Teach to the Test

[Beavah 205]

So the answer is still improve the test? Expand it to include 123 X 674?

 

Yah, but OGE, no child can be left behind, eh? If yeh improve the test, then all 3rd graders must be able to multiply 3-digit numbers or their school will be labeled as failing, their curriculum will be disrupted, their teachers will all be removed and their administration re-organized, and they may just be closed.

 

E61 and others are right, eh? Da consequence of NCLB is that the resources get redirected to test-based remediation, because the incentive system only rewards passing the minimum requirements. Da goal is to get each and every child to pass the minimum requirements. There is no incentive (and substantial penalty) for helpin' a boy or girl who already achieves at the minimum level to improve proportionately.

 

Lots of times yeh can tell what an organization really cares about if yeh ignore what they say but watch what they incentivize. Follow da money, watch where they actually spend their time. In da BSA (as a corporation) it's numbers metrics, not fitness, character or citizenship. In NCLB, it's get every kid to pass the test, not help each child advance in his/her understanding.

 

Teaching to the test is da rational response to that incentive system, even though it inevitably sacrifices attention to higher achievement or depth of learning.

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Who said that 3rd graders had to do three digit multiplication?

 

Was it I?

 

So, raise the minimum level of the test

 

In all this talk of education, and Unions and test management, the single most important success factor (IMHO) in Education has not been mentioned as yet and I am at a loss to understand why

[Eagle92 110]

Back in the day when I was in elementary school, I was lucky enough to get into the local parochial school down the street. That school went from K-8, with most boys leaving after 7th to go to one of the 8-12 private HS.

 

In 1-6 grades, they separated the students in each grade into 3 classes based upon standardized tests and academic ability, and divide each grade into thirds. While the classroom work mirrored each other, one classmight get extra help, while another might expand the content. Worked out well IMHO.

 

In 7th grade and 8th grade, they divided the grade into a total of 9 groups. One set of groups was the A,B,C groups and was based upon one set of academic skills, I want to say reading comprehension. The next set of groups, were the number groups:1,2,3, and it was based upon your math and science scores if I remember correctly. So a student doign well in math, but poorly in reading might be a 7C1. A person poor in math, but good in reading might be a 7A3. The different groups focused on the needs of that group, and student with common needs were placed together.

 

HS did something very similar, placing you in classes based upon your abilities.

 

I think the format worked out well. and we had no problems in the Elementary school, and very few in the HS.

 

But when I started taking education classes in college, this format was frowned upon as it was not inclusive, hurt people's self esteem, didn't fit with current theories in education, etc, etc. And while I stayed only a few months in education, I have kept up with some of the trends and I am concerned. Schools doign away with GT programs, grades, doing away with PE and recess, having children change schools almost yearly, etc. have played a part in why I homeschool. Is it hard you bet, but I think my oldest son is benefitting tremendously. He's at or above grade level for a test normally given at the end of 2d grade, and he took it last month.

 

I admit I do not like unions, even though I have family in them, but they are not 100% of the problem. Yes they are a reason why you cannot fire really bad teachers, but IMHO the teachers' union places too much emphasis on the money and benefits that teachers make,and not enough on the problems teachers are facing in the classroom like lack of supplies, lack of support from administration in dealing with discipline, etc.

 

I do not blame all the teachers for the education problems. I have family who are teachers, or worked for the school system and know first hand what they are facing. Most want to teach and do their best to handle a situation with parents who think their child is golden and refuse to acknowledge any problems, school policies that are really detrimental to students and do not allow parents who want to be involved to do so.

 

I do not blame all admistrators and school boards. I know a few and can imagine the headaches they get.

 

But something has got to change. It needs to start at thelcoal level. School boards need to get kids closer to their homes so they are not spending 1-3 hours on a bus everyday and their parents can get involved since they do not have to travel across town or the county to make meeting. Schools do need to divy up the students based upon academic abilities to better support the students learning. Schools need more discipline so that the learnign process is destroyed for others by a few.

 

Ok enough ranting.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Hello Eagle 92

 

>

 

 

It seems to me that the democratic impulse is the bain of public education.

 

The simple fact is that education is not at all democratic in nature. A few people can benefit enormously from an academic education, and a lot more aren't interested or able to benefit much at all.

 

That is the reall bottom line that public education tries to hide or ignore.

 

We do recognize that fact when it comes to higher education, where things are enormously stratified based on ability, achievement and interest.

 

And the biggest problem is keeping the uneducable and those not interested in education in schools, where they corrupt the academic environment and suck up resources.

[Lisabob 13]

The "uneducable?" Who, exactly, are they?

 

I have had the unpleasant experience of trying to teach people who did not want to learn. I've worked with people who had so many problems/issues going on in the rest of their lives that they weren't able to focus on school. I've dealt with a few who had mental health issues or drug addiction issues that kept them from learning at that point in time. But in all my years of teaching, I've come across so few students who I thought were truly unable to learn that I can literally count them on one hand, and I can remember clearly each one. This is not to say that people all have the same aptitudes - they don't. But really, the "uneducable?"

 

Have we strayed over into that "elites" thread?

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

"And the biggest problem is keeping the uneducable and those not interested in education in schools, where they corrupt the academic environment and suck up resources."

I hope this answers any question that anyone might have had of whether or not the Civil Rights struggle is even close to over. These are almost the exact words I heard the soon-to-be Republicans repeating in their objections to integration of the schools back in the 50's and 60's. Wow.

What a terrible prospect: that the opportunity for education be made available to those "uneducables". Why don't they just stay where they know their place is supposed to be?

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Don't worry Lisabob, that NPR guy, or rather that ex-NPR guy pretty well fits the description of "elites" for me. No reason for that to cross over here

[Eagle92 110]

No one is "uneducable," but they may not want to be educated.

 

I think SP hits on a big part of the problem. Current educational theory is to make it egalitarian and teach to the lowest denominator. You cannot separate students by their abilities, allowing those who need challenges to have them, but boring them to hate school while you give the extra attention to those who need it. Just like in Scouting, students need challenges in order to grow. Don't provide the challenge academically, they get bored and lose interest.

 

Also their is a strong emphasis on group projects, even on the undergad and graduate level. Only time I have ever seen group work sucessfully done was when the prof gave folks the option of doing it solo, or in a group that you got to pick who you worked with. I opted to go solo, especially since I shot off my mouth in class telling the prof that he was wrong so no one wanted to work with me anyway (it was all good; very politely disagreed with the prof, and the prof said that would make a good paper topic if I wanted to pursue it. I did, got an A, and led the prof to do research on his own on the topic;) )Every single time I've ever done group work, 1 or 2 people do 90% of the work.

 

Now I do think that those who do not want to be educated should be separated form those that do.

 

More later