Public Education and Race

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

It's not socioeconomic, it's cultural. The sooner we're allowed to start saying that, the better.

That won't happen though. Teachers want to blame it on not having enough money so they will get more. School districts will blame it on not having enough money so they can get more. Parents will blame everyone but themselves.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If we have public schools adopt the private school mission, then we agree to cut loose vast swathes of American children.

Perhaps we should. Or maybe, perhaps we should stop pretending we are not already doing that.

Education may very well be the silver bullet in ending perpetual poverty, but the education now provided is not helping. Furthermore, this noble effort is often at the expense of all other types of students.

For example, the community college rate of 7 out of 10 will not have any type degree within 6 years of starting, demonstrates the uselessness of earning just a basic high school education.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Perhaps we should. Or maybe, perhaps we should stop pretending we are not already doing that.

Education may very well be the silver bullet in ending perpetual poverty, but the education now provided is not helping. Furthermore, this noble effort is often at the expense of all other types of students.

For example, the community college rate of 7 out of 10 will not have any type degree within 6 years of starting, demonstrates the uselessness of earning just a basic high school education.

Not so sure that's a reflection on the job HS is doing if people aren't graduating college within 6 years. How is that education's fault? How many of the quit because of economics, partying, or other non academic factors?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Perhaps we should. Or maybe, perhaps we should stop pretending we are not already doing that.

Education may very well be the silver bullet in ending perpetual poverty, but the education now provided is not helping. Furthermore, this noble effort is often at the expense of all other types of students.

For example, the community college rate of 7 out of 10 will not have any type degree within 6 years of starting, demonstrates the uselessness of earning just a basic high school education.

Do we now discuss abandoning the entire Prussian education system...that would be a major step in the right direction

[Buccaneer]

Not sure if this is the right thread for this. Another teacher resigns for not wanting to teach to the test, particularly the awfulness of the one-size-fits-all government solution called Common Core:

A poignant resignation letter that Colorado Springs teacher Pauline Hawkins wrote and posted on her blog Monday talks about her love of teaching and the pride she has in her students, colleagues, school and district.

And yet, she writes that she is resigning her post after 11 years as an English teacher at Liberty High School at the end of the school year for reasons that reflect a flashpoint for many frustrated educators here and nationwide.

The letter has gone viral, and her blog, paulinehawkins.com, has received more than 9,000 online hits in less than two days.

Her letter is a sad farewell to her administration and her students, laying bare her feelings about what she sees as the federal and state government overstepping local control of schools. At the heart of her distress are the new Common Core standards, low teacher pay in Colorado and endless testing and teaching to the test, which she and many others believe is making students fail rather than succeed.

Her letter says in part: "I can no longer be a part of a system that continues to do the exact opposite of what I am supposed to do as a teacher - I am supposed to help them think for themselves, help them find solutions to problems, help them become productive members of society. Instead, the emphasis is on Common Core Standards and high stakes testing that is creating a teach to the test mentality for our teachers, and stress and anxiety for our students."

She added, "Students have increasingly become hesitant to think for themselves, because they have been programmed to believe that there is one right answer."

Farewells go public

These types of public resignation letters are showing up more often in social media as teachers vent their frustrations with a system they believe is failing them and their students. Recently, a letter from a 20-year teaching veteran of Cambridge Public Schools in Massachusetts expressed similar pain that went viral on social media.

"I feel my spirit, my passion as a teacher slip away," the teacher wrote. She, too, pointed to mandated assessment tests.

Another teacher in eastern Colorado penned a similar farewell, noting she was going to teach inmates in a prison school for more money so she could support her family.

Hawkins has taught in Academy School District 20 for her entire career. In an interview Wednesday, she was tearful about her students' reactions.

"I start crying every day because my students tell me they are sad I'm leaving and that I have helped them."

She emphasized that she was not upset with her district administrators.

"The problem in education today is a government problem," she said. "It is way overstepping boundaries."

Many Colorado administrators and school boards in recent months have expressed similar sentiments, saying they're fed up with many of the new state-mandated education requirements that come without funding to implement them.

Numerous school boards in El Paso County have passed resolutions that they sent to the governor and legislators, criticizing the one-size-fits-all regulations and other new requirements piling up without state funding.

An example is Lewis-Palmer School District 38 in Monument, which sent a resolution saying it does "not support changing curriculum or standards to align with the new Common Core standards."

Hawkins' resignation letter underscores issues surrounding the Common Core standards, which were created in 2009 by the National Governors Association for Best Practices as an antidote to U.S. student test scores that lag behind those in other nations. The carrot: substantial federal education grants. The standards were adopted by 44 states, including Colorado, which received $18 million from the federal government.

The standards outline math and English language arts and literacy goals for kindergarten through 12th grade. The theory behind Common Core is that students all over the country should have the same education and standards. But some parents and teachers nationwide have criticized the one-size-fits-all approach to education and testing.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in an email that she understands the criticism and the need for some teachers to make their complaints public, as Hawkins did.

"It is heartbreaking that public education has become so toxic that everything is reduced to a test score. Kids are not test scores and teachers are not algorithms. Getting lost in all the hyper-testing is the joy of learning and the need to provide teachers with the tools, resources and time to teach a rich curriculum so they are well prepared. We've got to end the hyper-fixation on testing and data and focus on teaching and learning and giving teachers a real voice in the education of their students."

Tests are taking more time

A poll of 1,500 Colorado Education Association teachers found they had to spend more than 30 percent of their instruction time preparing students for assessment tests or giving the tests to students.

"We believe it should be only 5 percent. It is driving people out of the profession," CEA spokesman Mike Wetzel said. "It's taking the soul and joy out of education for them, and the stress on kids is making some of them physically ill."

He said the association is supporting two legislative bills to address some of its concerns. House Bill 1202 would create a task force of education stakeholders to study the impact of teaching and assessment. Senate Bill 165 would delay basing teacher evaluations on the new tests until they see how the data shakes out.

On Hawkins' blog, well-wishers are praising her. One man wrote: "It takes courage to step up and publicly expose the pain and suffering which students and teachers alike are suffering from the industrialization of education. There is a growing movement to establish an effective alternative and I hope you can find it."

Hawkins said she can be more outspoken now that she is resigning and went public to give voice to the feelings of a lot of teachers who fear consequences for speaking out.

Hawkins said she plans to move to New Hampshire with her 9-year-old son.

"I have opted him out of all testing," she said. "He doesn't need the labels that come with it, or to feel the stress. Those tests don't tell us anything about him or other students."

She will live near her two adult daughters and hopes to find a tutoring job.

"I knew I wanted to be a teacher from age 16. When I was in college, I was a tutor. I really fell in love with helping students."

She said she will fight to improve education.

"I will use my writing to become an advocate for the changes needed."


Read more at Colorado Springs teacher goes public with reasons for resignation

[panerd]

As a teacher I'm no fan of the common core (or any high stakes test for that matter) but the common core seems to be less about teaching to the test/one right answer than any previous state mandated test we have ever had. I think the hatred of the common core is more about politics than about the test.

And the 30% number is insane and (IMO) a blatent lie. One out of every three classes for strictly test prep? Just teach and your kids will do fine.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by panerd

As a teacher I'm no fan of the common core (or any high stakes test for that matter) but the common core seems to be less about teaching to the test/one right answer than any previous state mandated test we have ever had. I think the hatred of the common core is more about politics than about the test.

From what I understand of Common Core, it's up to each district to decide how they want to go about achieving its objectives, so there are some districts who do the smart thing and give the teachers the freedom to teach how they do best, and others who opt for a more regimented approach.

This has been one of the more fascinating issues from a political standpoint. It doesn't divide neatly among liberal/conservative lines - Some of my liberal friends absolutely love it. Others despise it. I think the difference comes down to that local district handling of how to meet the objectives.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Izulde

From what I understand of Common Core, it's up to each district to decide how they want to go about achieving its objectives, so there are some districts who do the smart thing and give the teachers the freedom to teach how they do best, and others who opt for a more regimented approach.

This has been one of the more fascinating issues from a political standpoint. It doesn't divide neatly among liberal/conservative lines - Some of my liberal friends absolutely love it. Others despise it. I think the difference comes down to that local district handling of how to meet the objectives.

That would make more sense. If thats the case then the lady in the article who holds the administrators blameless is very misguided.

EDIT: And you are right to some degree about individual's liking or not liking the common core. But a quick look at the states choosing to "opt out" and discussing opting out doesn't look much different than a red/blue state map.

[Buccaneer]

Or perhaps it plays back into the OP about how to bring standards up in failing districts? That's fine but those schools/districts that are already doing fine shouldn't have to spend that much time (x%) when it would more beneficial to teach character, critical thinking and responsibilities in the context of academic disciplines. I simply have a dislike for one-size-fits-all solutions from the federal govt to a problem best solved locally. How much control a local district can have, I do not know.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Or perhaps it plays back into the OP about how to bring standards up in failing districts? That's fine but those schools/districts that are already doing fine shouldn't have to spend that much time (x%) when it would more beneficial to teach character, critical thinking and responsibilities in the context of academic disciplines. I simply have a dislike for one-size-fits-all solutions from the federal govt to a problem best solved locally. How much control a local district can have, I do not know.

You couldn't have a bigger libertarian ally on this board than me but this "one size fits all" nonsense has been going on here in Missouri ever since I became a teacher 17 years ago. NCLB made it worse and the common core is at best keeping it at NCLB levels. My only point is where has all this outrage been? IMO, it's definitely political outrage (Glenn Beck, etc) than it is outrage over testing. Like I said the 30% is just garbage thrown out by the AFT to attract some "Whoa is me" sympathy. And if any district spends that amount of time teaching to the test than it's school board members should be voted out and it's administrators fired. It's really that simple of a solution to me. I've seen the sample test and if you are even an average teacher it should require no additional prep time outside of normal instruction and curriculum.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by panerd

As a teacher I'm no fan of the common core (or any high stakes test for that matter) but the common core seems to be less about teaching to the test/one right answer than any previous state mandated test we have ever had. I think the hatred of the common core is more about politics than about the test.

And the 30% number is insane and (IMO) a blatent lie. One out of every three classes for strictly test prep? Just teach and your kids will do fine.

Yes, I think Common Core is an improvement along those lines for sure. I think the largest difference is that the standards are much, much higher in that they demand a level of knowledge and thinking that is typically grade levels higher than what students were doing in the past. So it's much more demanding--teachers don't necessary have to teach to the test but there's a sense of urgency in having to up the level of their students' game to a shocking degree, I think. Our schools are trying to get there, and I see my elementary school kids doing math, for instance, that used to be taught in junior high and high school. There were a lot of kids who were already struggling, so I think teachers are feeling the pressure of having to somehow get those kids way ahead.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by panerd

And the 30% number is insane and (IMO) a blatent lie. One out of every three classes for strictly test prep? Just teach and your kids will do fine.

Given that test scores are as inputs to funding, promotions, even whether a school stays open or is closed, you can see there's significant incentive to not just get your kids to "do fine", but to do as well as absolutely possible. That's the problem.

[Buccaneer]

All good points.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Given that test scores are as inputs to funding, promotions, even whether a school stays open or is closed, you can see there's significant incentive to not just get your kids to "do fine", but to do as well as absolutely possible. That's the problem.

I agree but I just want the teachers to have some integrity. Any time I hear a teacher talking about how they "had" to teach to the test I think about Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire. You don't have to do anything that goes against your principles. If your school tries to force you to teach to the test call them out on it and get a job somewhere else. Maybe I am blessed that I teach in a school district that doesn't force this on us but I can't imagine staying for more than a year if they did.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Yes, I think Common Core is an improvement along those lines for sure. I think the largest difference is that the standards are much, much higher in that they demand a level of knowledge and thinking that is typically grade levels higher than what students were doing in the past. So it's much more demanding--teachers don't necessary have to teach to the test but there's a sense of urgency in having to up the level of their students' game to a shocking degree, I think. Our schools are trying to get there, and I see my elementary school kids doing math, for instance, that used to be taught in junior high and high school. There were a lot of kids who were already struggling, so I think teachers are feeling the pressure of having to somehow get those kids way ahead.

True but that is where the federal government cynic in me really comes out. So this is a federal program that they want to work right? You don't think those very noble/high standards are going to change when the results come back? NCLB demanded 100% proficiency as of like this year or last. What happened? New program. Reset. I have no doubt that in 2016 either a Republican or even a new Democrat will have their whole new program with new guidelines, new standards. Rinse. Repeat.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by panerd

Any time I hear a teacher talking about how they "had" to teach to the test I think about Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire. You don't have to do anything that goes against your principles. If your school tries to force you to teach to the test call them out on it and get a job somewhere else.

While I agree with you in principle, this dilemma exists for many people in many jobs. The balance between sticking up for your principles and earning a living wage is a tough one.

And, as in most jobs, will your leaving actually change anything. People like to think that employees will leave en masse over principles, but is very, very rarely happens, especially in white collar professions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The whole "teaching to the test" complaint really, I dunno, perplexes me? Confounds me? I can't even pick exactly the word because it makes little to no sense to complain about ... and here's why.

IF the test covers the material that the students are expected to have mastery of/competence in then, well, exactly what the hell is wrong with "teaching to the test" since it covers exactly what is supposed to be taught in the first place?

Now, IF the test is not covering the material that students are responsible for -- whether by reaching beyond that material or by leaving large swaths of that material untouched -- THEN I see a problem with the test that should be corrected, however that is still ultimately an issue with the test rather than with the notion of "teaching to it".

[panerd]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

While I agree with you in principle, this dilemma exists for many people in many jobs. The balance between sticking up for your principles and earning a living wage is a tough one.

And, as in most jobs, will your leaving actually change anything. People like to think that employees will leave en masse over principles, but is very, very rarely happens, especially in white collar professions.

True enough though I think my point is still that this uproar is all political. If her school is making her spend X amount of time preparing for common core I call BS that they used to make her spend 0 amount of time preparing for NCLB etc... The worksheet mill schools have been that way forever and as the data shows it doesn't seem to help.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The whole "teaching to the test" complaint really, I dunno, perplexes me? Confounds me? I can't even pick exactly the word because it makes little to no sense to complain about ... and here's why.

IF the test covers the material that the students are expected to have mastery of/competence in then, well, exactly what the hell is wrong with "teaching to the test" since it covers exactly what is supposed to be taught in the first place?

Now, IF the test is not covering the material that students are responsible for -- whether by reaching beyond that material or by leaving large swaths of that material untouched -- THEN I see a problem with the test that should be corrected, however that is still ultimately an issue with the test rather than with the notion of "teaching to it".

My interpretation of "teaching to the test" is that a standardized test is the exact same year to year so they teach specifically the 100 questions on the test and no actual learning is taking place. What you describe (to me at least) is a different animal all together.

i.e. Question 45 asks a to name a 5 sided figure. Instruction: A pentagon has 5 sides. Kid: What do you call a figure with six sides? Teacher: Let's move on to question 46. (Obviously I am taking it to an extreme but there are schools that teach pretty much right to the test in a less blatent way)

[JPhillips]

Common Core is not a federal, one-size-fits-all program. It was developed by the National Governors Association in consultation with private groups. The Feds have now backed the effort, but this came from state governments.

Not that I'm a big supporter of Common Core. I'm fairly agnostic about te material and mildly displeased with the testing. IMO, one of the big problems with the tests is that the stakes for schools are very high and the stakes for students are very low.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Common Core is not a federal, one-size-fits-all program. It was developed by the National Governors Association in consultation with private groups. The Feds have now backed the effort, but this came from state governments.

Not that I'm a big supporter of Common Core. I'm fairly agnostic about te material and mildly displeased with the testing. IMO, one of the big problems with the tests is that the stakes for schools are very high and the stakes for students are very low.

I'm not all that far off with this post really. And listening to the same people who developed this idea (such as several GOP governors) now rail against it is a complete eye-roller for me.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by panerd

My interpretation of "teaching to the test" is that a standardized test is the exact same year to year so they teach specifically the 100 questions on the test and no actual learning is taking place. What you describe (to me at least) is a different animal all together.

i.e. Question 45 asks a to name a 5 sided figure. Instruction: A pentagon has 5 sides. Kid: What do you call a figure with six sides? Teacher: Let's move on to question 46. (Obviously I am taking it to an extreme but there are schools that teach pretty much right to the test in a less blatent way)

I was going to respond to Jon, but panerd more-or-less summed up what I was meaning by "teaching to the test".

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not that I'm a big supporter of Common Core. I'm fairly agnostic about te material and mildly displeased with the testing. IMO, one of the big problems with the tests is that the stakes for schools are very high and the stakes for students are very low.

Standardized tests are a blunt instrument. As such I'm OK with them being used to determine whether or not a particular school (or district) meets certain baselines (and even then some critical thinking needs to come into play regarding the results), but using them as a major factor to determine the relative worth of instruction at that school (past baseline achievement) is a problem.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not all that far off with this post really. And listening to the same people who developed this idea (such as several GOP governors) now rail against it is a complete eye-roller for me.

I hadn't heard about this. You've got to be kidding me....

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I hadn't heard about this. You've got to be kidding me....

Seriously? That's what this whole brouhaha is all about. The Governer's Association actually agreed to it with like 45 of 50 states approving them because there was the carrot of some money attached. But now the GOP governors are getting wet feet because, well, if your party's defining platform element has been "get rid of any central control (i.e. standards)" then, well, oops.

SI

[Buccaneer]

So the Feds are using this standard as blackmail in giving state monies from the federal budget? I guess that's one way of playing the game they agreed to.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I hadn't heard about this. You've got to be kidding me....

In Georgia you'd think that the previous republican governor (Perdue) wasn't one of the big backers of CC during development, the GOP here hasn't been able to run fast enough from it. It's about as welcome as a visit from Obama & Pelosi.

I'll grant that, best I can tell, the reason a lot of the remaining establishment is getting as far away as quickly as possible is because there seems to be an enormous amount of animosity towards CC at a very grass roots level. Teachers hate it, parents hate it (although I doubt half of the complainers could spell "Common Core" correctly consistently just to be candid about it).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So the Feds are using this standard as blackmail in giving state monies from the federal budget? I guess that's one way of playing the game they agreed to.

It was for divvying up the new Race to the Top grants not messing with existing funding, iirc

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I was going to respond to Jon, but panerd more-or-less summed up what I was meaning by "teaching to the test".

And what Panerd describes is far from anything I've actually come across happening in reality. "teaching to the test" may very well be one of the great strawmen arguments of our time afaic. Most of the complaints about it I come across actually boil down to "we don't like being told what items we have to teach during the year" (and the parental arguments against it usually seem to end up being more a case of "you're trying to put too much on our little darlings")

but using them as a major factor to determine the relative worth of instruction at that school (past baseline achievement) is a problem.

Hey, back to normal: something we can be in complete disagreement about

[JPhillips]

On my Facebook page the antis seem to be the anti-vaccination type liberals and the Tea Party chain email Republicans. Both groups, for differing reasons, seem to believe Common Core instruction and testing is designed to harvest and mutate their children's precious bodily fluids.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hey, back to normal: something we can be in complete disagreement about

Quite.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Quite.

You have waaaaaaay too much time on your hands

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And what Panerd describes is far from anything I've actually come across happening in reality. "teaching to the test" may very well be one of the great strawmen arguments of our time afaic. Most of the complaints about it I come across actually boil down to "we don't like being told what items we have to teach during the year" (and the parental arguments against it usually seem to end up being more a case of "you're trying to put too much on our little darlings")

Many professional certifications that rely on passing standardized tests (PMP and MCSE, for example) are criticized because it's possible to learn how to pass the test without really learning any of the content very well.

Or take Advanced Placement courses. The curriculum for these courses is based heavily around the test, including (as I recall from personal experience) a fair amount of instruction on how to succeed at the act of actually taking the test. But aside from the accumulation of college credits and the temporary benefits of rote memorization, how much do students gain from these classes?

That's two examples where "teaching to the test" produces dubious, or at least unreliable results. Expanding the importance of this practice beyond determining whether or not a baseline of achievement is being reached has always seemed of questionable merit, to me.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You have waaaaaaay too much time on your hands

Nah, I just had this nagging feeling we had argued on this topic when NCLB was hot. From there it was a simple search.

[Buccaneer]

So, are they getting the results - in relation to the monies being expended or otherwise? Are students doing better with English comp, math and science?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

But aside from the accumulation of college credits and the temporary benefits of rote memorization, how much do students gain from these classes?

You already hit on it: the cheaper route to college credit. That's absolutely positively the only reason I'm getting my son as many of them as possible. The content is, at best, shabby. When a teenager complains about how shallow the material is, well ...

Thing is, the benefit of a fair number of college classes in the first place is at best dubious afaic so at least this serves some purpose.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So, are they getting the results - in relation to the monies being expended or otherwise? Are students doing better with English comp, math and science?

IIRC, results from a decade of NCLB were very inconclusive.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You already hit on it: the cheaper route to college credit. That's absolutely positively the only reason I'm getting my son as many of them as possible. The content is, at best, shabby. When a teenager complains about how shallow the material is, well ...

Thing is, the benefit of a fair number of college classes in the first place is at best dubious afaic so at least this serves some purpose.

So basically what you're saying is that a curriculum designed to meet a standardized test's requirements has few benefits from the standpoint of actual learning, right?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by panerd

If her school is making her spend X amount of time preparing for common core I call BS that they used to make her spend 0 amount of time preparing for NCLB etc... The worksheet mill schools have been that way forever and as the data shows it doesn't seem to help.

So frustrating, everyone here who has had direct Common Core experience says the opposite of this "conventional wisdom" rhetoric.

That teacher story is total BS. If for only the fact that this is the fist trial year of testing! So all her frustration and weariness must have come from the last couple of weeks, lame and dangerous.

The "one size fits all" propaganda must be lead my some group that gains something from this. My immediate reaction is always, have you read the Common Core Standards? Which one is Marxist/Big Brother?

Here is an example of a US History Common Core standard:
Evaluate various explanations for actions or events and determine which explanation best accords with textual evidence, acknowledging where the text leaves matters uncertain.

Here is an example from the outgoing US History California State standard:
Explain Theodore Roosevelt's Big Stick diplomacy, William Taft's Dollar Diplomacy, and Woodrow Wilson's Moral Diplomacy, drawing on relevant speeches.

Which one would require you to "teach to the test"? Which one would fit into a universal test? The Common Core standard gives great freedom for the teacher/school/district to create their own curriculum to achieve this open ended, yet highly useful skill.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's fine but those schools/districts that are already doing fine shouldn't have to spend that much time (x%) when it would more beneficial to teach character, critical thinking and responsibilities in the context of academic disciplines.

I'm not sure any parent of a good school would be pleased with high character, critical thinking and responsibility and low AP and SAT scores. I think there is more pressure for teachers to teach to those tests than the state or national ones.

[Buccaneer]

Going to the OP, is this helping non-white students in your class, which I assume is the intended benefit of standardized curriculum?

Even when I was in school, we had standard tests (Iowa something) but I don't recall any time taken away to prep for the tests - it was all part of what was normally taught (3Rs). My son takes CCAP every year and since he is at an academically rigorous school, the tests are easy for all (thus they score the highest in the state). The biggest complaints are that they take too much time to administer and that time takes away from regular teachings.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I'm not sure any parent of a good school would be pleased with high character, critical thinking and responsibility and low AP and SAT scores. I think there is more pressure for teachers to teach to those tests than the state or national ones.

I fully agree. Good AP/SAT scores benefit the prestige of the school (in terms of college placements) and a great benefit to the student (going on to college). Not sure the tangible benefits of standardized testings to the student besides monies for the school.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I'm not sure any parent of a good school would be pleased with high character, critical thinking and responsibility and low AP and SAT scores.

From a common sense standpoint, though, that's a particular link that's unlikely to happen.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So basically what you're saying is that a curriculum designed to meet a standardized test's requirements has few benefits from the standpoint of actual learning, right?

Eh, can't go that far exactly here. There is some value of some sort in the 900 or so terms that my child will have memorized in this year's AP World History class , at least assuming some of them stick beyond the test. I'd argue (as I did earlier) that the primary benefit in them is how they apply in the college environment ... but again, I believe the primary reason a lot of college courses exist is to pad the coffers of the education industry anyway.

But really the question you're asking above is backwards to what I see on the whole standardized testing issue. The test should be tailored to the curriculum, your question phrased it just the opposite.

If the curriculum is developed after the test then that's ass backwards* & should be changed with all due haste. If, however, the standardized test is developed after the curriculum then I have zero issue with the test as the indicator of competence/mastery.

In the case of common core, I believe the curriculum guidelines came first, at least best I could track the process that led to CC. Probably worth mentioning again here that I'm relatively lukewarm about the specifics of CC itself although that's really a separate issue from the whole "teaching to the test" thing.

I also believe one of the bigger disconnects that has occurred along the way is how far individual system curriculums had deviated over time from whatever standards the tests are meant to incorporate. I am NOT an advocate for local control in school systems, too many seem to be run by the lowest common denominator possible. A centralized set of norms suits me fine, the devil is in the detail of finding norms that I find acceptable.

*assuming of course that the development of the test wasn't intended as a de facto "curriculum" in & of itself.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So, are they getting the results - in relation to the monies being expended or otherwise? Are students doing better with English comp, math and science?

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So basically what you're saying is that a curriculum designed to meet a standardized test's requirements has few benefits from the standpoint of actual learning, right?

What is "actual learning"? How do we measure "results" if there is no testing?

SI

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Going to the OP, is this helping non-white students in your class, which I assume is the intended benefit of standardized curriculum?

Even when I was in school, we had standard tests (Iowa something) but I don't recall any time taken away to prep for the tests - it was all part of what was normally taught (3Rs). My son takes CCAP every year and since he is at an academically rigorous school, the tests are easy for all (thus they score the highest in the state). The biggest complaints are that they take too much time to administer and that time takes away from regular teachings.

That is getting to the original point of this tread, perhaps we need more segregation in schools. Students should not have their time (and our money) wasted with classroom instruction on known material/concepts.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

That is getting to the original point of this tread, perhaps we need more segregation in schools. Students should not have their time (and our money) wasted with classroom instruction on known material/concepts.

Of course you just committed modern cultural suicide by having the temerity to suggest such a thing.

Do you prefer lillies or roses?

[Coffee Warlord]

It's certainly not PC, but the trend of putting behavioral disorder children into gen ed isn't helping matters, either. Teachers are forced to spend an inordinate amount of time on a tiny percentage of their students, to the detriment of the the rest of the class. Sorry, but it's not fair to kids to be in the class with children who throw massive fits, ignore instructions, and constantly disrupt class.

If a teacher has to have an evacuation plan in the event one child in their class goes berserk, there's a serious problem. My wife had such a child, was forced to evacuate her kids more than once during the year. Her mother threatened legal action for if they dared move her precious snowflake out of general education. She got away with it for four years before the district finally amassed enough evidence to get her out of there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

It's certainly not PC, but the trend of putting behavioral disorder children into gen ed isn't helping matters, either.

Neither has social promotion or grade inflation or mainstreaming or any number of things that have occurred seemingly largely on the basis of avoiding the reality that not every child is an identically precious snowflake.

[Buccaneer]

Or should have equal results and rewards?

[Coffee Warlord]

Won't get any argument out of me on that point.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If, however, the standardized test is developed after the curriculum then I have zero issue with the test as the indicator of competence/mastery.

I'm with you on competence, but not on mastery. I don't believe any standardized test, especially if administered on a large scale, can adequately gauge mastery, due simply to its nature.

I am NOT an advocate for local control in school systems, too many seem to be run by the lowest common denominator possible.

And, as I've argued before, your view is skewed by your experience. The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 - Page 197 - Front Office Football Central

I don't doubt your experiences, but my experiences have been opposite: attempted state and/or federal meddling in local school systems with which I've been associated (as a student or parent) have been to the detriment of what were already high-performing public schools.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

What is "actual learning"? How do we measure "results" if there is no testing?

As I've said previously, I think standardized testing is perfectly for measuring results to determine a basic level of confidence. Past that? I don't know what the ideal method of measurement is. But it's demonstrably not standardized testing.