of course, the only important thing I learned in school was how to learn, and the teachers didn't teach me that.

This mental diarhea was brought to you by a mind that only had 5 hours of sleep before being awakened by gastritis (severe pressure pain in the stomach) so I apologize over the long rambling nature of it. There's too much stream-of-concsiousness writing in it but I'm too tired to clean it up. :D

Grades in itself are impractical.
It would be more suitable to have lots of small blocks in which certain lessons are taught and merely successfully completed by the students or not.

The point about not testing in a written exam is that this way the ability to write always influences the apparent ability in the testing.
The ability to write however is tested on its own already.

You shouldn't get a bad Math grade just because you cannot communicate well, because the fact that you have troubles communicating is already reflected in a bad english grade or other relevant classes.
And this shows a problem of the grade system, because the grades ARE academical. They are not designed to give later employers a concrete overview over practical abilities anyways. That's what qualification tests and job interviews are for.
The Grades have no purpose whatsoever.

Should school grades be judged purly on book work? Because some people cant write what they think on a piece of paper?

any ideas?

You don't have to be a genius to put facts on paper clearly and concisely. You don't have to be a genius to understand your language and it's spelling and grammar (even English). My son is dyslexic - he learned. You don't have to be a genius to organize your thoughts and write them down. Anyone who can think clearly can write clearly. If you don't write clearly it's not because you can't, it's because you're too lazy to put in the effort. Get over it.

If you don't write clearly it's not because you can't, it's because you're too lazy to put in the effort. Get over it.

What a load of rubbish.

Yes agreed, which is why it is important to find other ways in which children can do this, in a testing enviroment.

This is true. However, the rest of the world will not necessarily give the same allowances. I think it comes down to a balance between providing alternatives and helping them succeed within the given limitations.

I'm an education minor at uni, but I don't plan on working with special needs kids. I want to help the kids like me that were too smart for their own good and suffered for it. Public education in my opinion is not sufficiently challenging for gifted individuals.

Grades in itself are impractical.
:D

This is true. However, the rest of the world will not necessarily give the same allowances. I think it comes down to a balance between providing alternatives and helping them succeed within the given limitations.

I'm an education minor at uni, but I don't plan on working with special needs kids. I want to help the kids like me that were too smart for their own good and suffered for it. Public education in my opinion is not sufficiently challenging for gifted individuals.

Well, there's also the fact that the teacher needs justification for his grades. Oral exams are fine, right up until someone asks why they got a B+ instead of an A- and you didn't bother to record the examination.

Of course, there's also the fact that a lot of life requires you to do what you can with what you've got whether or not it's your best way of accomplishing something. These tests help you realize that uncomfortable fact.

Believe it or not, I sympathize with the kid a great deal (although the numerous typographical errors annoyed the hell out of me), because I was in much the same boat; I was an aural learner, so I never needed notes to remember exactly what the teacher said. But every teacher wanted a class notebook to be turned in at the end of the semester. But, you know what? All that fighting didn't really pay off. It just gave me lower grades, and in the few cases I really did need notes, like foreign languages or calculus, I was completely unprepared for notetaking.

Nobody would ever dream of saying "The time limit with tests is so unfair to kids who just think more slowly; they have the same knowledge in their heads but only need more time and thus special/different arrangements should be made to test them!", because everyone knows and accepts that performing within a set time limit is an important skill that is also tested.

Untrue. With students who are ELL or who have learning disabilities, they DO get extended time: time and a half for state exams, and for class exams they begin in class and finish in "resource room" in my school.

Of course, all this goes for healthy kids. If, say, an arthritic kid just can't hold a pencil long / hard enough to write an essay, alternative arrangements should be made because their inability to perform the standard is not based on an intrinsic failure at one of the required skills, but merely a technical problem.

Some students have scribes assigned to them for this reason.

The homework assignments that were most useful to my understanding of the subject have all been written essays. Essentially, "I think with my pen." From what I can see, virtually everyone does better understanding something after actually writing it out. If my future tests were all in essay format, I would be pleased.

I have spoken with one of my professors about essay questions before, and he said that they were invaluable for getting a good grasp of how well people understand his lecture. As he has at least 30 people in his classes usually, I imagine it is; he can't just quiz to each one of them individually, and few people in the class actively participate in the discussions (more than answering direct questions).

Were I ever to become a teacher, I'd want every single one of my tests to be essay/word problems unless there was some other factor involved.

More staff, speicalised examiners, there are ways around most things, nothing is 'unworkable'. But yes extra help for those who need it also.

And who pays for it? Most places I know, they are looking to CUT staff because the economy is in the toilet.

Grades in itself are impractical.:D
I dunno whether that grin is a good one or a bad one :confused:

p.s. and double quotes are bothersome in this forum o.o

And who pays for it? Most places I know, they are looking to CUT staff because the economy is in the toilet.

And the economy is in the toilet because people are too stupid.

Really investing in education always will pay off tenfold.

Should school grades be judged purly on book work? Because some people cant write what they think on a piece of paper?

any ideas?

Yes, they should. One of the very reasons one goes to school is to get an education that allows one to express oneself both in conversation and in paper. and therefore, allowing one to have a successful job opportunity in life.

Ahhhh education, education, education. More money yes please, so then we can agree that with more money it is workable.

Well, let's face it: if you don't have $6.00 for steak, there's no way to make $1.00 worth of chicken look, smell, or taste like steak.

If you don't have the money to train and to hire those who specialize in helping students with learning disabilities, you do the best you can.

I wish to ask you a question in regards to your work, and while I know that they exist it is almost unbelievable to me that a school has 1200 students (My school only had 400 total covering 6 grades), Do you really teach 700 kids or are you some sort of coordinator? Also which country do you teach in, it just seems amazing that there is only one teacher to cover English for 700 kids even the larger schools in Australia have a few at least.

My school has nearly 4,000 students, and I am personally responsible for teaching English to 170 of them each day.

*reads everything NER and Kat have said*

*agrees*

Really, we need to set up a schedule for these threads. All three of us are just extraneous most of the time.


Maybe it should be telling that three English teachers all agree on just about every single education topic...

Grades in itself are impractical.:D
I dunno whether that grin is a good one or a bad one :confused:

p.s. and double quotes are bothersome in this forum o.o

Your sentence should have read "Grades in themselves are impractical," because the word "grades" is plural, and subject and verb must agree in number.

Ohh shut up.

We should take each child as an individual, and make sure that we use what is best for that individual.
Nope. We should let them try and either fail or succeed on their own.

That sounds harsh, but as my wife is fond of saying -- "Life isn't fair"

Your sentence should have read "Grades in themselves are impractical," because the word "grades" is plural, and subject and verb must agree in number.

Oooh!
Then the grin makes sense ^_^
Though I haven't learned English in school (well, I had the class 'English', but I didn't learn anything there.)
I learned it of the Internet!
Doesn't change the fact that if I apply for a job, they will look at my School grade in English, which wasn't all to thrilling.

Well, let's face it: if you don't have $6.00 for steak, there's no way to make $1.00 worth of chicken look, smell, or taste like steak.

If you don't have the money to train and to hire those who specialize in helping students with learning disabilities, you do the best you can.

Hey. I read that the average expenditure per pupil in Washington DC is about $25,000 per year. Just how much does steak cost up there?

And the economy is in the toilet because people are too stupid.

Really investing in education always will pay off tenfold.

Nice to keep saying, but seriously, from where do you think the money to pay for it will come?

I try to use a variety of ways to test my students' knowledge, though of course the most efficient way is through the essay test.

I give five question multiple choice and/or True or False quizzes to check if students understood the passages I gave them to read the previous night.

The culminating project for one unit I teach is for the students, in a group of 4-6, to create a skit of what would happen if characters from their book were to appear on the Jerry Springer show. This requires writing, speaking, acting, creating props, timing, et cetera.

Another project I give is a newspaper, again for a group of 4-6 students, where they break up the duties for art work, article writing, formatting on the computer, et cetera.

I give students extra credit points for volunteering to read parts from the play we are doing aloud.

I give students projects like creating a poster or a collage about the book they are reading, or a crossword puzzle, or any number of other things but unfortunately, the most efficient way to show their knowledge in a testing situation is to sit down and write about it -- and that makes up the bulk of their grade.

And who pays for it? Most places I know, they are looking to CUT staff because the economy is in the toilet.

I can understand this if it is a private school, but if it is a public school and they are looking to cut costs because the economy is going down, then the bueracrats and politicans are stupid, the must increase government spending not cutting it, espically in education they may not see the benefits in the short term but it will benefit in the long term

I can understand this if it is a private school, but if it is a public school and they are looking to cut costs because the economy is going down, then the bueracrats and politicans are stupid, the must increase government spending not cutting it, espically in education they may not see the benefits in the short term but it will benefit in the long term

I would agree with you except that there is only so much tax they can charge before people are unable to live.

They are looking at laying off police, fire fighters, emergency service workers, and teachers because there simply is not enough money to keep these and other services afloat.

I would agree with you except that there is only so much tax they can charge before people are unable to live.

They are looking at laying off police, fire fighters, emergency service workers, and teachers because there simply is not enough money to keep these and other services afloat.

Not knowing where you are in the world but it seems like your state is going up shit creek.

You don't have to increase taxes, you just divert spending from one area to another maybe the politicians can go without their corporate boxes at all those sporting events they think they are entitled to attend. (I know a stupid suggestion they would never do that)

The cost of education is not exactly big in comparison to other expenses.
Even if the budged were to be tripled, it wouldn't be a big impact.
The problem is that ever politician has some kind of lobby behind them, and because there is such a small lobby for education... (Well, actually the lobby is big, but not having much money.) ... since that lobby is small, it is cut first along with other social structures, instead of lets say... subventions to oil companies, or investment in yet another Aircraft Carrier or something.

You don't have to increase taxes, you just divert spending from one area to another

Robbing Peter to pay Paul does not work in the long term.
You seem to have a rather simplistic view of how the economy works.

The cost of education is not exactly big in comparison to other expenses.
Even if the budged were to be tripled, it wouldn't be a big impact.
The problem is that ever politician has some kind of lobby behind them, and because there is such a small lobby for education... (Well, actually the lobby is big, but not having much money.) ... since that lobby is small, it is cut first along with other social structures, instead of lets say... subventions to oil companies, or investment in yet another Aircraft Carrier or something.

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

You seem to have a rather simplistic view of how the economy works.

Slightly off topic, but yeah, Everyone does. Because economics are too complex and too indeterministic to be predictable to a larger extend.
Even the so called 'science' of economy merely tries to back up guesses with statistics which partially were made from before being scientific was chic.

The formula more spending = more taxes doesn't work this simple either.

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

While at first glance an Interesting read, I am afraid you oughta elaborate your point <.< >.> because I don't get it...

*reads everything NER and Kat have said*

*agrees*

Really, we need to set up a schedule for these threads. All three of us are just extraneous most of the time.
Naw... it just allows for people to collect the set. ;)


Maybe it should be telling that three English teachers all agree on just about every single education topic...
Ya'd think, but as in RL, working teachers apparently don't know what we're talking about when it comes to our own jobs and training. :rolleyes:

While at first glance an Interesting read, I am afraid you oughta elaborate your point <.< >.> because I don't get it...
The Federal government has a very small role in determining the operating budget for the school districts, they also have an almost non-existent role in what is taught as well. Most schools are funded on the state and local level, and since states USUALLY don't go around buying aircraft carriers, lobbying Congress to give up one for more school funding won't do much.

The Federal government has a very small role in determining the operating budget for the school districts, they also have an almost non-existent role in what is taught as well. Most schools are funded on the state and local level, and since states USUALLY don't go around buying aircraft carriers, lobbying Congress to give up one for more school funding won't do much.

Nuh, whether state or federal is only a theoretical difference. Because state representatives actually do federal politics.
It would be easy to involve the Federal level much more into the education decisions (and responsibilities), but it won't happen, because the politics at this times are made from people who do have other interests than caring for an educated population.
I guess It's my fault for falling to rhetorics there, though.

While at first glance an Interesting read, I am afraid you oughta elaborate your point <.< >.> because I don't get it...

You said not much is spent on education, so increasing it is no problem

I would say that link refutes that statement... but also shows that the fed is only responsible for, what, 9% of school budgets? It's state taxes in the US and municipal taxes that make up the bulk of it.

Therefore: kids whose schools are in suburban areas get buttloads more textbooks, technology, manipulatives, and enrichment along with small class size. Inner city kids get much, much less, and packed in like sardines. Some are learning in hallways and bathrooms because there are not enough proper rooms to hold the number of kids in the school.... and the city of NY is closing schools they feel are not performing well, which only means all the kids in those schools are then dumped into other schools... which then do less well because of overcrowding and....

Seeing as I'm good at bullshitting on teh writtens, yes, shood be graided.

Kat: How many of your students bullshit a lot? Are any of them good at it?

Robbing Peter to pay Paul does not work in the long term.
You seem to have a rather simplistic view of how the economy works.

If you say so.

But the increase taxes to increase funding mantra is very simplistic.

Remember the government cannot go bankrupt and so can spend more then what it earns, to say the budget should always balance out is wrong. In a recession the government should have a budget deficit and in a boom the government should be posting a budget surplus. To say they should be cutting back spending especially on essential services because the economy is going down the tube shows how little knowledge politicians have. If anything they should be spending more on education to allow the Long term Aggregate supply curve to increase which in turn will allow for a higher increase in economic output. Spending money is exactly what the government should be doing in times of an economic recession, and they don't have to increase taxes to do it.

Kat: How many of your students bullshit a lot? Are any of them good at it?

Many will enter; few will win. :D

If you say so.

But the increase taxes to increase funding mantra is very simplistic.

Remember the government cannot go bankrupt and so can spend more then what it earns, to say the budget should always balance out is wrong. In a recession the government should have a budget deficit and in a boom the government should be posting a budget surplus. To say they should be cutting back spending especially on essential services because the economy is going down the tube shows how little knowledge politicians have. If anything they should be spending more on education to allow the Long term Aggregate supply curve to increase which in turn will allow for a higher increase in economic output. Spending money is exactly what the government should be doing in times of an economic recession, and they don't have to increase taxes to do it.

I didn't say I thought they should be spending less -- and yet they are in fact looking to lay off people to be able to continue to pay for services.

I didn't say anything about balancing the budget at all.

This is what the inmates running the asylum (that is, mayor, city council, governor, state assembly) are in fact doing.

sorry to jump in late with reading every other post but...


I work as a subsistute in publics scools in Pennsylvania. If a student has difficulties in school he or she is give an Individual Educational Plan(IEP), this plan lays out what are their areas of difficulty and what the schools will do to try to remedy these problems. One of the tools available are Adaptions, in which the child is allowed to have schooling modified to take into account their needs. This may take the form of increased time allowed on tests, the use of a calculator or dictionary on tests, or in some cases it may allow the student to be tested in alternate ways.

Sometimes I think these adaptions work quite well, but sometimes they can be a crutch that allows the student to not really try and to be helped to the point where they actually have to do very little. I was diagnosed with learning disabilities when I was in grade school. I still have so issues(as constant online complaints about my spelling a grammar illustrate), but I was able to graduate high school and recieve a bachelors degree from a well respected college. I often wonder if I had had an IEP and had my schooling adapted if I would have been prepared enough to succeed at college.

You said not much is spent on education, so increasing it is no problem

I would say that link refutes that statement... but also shows that the fed is only responsible for, what, 9% of school budgets? It's state taxes in the US and municipal taxes that make up the bulk of it.
As said above, whether Federal or State is not quite so important (just needs more work to get the idea through more thick skulls.) And it is true, compared to other things, there isn't much spend on education.
The main point originally however was that every bit more investment in education, in the end pays of a multifold (for everybody).

Therefore: kids whose schools are in suburban areas get buttloads more textbooks, technology, manipulatives, and enrichment along with small class size. Inner city kids get much, much less, and packed in like sardines. Some are learning in hallways and bathrooms because there are not enough proper rooms to hold the number of kids in the school.... and the city of NY is closing schools they feel are not performing well, which only means all the kids in those schools are then dumped into other schools... which then do less well because of overcrowding and....
Yeah, that sucks badly, and is another reason why there should be some serious thinking about how education should be financed. More money is needed, and it is needed to divert it more equally.
And I do believe that it were possible if politics were not so pre-occupied with spending money elsewhere.

I didn't say I thought they should be spending less -- and yet they are in fact looking to lay off people to be able to continue to pay for services.

I didn't say anything about balancing the budget at all.

This is what the inmates running the asylum (that is, mayor, city council, governor, state assembly) are in fact doing.

I know that is not what you said, and I did say that the politicians and bureaucrats are doing it all wrong. You did say, however, "there is only so much tax they can charge before people are unable to live." and I was saying that governments don't need to increase taxes to increase funding, there are alternative ways

it dun't mater weather ppl cn xpres wot dey no n dis way ne more. spln & grmr their like SO last w33k, yeh. dont u no english iz a Dynamic Langage/. calling sum 1's spln iz just like so uncool its like d inter net age, get wid the program, yeh?/? we dont need prpr wrtng ne more neway cos we got txt innit. langege shud b fr33!!!! not caged in like sum cage yeh. dont opres my n my languge fool

:rolleyes:

/returns to real world.


God that thing made my brain hurt. Please never do that again.....*twitch*

God that thing made my brain hurt. Please never do that again.....*twitch*

Ow. Just...ow.

Still not as bad as this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13563939&postcount=16).

Ow. Just...ow.

Still not as bad as this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13563939&postcount=16).


on topic dude...

The truth is, (what i think anyway) they shouldnt be given an advantage, because, its just like giving some random a $7500 extra in their job, for no real reason really. They need the skills to get a job; no skills, no job!

That's why BTec and similar qualifications are there for people who are very skilled/knowledgeable at what they do but not so great at exams, as those courses test you assignment-by-assignment instead of putting all your bets on one exam that can prose problems for people for reasons other than plain difficulty.

I get very good grades for my practical work and written essays, but totaly screw-up in exams.

That's why BTec and similar qualifications are there for people who are very skilled/knowledgeable at what they do but not so great at exams, as those courses test you assignment-by-assignment instead of putting all your bets on one exam that can prose problems for people for reasons other than simple difficulty. I get very good grades for my practical work and written essays, but totaly screw-up in exams.

well dont stress, greent tea?

wow... How'd this turn into a debate on American politics? bloody NSG does that to everything...

/reiterates that school is preparing you for the real world. If you can't pass in school you are not going to be able to magically pass in the real world. They should get assistance in learning, not assessment.

And who pays for it? Most places I know, they are looking to CUT staff because the economy is in the toilet.

What a strange question. The goverment pays for it out of the taxes we give them. But then you know this.

Nope. We should let them try and either fail or succeed on their own.

That sounds harsh, but as my wife is fond of saying -- "Life isn't fair"

Ohh really, so it's like teach the kids the hard lessons huh. Well I can agree with that for some things, but if you have a learning disability and if it is caught early, and if you get the right help, it does make a differance, and you go on to grow into a normal well adjusted adult.

Would you then deny this chance in the name of 'life isn't fair' Whould you treat your own kids like that?

I dunno whether that grin is a good one or a bad one :confused:
Call it a cheerful, good-natured one, based on grammatical pedantry:

Grades (plural) in itself (singular) are (plural) impractical.

EDIT: Okay, sorry - hadn't got round to reading other people's replies to your reply yet, sorry to labour the point on this one. Incidentally, if your English is a second language, then be assured it's better than my anything-but-English (it's the only language I speak). :)

on topic dude...

The truth is, (what i think anyway) they shouldnt be given an advantage, because, its just like giving some random a $7500 extra in their job, for no real reason really. They need the skills to get a job; no skills, no job!

Ahh and theres the thing, it's not an advantage, it's an equaliser.

wow... How'd this turn into a debate on American politics? bloody NSG does that to everything...
The Internet does that to everything.

There seem to be two issues at hand here. The first is the question of what should be done for those kids with a demonstrated learning disability - be it dyslexia or whatever else.

As far as I can see - and I'm getting this in quickly before absolutely everything gets medicalised (which is surely on the cards) - that's still a rather different bag of aardvarks from the question of what should be done with kids who just aren't stimulated by the work or motivated to do the best they can.

In the first case, yes, sure: provide whatever assistance and facilities these kids need in order to compensate for the problems they have (am I allowed to say 'problems' these days?).

But in the latter case, things are more complex. As I understand it the problem of tailoring an individual approach for individual students, while noble in intent, just doesn't work in reality. That's because (in Britain, at least) we have fairly large mixed-ability classes.

Our schools are in a quandary - again, as I understand it (and I'm happy to take correction from any poor sod who actually does the job). On the one hand, they're supposed to provide a tailored approach, taking into account the individual needs of the students. On the other hand, they're told they're not allowed to stream for ability - so they can't create a class for kids who're good at maths, and another for kids who don't have that aptitude.

In my view, this is all part of the overall disease of mollycoddling that we've got here in the UK: no competition of any sort is allowed, because if someone wins it means someone else has to lose, and that might damage their precious self-esteem. Everyone has to do brilliantly, even if they're just crap at something. So we apply a weird sort of Mohammed/mountain arrangement: if we can't get them to the grade, then we'll bring the grade to them.

We're churning out legions of kids with uniform straight A* grades, bundling them all into universities where they're getting degrees in things like 'media studies', and praising our education system for its achievements, while the rest of the world looks at our system's 'product' and then goes to China or the USA for its graduates. And who can blame it? But it's not the students' fault.

Someone's already said that life isn't fair. It's not. It's not fair if you're a smart kid in a class full of people less adept than you, and as a result you're bored stupid and learning nothing. It's not fair if you're a kid who struggles with a subject, but you're in a class full of kids who're better at it than you. Such kids are going to get frustrated, and that's going to lead them to anger and resentment. It's also not fair if you're a fairly middle-of-the-road kid, who's getting no teacher time because teacher's struggling to keep up with the skilled ones while coaxing the not-so-skilled along.

And of course, it's not fair if you're a teacher who actually cares about the job you do, and the kids you're teaching, but are essentially prevented from providing anyone with a good eduction because government rules and social expectations now say that no-one's allowed to be better than anyone else.

Still, never mind. Give it another couple of years and no doubt 'not being good at maths' will become a medical condition and give society yet another excuse to drug its kids.

/rant

Ahh and theres the thing, it's not an advantage, it's an equaliser.
Society is not meant to be equal. if it were equal then nothing would ever get done. See communism.

These are the repercussions of saying someone who is on a E level is a B:
- The kid will advance to the next level without knowing the basics behind what is required
- The kid will have no motivation to further themselves
- It causes other people to overestimate their ability (could be dangerous)

Society is not meant to be equal. if it were equal then nothing would ever get done. See communism.

These are the repercussions of saying someone who is on a E level is a B:
- The kid will advance to the next level without knowing the basics behind what is required
- The kid will have no motivation to further themselves
- It causes other people to overestimate their ability (could be dangerous)
Which has WHAT to do with special education and providing help for documented learning disabilities?

You seem to have a very strange and very wrong idea of just what special education does.

Society is not meant to be equal. if it were equal then nothing would ever get done. See communism.

These are the repercussions of saying someone who is on a E level is a B:
- The kid will advance to the next level without knowing the basics behind what is required
- The kid will have no motivation to further themselves
- It causes other people to overestimate their ability (could be dangerous)


No and agian you have misunderstood what I'm talking about.

We are talking soley about testing. If you are given a test and the conditions of that test mean that it records a false score for you, then you would demand a way to be tested so that your score was reported true. This is all that I'm talking about.

If you are given a test and the conditions of that test mean that it records a false score for you, then you would demand a way to be tested so that your score was reported true. This is all that I'm talking about.
How might we - or the student - judge whether the result was 'false' or 'true'? Isn't it likely that a student receiving a poor grade will tend to view it as 'unfair'? Do we simply keep retesting until the student gets a result s/he is satisfied with? Or is there an objective means of assessing whether the result is accurate for each student?

Ohh really, so it's like teach the kids the hard lessons huh. Well I can agree with that for some things, but if you have a learning disability and if it is caught early, and if you get the right help, it does make a differance, and you go on to grow into a normal well adjusted adult.

Would you then deny this chance in the name of 'life isn't fair' Whould you treat your own kids like that?
Generalizations are just that. We've both generalized a situation, we both realize there are exceptions.

How might we - or the student - judge whether the result was 'false' or 'true'? Isn't it likely that a student receiving a poor grade will tend to view it as 'unfair'? Do we simply keep retesting until the student gets a result s/he is satisfied with? Or is there an objective means of assessing whether the result is accurate for each student?

Okay lets try this. Say that one of your lessons is music and an exam is due to be taken. Except this exam, is going to be trying to measure your musical theory knowledge by makeing your play the guitar.

All well and good if the guitar is your chossen instrument, what if it isn't though, how is failing to play the guitar going to give your asesers a true reading of your music theory knowldege.

That is what happens when you make a dyslexic boy take a written exam which measures his knowledge of physics.

Because the boy has problem spelling, or may have ilegible handwritting, he will not get a true measure of his knowledge. If we though give him a differant option, perhaps an oral exam, or maybe a scribe to write his words, or a PC so that he can type it up, or some extra time to complete the exam, then he enters the exam on a level playingfield.

Okay lets try this. Say that one of your lessons is music and an exam is due to be taken. Except this exam, is going to be trying to measure your musical theory knowledge by makeing your play the guitar.

All well and good if the guitar is your chossen instrument, what if it isn't though, how is failing to play the guitar going to give your asesers a true reading of your music theory knowldege.

That is what happens when you make a dyslexic boy take a written exam which measures his knowledge of physics.

Because the boy has problem spelling, or may have ilegible handwritting, he will not get a true measure of his knowledge. If we though give him a differant option, perhaps an oral exam, or maybe a scribe to write his words, or a PC so that he can type it up, or some extra time to complete the exam, then he enters the exam on a level playingfield.
What happens when our fellow with the inability to spell and the lousy handwriting gets out of his school cocoon. I'm not going to hire someone that can't write a simple phrase on a whiteboard. Nor am I going employ someone that can represent us to customers. I don't care how good his technical skills are, I need people that can also communicate.

What happens when our fellow with the inability to spell and the lousy handwriting gets out of his school cocoon. I'm not going to hire someone that can't write a simple phrase on a whiteboard. Nor am I going employ someone that can represent us to customers. I don't care how good his technical skills are, I need people that can also communicate.

For fuck sake man, how many times do I have to type it before people read it.

We are talking about testing here, not learning. Rest assured, by the time these people leave school, they can be highly employable, and although they have learning difficulties, that's what school is there for to teach them.

As to communication skills, well honestly now how many school leavers do you know that score highly in the world of proper communication? These are skills that you pick up and refine throughout life.

What happens when our fellow with the inability to spell and the lousy handwriting gets out of his school cocoon. I'm not going to hire someone that can't write a simple phrase on a whiteboard. Nor am I going employ someone that can represent us to customers. I don't care how good his technical skills are, I need people that can also communicate.

That's what the English grade is for!
The physics grade should just tell about his understanding of physics. There is no point in having this one representing his communicative skills, too.

For fuck sake man, how many times do I have to type it before people read it.

We are talking about testing here, not learning. Rest assured, by the time these people leave school, they can be highly employable, and although they have learning difficulties, that's what school is there for to teach them.

As to communication skills, well honestly now how many school leavers do you know that score highly in the world of proper communication? These are skills that you pick up and refine throughout life.
No, in this example we're talking about presentation/expressive difficulties. If the fellow can't write or spell well enough to pass a test and we coddle him by giving him a spelling checker and a computer to do his work, that doesn't prepare him at all for spontaneous situations where he DOES have to spell and write legibly. I attend a dozen meetings a week where I expect to see coherent text on a white board, written by engineers not English majors.

If we're going to expend extra resources on a child -- and that's not a bad idea on the face of it, implementation is what matters -- we must be preparing him to fit into society, not sheltering him from it.

That's what the English grade is for!
The physics grade should just tell about his understanding of physics. There is no point in having this one representing his communicative skills, too.
It's all related. If we accept the idea that school prepares us for work, then it all matters and it matters together.

If you can't communicate your ideas, you aren't ready for work.

Should school grades be judged purly on book work? Because some people cant write what they think on a piece of paper?

any ideas?

Absolutely. I thought it was grotesquely unfair that I got a lousy grade in swimming just because I couldn't get from on end of the pool to the other and in shop because I couldn't get a saw to make a clean cut in a piece of wood.

I should have been able to write papers about hydrodynamics and the physics of the inverse relationship between pressure and surface area to get an A in each.

No, in this example we're talking about presentation/expressive difficulties. If the fellow can't write or spell well enough to pass a test and we coddle him by giving him a spelling checker and a computer to do his work, that doesn't prepare him at all for spontaneous situations where he DOES have to spell and write legibly. I attend a dozen meetings a week where I expect to see coherent text on a white board, written by engineers not English majors.

If we're going to expend extra resources on a child -- and that's not a bad idea on the face of it, implementation is what matters -- we must be preparing him to fit into society, not sheltering him from it.

No, you don't get to tell me what I'm talking about, coz I already know that. Read the whole of the tread for an understanding of just what I'm talking about.

Absolutely. I thought it was grotesquely unfair that I got a lousy grade in swimming just because I couldn't get from on end of the pool to the other and in shop because I couldn't get a saw to make a clean cut in a piece of wood.

I should have been able to write papers about hydrodynamics and the physics of the inverse relationship between pressure and surface area to get an A in each.

Yeah very funny, except what we are talking about here is not a lack of skill, but a disablity that effects a certian way in which to communicate that skill.

Would you say that an oral exam given to a deaf person was fair? Or expecting a blind man to read from a normal book? We are talking about children whose written communication skills are impaired, that is not to say that this ipairment cannot be over come, but that takes time, and while the child is still a child then these things must be taken into account.

Yeah very funny, except what we are talking about here is not a lack of skill, but a disablity that effects a certian way in which to communicate that skill.

Would you say that an oral exam given to a deaf person was fair? Or expecting a blind man to read from a normal book? We are talking about children whose written communication skills are impaired, that is not to say that this ipairment cannot be over come, but that takes time, and while the child is still a child then these things must be taken into account.

when adaptions in school are genuinely tailored to the student they can be very helpful. especially when they focus on strengthening the students weaknesses and not just allowing him not to have to use those skills. when it becomes a problem is when the adaptions just exist to satisfy the laws and the parents and not to actually help the child.

i was subbing in an applied(non academic) environmental science class. i was subbing for the science teacher and some periods there was a special ed. co-teacher in the class as well. there was a test that day, and we were handing out two versions, the normal version and the adapted version. in some classes as many as half the students got the adapted version because they had IEPs(individual educational plans), but what was unfair was that these students had a wide range of learning problems which were all dealt with by giving them the easier test. there were a couple of students who were mildly mentally retarded and for them the adapted test was challenging and they worked hard to get through it. other students however breezed through this easy test while their class mates without a magic ticket struggled with the much harder normal test.

i mentioned to the special ed. teacher that it seemed strange to give students with individual educational plans all the same adaption. she became somewhat offended and said there was no way she could adapt the test differently for every student in the class. this may well be true, but it sort of defeats the purpose of the adaptions.

when adaptions in school are genuinely tailored to the student they can be very helpful. especially when they focus on strengthening the students weaknesses and not just allowing him not to have to use those skills. when it becomes a problem is when the adaptions just exist to satisfy the laws and the parents and not to actually help the child.

i was subbing in an applied(non academic) environmental science class. i was subbing for the science teacher and some periods there was a special ed. co-teacher in the class as well. there was a test that day, and we were handing out two versions, the normal version and the adapted version. in some classes as many as half the students got the adapted version because they had IEPs(individual educational plans), but what was unfair was that these students had a wide range of learning problems which were all dealt with by giving them the easier test. there were a couple of students who were mildly mentally retarded and for them the adapted test was challenging and they worked hard to get through it. other students however breezed through this easy test while their class mates without a magic ticket struggled with the much harder normal test.

i mentioned to the special ed. teacher that it seemed strange to give students with individual educational plans all the same adaption. she became somewhat offended and said there was no way she could adapt the test differently for every student in the class. this may well be true, but it sort of defeats the purpose of the adaptions.

Yes I agree, that does seem sorta stupid and sorta pointless. I would have given all the pupils the same test but found other ways in which those pupils with specific learning dificulties to take it, based on an individual basis.

Ow. Just...ow.

Still not as bad as this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13563939&postcount=16).

Now don't start that again RhynoD:)

Absolutely. I thought it was grotesquely unfair that I got a lousy grade in swimming just because I couldn't get from on end of the pool to the other and in shop because I couldn't get a saw to make a clean cut in a piece of wood.

I should have been able to write papers about hydrodynamics and the physics of the inverse relationship between pressure and surface area to get an A in each.

You may laugh at this, but my grade did suffer sometimes when in high school because while I may have gotten close to 100% in tests and good marks for essays and other assignments, and say I knew more than the teacher on European history. I lost marks because my book mark was low, it had handouts out of order, and I may not have had a margin down the left hand side or a date in the top right hand corner, and so my final grade was affected because of this petty book mark, and it is this type of marking in what I think the OP is talking about.

What the hell are you on about here? We are talking about kids not adults, what is the correlation that you see bewteen how a child is tested and how an adult solicitor cannot write?

The point is not wether or not they have learnt but how to test what they have learnt.
If they can't be tested by a common means, we cannot evaluate their ability. What good does it do to devise teaching and testing methods that do not reflect how well a student will perform outside of this sheltered environment called school?

If we don't grade the physics student on his ability to express himself, we do him no service. If we fail to grade the communications student on the content of what's communicated and allow math and physics errors to pass by, then we do him no service either.

I think I do get it, but you just don't like the way your ideas are repeated back to you.

Now don't start that again RhynoD:)

I give no promises.

I give no promises.

you give nothing

Yes: If you can't convey it then it's pretty useless knowledge.

I earned my knowledge. Don't make me share the source of my ultimate power! MWAHAHAHA! I don't need to share my knowledge, because if I do you'll use it against me. I will use what I knowto take over the world and NOTHING can stop me! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

* Collapses in an extreme fit of supervillain laughter*

you give nothing

Not true. I give delicious cake. Just not promises.

Not true. I give delicious cake. Just not promises.

Rhyno you forgot ¨I give spam gallore.¨;)

Rhyno you forgot ¨I give spam gallore.¨;)

It's a spam cake.

They should include raw grade and percentile grade. Just cause you failed doesn't mean everyone else didn't.

It's a spam cake.

Spam cake is full of spam. Spam is spam anyway you look at it. Your know that better than anyone. You believe in inane spam, which is the best.

Spam cake is full of spam. Spam is spam anyway you look at it. Your know that better than anyone. You believe in inane spam, which is the best.

I do not believe only in inane spam. Actually, I prefer very clever, funny spam.

And I never claimed that my cake was not full of spam. Just that it was a cake.

You really can't see any differance in writting and speaking?
Yeah. It's much easier to organize thoughts and express things well when writing than when speaking.

Of course it's better still if one is typing instead of handwriting.