Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Oct 13, 2024 - 3:33am
Trump
- kurtster - Oct 12, 2024 - 11:08pm
Wordle - daily game
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Oct 12, 2024 - 10:36pm
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - Oct 12, 2024 - 10:09pm
ONE WORD
- GeneP59 - Oct 12, 2024 - 7:41pm
Define Reality
- Th1nk1ngTh1ng - Oct 12, 2024 - 7:38pm
TWO WORDS
- GeneP59 - Oct 12, 2024 - 7:38pm
Baseball, anyone?
- GeneP59 - Oct 12, 2024 - 7:31pm
THREE WORDS
- GeneP59 - Oct 12, 2024 - 7:22pm
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - Oct 12, 2024 - 7:21pm
Two Things
- GeneP59 - Oct 12, 2024 - 7:18pm
What Did You See Today?
- GeneP59 - Oct 12, 2024 - 7:16pm
NY Times Strands
- maryte - Oct 12, 2024 - 4:13pm
NYTimes Connections
- maryte - Oct 12, 2024 - 4:06pm
Graham Nash
- buddy - Oct 12, 2024 - 2:23pm
David Crosby
- buddy - Oct 12, 2024 - 2:10pm
Israel
- R_P - Oct 12, 2024 - 2:05pm
Neil Young
- buddy - Oct 12, 2024 - 2:02pm
Stills
- buddy - Oct 12, 2024 - 1:58pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Oct 12, 2024 - 1:21pm
Radio Paradise Comments
- miamizsun - Oct 12, 2024 - 1:12pm
What the hell OV?
- miamizsun - Oct 12, 2024 - 1:10pm
Sweet horrible irony.
- kurtster - Oct 12, 2024 - 1:01pm
New Music
- R_P - Oct 12, 2024 - 12:30pm
FOUR WORDS
- oldviolin - Oct 12, 2024 - 11:35am
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - Oct 12, 2024 - 10:05am
The Black Keys
- sirdroseph - Oct 12, 2024 - 4:34am
Masculinists?
- sirdroseph - Oct 12, 2024 - 4:14am
LeftWingNutZ
- sirdroseph - Oct 12, 2024 - 4:09am
October 2024 Photo Theme - Furry
- haresfur - Oct 12, 2024 - 3:44am
2024 Elections!
- Red_Dragon - Oct 11, 2024 - 9:26pm
It's the economy stupid.
- Th1nk1ngTh1ng - Oct 11, 2024 - 5:04pm
Kamala Harris
- kcar - Oct 11, 2024 - 4:59pm
Art Show
- haresfur - Oct 11, 2024 - 4:06pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- thisbody - Oct 11, 2024 - 1:47pm
Aurora Borealis
- thisbody - Oct 11, 2024 - 1:41pm
NEED A COMPUTER GEEK!
- islander - Oct 11, 2024 - 11:12am
what else do you listen to? (RP alternatives)
- turningcosmos - Oct 11, 2024 - 10:41am
Things You Thought Today
- islander - Oct 11, 2024 - 10:29am
Great guitar faces
- thisbody - Oct 11, 2024 - 9:01am
Culture: Where Will the Elite Eat, Meet & Greet?
- thisbody - Oct 11, 2024 - 8:36am
HALF A WORLD
- oldviolin - Oct 11, 2024 - 7:50am
How's the weather?
- Coaxial - Oct 11, 2024 - 7:40am
Favorite Quotes
- Isabeau - Oct 11, 2024 - 7:17am
Feminism: Catch the (Third?) Wave!
- sirdroseph - Oct 11, 2024 - 3:57am
Overpopulation
- Red_Dragon - Oct 10, 2024 - 9:26pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- buddy - Oct 10, 2024 - 3:38pm
Buddy's Haven
- buddy - Oct 10, 2024 - 12:24pm
Climate Change
- R_P - Oct 10, 2024 - 11:25am
Signs o' the Apocalypse in the news...
- oldviolin - Oct 10, 2024 - 10:17am
Comics!
- Proclivities - Oct 10, 2024 - 8:52am
RADIO 2050
- oldviolin - Oct 10, 2024 - 7:08am
What makes you smile?
- Steely_D - Oct 10, 2024 - 6:32am
Naim bit rate
- rgio - Oct 10, 2024 - 6:00am
YouTube: Music-Videos
- R_P - Oct 9, 2024 - 5:51pm
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today...
- oldviolin - Oct 9, 2024 - 2:26pm
charity link
- oldviolin - Oct 9, 2024 - 2:23pm
Questions.
- Steely_D - Oct 9, 2024 - 8:11am
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group
- ColdMiser - Oct 9, 2024 - 7:45am
Song progress in web version
- bodelange - Oct 9, 2024 - 7:09am
iOS app see full title
- bodelange - Oct 9, 2024 - 7:06am
France
- FreeWanda - Oct 9, 2024 - 5:34am
Are you ready for some football?
- sirdroseph - Oct 9, 2024 - 4:48am
Live Music
- oldviolin - Oct 8, 2024 - 7:18pm
favorite love songs
- oldviolin - Oct 8, 2024 - 7:12pm
Outstanding Covers
- oldviolin - Oct 8, 2024 - 5:35pm
OUR CATS!!
- kcar - Oct 8, 2024 - 2:29pm
China
- R_P - Oct 8, 2024 - 12:46pm
Musky Mythology
- sunybuny - Oct 8, 2024 - 7:58am
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore
- Richmond44 - Oct 8, 2024 - 7:16am
Republican Party
- Red_Dragon - Oct 7, 2024 - 5:29pm
Radio 2050 stuck on loop
- mtnrmblr - Oct 7, 2024 - 10:35am
Language
- Red_Dragon - Oct 7, 2024 - 7:52am
Race in America
- R_P - Oct 6, 2024 - 9:42pm
Country Up The Bumpkin
- oldviolin - Oct 6, 2024 - 8:18pm
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
Elsewhere »
Education
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 19, 20, 21 Next |
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Apr 10, 2018 - 5:53pm |
|
Steely_D wrote: Backwards. Folks in power get to stay in power if the people they govern don't understand the rules or how to get rich or how to eloquently incite dissent.
FUCK the folks in power.
|
|
Steely_D
Location: Biscayne Bay Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 10, 2018 - 5:08pm |
|
Red_Dragon wrote:Education should be THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY for a government. Everything else is of secondary importance.
Backwards. Folks in power get to stay in power if the people they govern don't understand the rules or how to get rich or how to eloquently incite dissent.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Apr 10, 2018 - 4:28pm |
|
Education should be THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY for a government. Everything else is of secondary importance.
|
|
haresfur
Location: The Golden Triangle Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 10, 2018 - 4:24pm |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: In theory, the lottery money cannot be used for what would be considered typical funding needs. So in a well-to-do district, the funds might get used to provide equipment or supplies for an elective course. When I was in college, the first year of the lotto, our campus radio station scored some sweet sound equipment. Absolutely nonessential but about a 4-decade upgrade in technology.
In a poorer district, kids get iPads maybe, laptops, when their desks are breaking and the building isn't up to code and/or can't deliver internet to those devices. It's weird.
If they allowed it to go for typical funding needs then the lawmakers would just cut the budget and let the lottery pay everything. As much as I am in favour of voluntary taxes, I don't think that's the way to go. On the other hand, I want the government to run promotions to take the sting out of taxes. If you file your taxes on time, you will be entered into a drawing to get a 100% refund.
|
|
pigtail
Location: Southern California Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 10, 2018 - 4:06pm |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: In theory, the lottery money cannot be used for what would be considered typical funding needs. So in a well-to-do district, the funds might get used to provide equipment or supplies for an elective course. When I was in college, the first year of the lotto, our campus radio station scored some sweet sound equipment. Absolutely nonessential but about a 4-decade upgrade in technology.
In a poorer district, kids get iPads maybe, laptops, when their desks are breaking and the building isn't up to code and/or can't deliver internet to those devices. It's weird.
weird? I would call that misrepresentation of funds at the very least.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 10, 2018 - 2:48pm |
|
pigtail wrote: I know here in CA we supposedly give 1% of lottery sales to public schools. That was the deal when we voted to legalize the lottery here back in the 80s. I clearly remember that portion of the bill. So where is that money? A shit ton of money is spent on lottery sales daily. Why must we cut educational programs that are already stretched lean to support school safety? I remember my kids high school was so damn administrative heavy. With a population, city wide of 50,000. Why are there 3 vice principals and 2 principals at their high school? And these administrators are not starving or even living lean like most teachers. One of those principals drove a BMV 7 series which is what 75-80K? There is so much wrong with that.
In theory, the lottery money cannot be used for what would be considered typical funding needs. So in a well-to-do district, the funds might get used to provide equipment or supplies for an elective course. When I was in college, the first year of the lotto, our campus radio station scored some sweet sound equipment. Absolutely nonessential but about a 4-decade upgrade in technology. In a poorer district, kids get iPads maybe, laptops, when their desks are breaking and the building isn't up to code and/or can't deliver internet to those devices. It's weird.
|
|
pigtail
Location: Southern California Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 10, 2018 - 2:08pm |
|
Red_Dragon wrote: I know here in CA we supposedly give 1% of lottery sales to public schools. That was the deal when we voted to legalize the lottery here back in the 80s. I clearly remember that portion of the bill. So where is that money? A shit ton of money is spent on lottery sales daily. Why must we cut educational programs that are already stretched lean to support school safety? I remember my kids high school was so damn administrative heavy. With a population, city wide of 50,000. Why are there 3 vice principals and 2 principals at their high school? And these administrators are not starving or even living lean like most teachers. One of those principals drove a BMV 7 series which is what 75-80K? There is so much wrong with that.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Apr 10, 2018 - 10:25am |
|
|
|
R_P
Gender:
|
Posted:
Feb 15, 2018 - 3:56pm |
|
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 9, 2017 - 6:36pm |
|
In the 1980s, Californian politician John Vasconcellos set up a task force to promote high self-esteem as the answer to all social ills. But was his science based on a lie? In 2014, a heartwarming lettersent to year 6 pupils at Barrowford primary school in Lancashire went viral. Handed out with their Key Stage 2 exam results, it reassured them: “These tests do not always assess all of what it is that make each of you special and unique… They do not know that your friends count on you to be there for them or that your laughter can brighten the dreariest day. They do not know that you write poetry or songs, play sports, wonder about the future, or that sometimes you take care of your little brother or sister.” At Barrowford, people learned, teachers were discouraged from issuing punishments, defining a child as “naughty” and raising their voices. The school’s guiding philosophy, said headteacher Rachel Tomlinson, was that kids were to be treated with “unconditional positive regard”. A little more than a year later, Barrowford found itself in the news again. Ofsted had given the school one of its lowest possible ratings, finding the quality of teaching and exam results inadequate. The school, their report said, “emphasised developing pupils’ emotional and social wellbeing more than the attainment of high standards”. Somehow, it seemed, the nurturing of self-esteem had not translated into higher achievement.
|
|
maryte
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2017 - 9:37am |
|
Lazy8 wrote: Proclivities wrote:It depends on the test and the state or district. There are many different types of "standardized tests"; they are not all just rote, multiple-choice, bubble-in tests. However, tests of any sort, are seldom designed to try to "engage kids in learning", nor can they - that is primarily the job of teachers and parents. Tests are generally designed to determine what students have learned or (more importantly) retained. Of course, if a student, parent, or teachers determines a weakness from the outcome of a test, then that could encourage or engage them in improving that aspect. The outcomes of well-designed tests could possibly help 'tailor paths' for students, but still, it's in the hands of states and districts as to how they much can - or want to - spend for tests and specialized or remedial programs. Still, the majority of tests are rote and mechanical and the administration of them by many districts is often thoughtless and perfunctory. My midmost just finished his first year teaching full time. In the second half of the year he didn't have a single week that didn't have some kind of state-mandated standardized test. Which would have been OK with him...if he had gotten to see the results. They won't be available for months after the end of the school year, and they aren't intended to guide classroom instruction. As it was the tests' biggest impact was a reduction in instruction time. The US isn't the only country in the world to use standardized tests. Europe has been doing it for decades and the stakes are very high with those tests, but the stakes are for the student, not the school. A student's future is largely determined by these tests; you can be guided into a trade school rather than college, or booted out of public education altogether. There is a lot to be said for this approach. The onus is on the student (and the parents) to learn and prepare, and in some cases teachers are freer to teach. Their outcomes are generally better than ours. I have grave reservations about deciding the path of a life that young (would you want 16 year old you to pick your career, academic or professional?) and like a typical American I value the freedom to reinvent onerself at any time. Education reform in the US has focused on test scores, and really there isn't another metric that makes any sense. Without metrics there is no way to judge if what you tried worked or not. We have spent endless time and money assessing the problem, but the ensuing reforms have been based on trendy gimmicks rather than the obvious: we need to pay teachers enough to attract people who are good at it, give them authority and autonomy, and let them teach. If we keep looking for magic bullets we will keep failing our children. Teaching is a very human act. No top-down system is going to change that. Let the humans work. I agree completely. I realize it's a different world than when I was in school, but I remember standardized tests being used to determine (in conjunction with classroom performance) a student's need for advanced subject classes or remedial ones, which I think has similarities to the European system. I don't know if this was determined to be judgmental and thus detrimental to a child's psyche (expectations too high or too low), but as someone who was part of that system, I found it very useful, as I wasn't stuck in classes where I felt bored. A different experience to testing for aptitude was when I first came to Texas. I was in 4th grade and attending parochial school (as I had for my first three years in Boston). Within days of my starting school, one of the teachers decided I belonged in the remedial reading class, not based on any test or my performance but because I talked "funny", even though I'd been reading since I was about three years of age. So into the remedial class I go, which was taught by a different teacher. She (a nun - the other was a lay teacher), who was from Ireland and still had a lovely brogue (the shoe *and* the accent), asked why I was in the remedial class. I was still traumatized by the move to this strange world, compounded by being an introvert, so I could only respond with "I don't know, Sister Brendan. Mrs. Polk said I belonged here." She just shook her head and said, "Oh no - you belong in the advanced reading class!" And so I was moved into that class...which was taught by the teacher who equated my Boston accent with a lack of reading skill. As you might imagine, this was episode ended up being seminal in the formation of my opinion of Texas in general.
|
|
aflanigan
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2017 - 9:33am |
|
I would second what Lazy8 posted and add to it by citing what Harold "Doc" Howe II, a widely respected educator and policy expert, thought and said about educational standards and testing based on standards.
I can't find the quote, but he was supposedly once asked about national educational standards. His reply was, in essence, they should be brief and very open-ended/general.
Regarding our current system, he had this to say:
"For the state to say, 'Here's all the little things that all the little kids have got to know, and here's the test you give them, and then we'll know whether they're learning anything,' that's baloney, and that's what we have right now,"
|
|
Proclivities
Location: Paris of the Piedmont Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2017 - 9:19am |
|
Lazy8 wrote: Proclivities wrote:It depends on the test and the state or district. There are many different types of "standardized tests"; they are not all just rote, multiple-choice, bubble-in tests. However, tests of any sort, are seldom designed to try to "engage kids in learning", nor can they - that is primarily the job of teachers and parents. Tests are generally designed to determine what students have learned or (more importantly) retained. Of course, if a student, parent, or teachers determines a weakness from the outcome of a test, then that could encourage or engage them in improving that aspect. The outcomes of well-designed tests could possibly help 'tailor paths' for students, but still, it's in the hands of states and districts as to how they much can - or want to - spend for tests and specialized or remedial programs. Still, the majority of tests are rote and mechanical and the administration of them by many districts is often thoughtless and perfunctory. My midmost just finished his first year teaching full time. In the second half of the year he didn't have a single week that didn't have some kind of state-mandated standardized test. Which would have been OK with him...if he had gotten to see the results. They won't be available for months after the end of the school year, and they aren't intended to guide classroom instruction. As it was the tests' biggest impact was a reduction in instruction time. The US isn't the only country in the world to use standardized tests. Europe has been doing it for decades and the stakes are very high with those tests, but the stakes are for the student, not the school. A student's future is largely determined by these tests; you can be guided into a trade school rather than college, or booted out of public education altogether. There is a lot to be said for this approach. The onus is on the student (and the parents) to learn and prepare, and in some cases teachers are freer to teach. Their outcomes are generally better than ours. I have grave reservations about deciding the path of a life that young (would you want 16 year old you to pick your career, academic or professional?) and like a typical American I value the freedom to reinvent onerself at any time. Education reform in the US has focused on test scores, and really there isn't another metric that makes any sense. Without metrics there is no way to judge if what you tried worked or not. We have spent endless time and money assessing the problem, but the ensuing reforms have been based on trendy gimmicks rather than the obvious: we need to pay teachers enough to attract people who are good at it, give them authority and autonomy, and let them teach. If we keep looking for magic bullets we will keep failing our children. Teaching is a very human act. No top-down system is going to change that. Let the humans work. Yes, apparently some states have several different salvos of mandated, standardized tests; that seems "distracting" at best. I agree with your points, particularly with the last two paragraphs. Over they years, I have had several friends who grew up in the UK, and they told me about the different standardized tests they had taken in the 1960s and '70s. At least two of them were pretty much told that they should go into the trades instead of academics, as determined by their test results. It wasn't a mark of shame for them, it helped them in many ways - to get into apprenticeships and eventually trades instead of possibly wasting time floundering around in colleges.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2017 - 9:09am |
|
Proclivities wrote:It depends on the test and the state or district. There are many different types of "standardized tests"; they are not all just rote, multiple-choice, bubble-in tests. However, tests of any sort, are seldom designed to try to "engage kids in learning", nor can they - that is primarily the job of teachers and parents. Tests are generally designed to determine what students have learned or (more importantly) retained. Of course, if a student, parent, or teachers determines a weakness from the outcome of a test, then that could encourage or engage them in improving that aspect. The outcomes of well-designed tests could possibly help 'tailor paths' for students, but still, it's in the hands of states and districts as to how they much can - or want to - spend for tests and specialized or remedial programs. Still, the majority of tests are rote and mechanical and the administration of them by many districts is often thoughtless and perfunctory. My midmost just finished his first year teaching full time. In the second half of the year he didn't have a single week that didn't have some kind of state-mandated standardized test. Which would have been OK with him...if he had gotten to see the results. They won't be available for months after the end of the school year, and they aren't intended to guide classroom instruction. As it was the tests' biggest impact was a reduction in instruction time. The US isn't the only country in the world to use standardized tests. Europe has been doing it for decades and the stakes are very high with those tests, but the stakes are for the student, not the school. A student's future is largely determined by these tests; you can be guided into a trade school rather than college, or booted out of public education altogether. There is a lot to be said for this approach. The onus is on the student (and the parents) to learn and prepare, and in some cases teachers are freer to teach. Their outcomes are generally better than ours. I have grave reservations about deciding the path of a life that young (would you want 16 year old you to pick your career, academic or professional?) and like a typical American I value the freedom to reinvent onerself at any time. Education reform in the US has focused on test scores, and really there isn't another metric that makes any sense. Without metrics there is no way to judge if what you tried worked or not. We have spent endless time and money assessing the problem, but the ensuing reforms have been based on trendy gimmicks rather than the obvious: we need to pay teachers enough to attract people who are good at it, give them authority and autonomy, and let them teach. If we keep looking for magic bullets we will keep failing our children. Teaching is a very human act. No top-down system is going to change that. Let the humans work.
|
|
Proclivities
Location: Paris of the Piedmont Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2017 - 8:12am |
|
kcar wrote:...Standardized tests in my opinion reveal the dysfunction of school systems and their struggle to create uniform levels of success. When such tests intrude too much on the educational calendar and flow of teaching, they become part of the problem. Standardized tests can be a coarse-grained metric for the relative success of a school system but they provide no answers about how to engage kids in learning or how to tailor different educational paths for different types of kids....
It depends on the test and the state or district. There are many different types of "standardized tests"; they are not all just rote, multiple-choice, bubble-in tests. However, tests of any sort, are seldom designed to try to "engage kids in learning", nor can they - that is primarily the job of teachers and parents. Tests are generally designed to determine what students have learned or (more importantly) retained. Of course, if a student, parent, or teachers determines a weakness from the outcome of a test, then that could encourage or engage them in improving that aspect. The outcomes of well-designed tests could possibly help 'tailor paths' for students, but still, it's in the hands of states and districts as to how they much can - or want to - spend for tests and specialized or remedial programs. Still, the majority of tests are rote and mechanical and the administration of them by many districts is often thoughtless and perfunctory.
|
|
aflanigan
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2017 - 7:52am |
|
kcar wrote:
Standardized tests in my opinion reveal the dysfunction of school systems and their struggle to create uniform levels of success. When such tests intrude too much on the educational calendar and flow of teaching, they become part of the problem. Standardized tests can be a coarse-grained metric for the relative success of a school system but they provide no answers about how to engage kids in learning or how to tailor different educational paths for different types of kids.
They (standardized, fill in the bubble tests) are indeed a useful and potentially powerful tool when properly designed and employed. When misused, as they are now, they warp education rather than improving it.
|
|
kcar
|
Posted:
May 30, 2017 - 5:46pm |
|
aflanigan wrote: I'm enjoying this conversation. I concur that self paced, potentially self guided instruction can work well for some people.
At the end of my career as a Physics student at WPI I was a consultant/monitor in what they called the "IPI" lab (for individually paced instruction). It was basically what you're talking about. Packaged modules on basic Newtonian physics. A student could come and review the material at their convenience, ask me or other consultants questions, and get an exam from us to take and get graded on the spot.
The problem is, as the article/op ed I linked makes clear (and as anyone who has been paying attention to education reform in K-12 the last few decades could tell you), public education curriculum has increasingly been based on a one size fits all model. Getting schools, particularly struggling ones, to move away from that model is an uphill battle, to put it mildly. In Virginia they call them "pacing guides". Every state has guidelines regarding what students in each grade should be learning each day, each week, each month, etc. It's sort of like a scene from a dystopian novel, such as the scene from A Wrinkle in Time where children bounce balls and skip rope in unison.
Standardization of curriculum and educational method is anathema to genuine educational improvement, and high stakes testing has only reinforced the artificial uniformity and placed meaningful, substantive improvement (i.e. other than test scores rising) further out of reach. Like Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences, for example, education experts know that every child is unique, has different approaches to learning about the world around them, different potentialities, and different schedules for achieving milestones in emotional, intellectual, and spatial intelligence and development. But the ones who realize how difficult improving schools and education for all children is to accomplish are drowned out by pitch men/women pushing the latest educational panacea.
I'm enjoying it too. Hail Woopie Tech! Yeah, self-paced instruction doesn't work for everyone. You have to be motivated and have a sense that you're in charge of your education. Again, I think that the more immersive your educational experience—that is, one that lets you be an active, experimenting participant using all your senses—the more you'll learn and the greater your motivation to continue will be. I think your most recent post, however, captures the tension that most large school systems face. On one hand, they want to encourage and nurture multiple intelligences and kids with different talents. That means that they try to provide "enrichment" programs and extracurricular activities beyond the core curriculum. That can be expensive and subject to the first budget cuts. Progress in that kind of non-core education likely is harder to capture with standardized tests. On the other hand, schools have to honor the core curriculum, which traditional education and standardized testing focused on. Apparently there's more and more grade inflation and fewer students prepared for college. I can see why governments and parents want to assess how much and how well kids have learned and how well they're prepared for the future. It's one thing to nurture their talents but they have to meet minimum educational standards by the time they finish high school. "Like Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences, for example, education experts know that every child is unique, has different approaches to learning about the world around them, different potentialities, and different schedules for achieving milestones in emotional, intellectual, and spatial intelligence and development."
Again, like the math teacher/author's mastery learning program, that sounds like it would take a lot of time, effort, money and interdisciplinary coordination to implement in a high school. I'm pretty sure it could be done, but one of the first questions that pops into my mind is: how do you make sure that all the different educational pathways you want to offer in a school end up providing roughly similar levels of education, or at least meet minimum educational standards? And how do you sustain excellence in that approach to education over many years? I think you have to have strong, maintained commitment from teachers, students and parents to learn. Unfortunately, a lot of people think it's OK to just talk the talk and fake your way through. Or you have attitudes like the one prevalent amongst a lot of DC students, where it's not cool to be too smart or strive in education. I think that there is a "yeah, whatever" attitude amongst families whose kids attend DC schools. Yes, there were a lot sub-par teachers and inefficiency in the DC school system before Michelle Rhee stepped in, but I don't think that enough parents showed the kids that education happens outside of school as well as inside of it, and that knowledge of the world around you, beyond your preferences, is self-improving and self-empowering. You can have the best teachers and facilities but if the kids don't have curiosity and respect for learning, you might as well be pushing rope. The DC school system is improving. In the 90s, teachers and staff were afraid for their physical safety. There was a sense of resignation amongst teachers that trying to get kids to a minimum standard of knowledge was a hopeless task. Poverty had much to do with those low expectations and levels of achievement. I'm sure people didn't see how a rigorous high school education was going to help kids in the future. I also don't think that large school systems work for K-12 kids: school becomes more about gaming bureaucracies than reaching every child. Standardized tests in my opinion reveal the dysfunction of school systems and their struggle to create uniform levels of success. When such tests intrude too much on the educational calendar and flow of teaching, they become part of the problem. Standardized tests can be a coarse-grained metric for the relative success of a school system but they provide no answers about how to engage kids in learning or how to tailor different educational paths for different types of kids. "In Virginia they call them "pacing guides". Every state has guidelines regarding what students in each grade should be learning each day, each week, each month, etc."
I can only imagine those guidelines were thought up by school system administrators trying to cover their asses. It's always amazing that there are so many people telling teachers how to do their jobs, yet so few of those people actually have the guts to stand in front of a class and teach. Teaching high school kids is a hit-or-miss prospect, no matter how engaging the curriculum or effective the teacher. Some kids aren't ready or willing to learn in a high school setting and some are. I think that will always be the case.
|
|
pigtail
Location: Southern California Gender:
|
Posted:
May 30, 2017 - 3:36pm |
|
aflanigan wrote: I'm enjoying this conversation. I concur that self paced, potentially self guided instruction can work well for some people.
At the end of my career as a Physics student at WPI I was a consultant/monitor in what they called the "IPI" lab (for individually paced instruction). It was basically what you're talking about. Packaged modules on basic Newtonian physics. A student could come and review the material at their convenience, ask me or other consultants questions, and get an exam from us to take and get graded on the spot.
The problem is, as the article/op ed I linked makes clear (and as anyone who has been paying attention to education reform in K-12 the last few decades could tell you), public education curriculum has increasingly been based on a one size fits all model. Getting schools, particularly struggling ones, to move away from that model is an uphill battle, to put it mildly. In Virginia they call them "pacing guides". Every state has guidelines regarding what students in each grade should be learning each day, each week, each month, etc. It's sort of like a scene from a dystopian novel, such as the scene from A Wrinkle in Time where children bounce balls and skip rope in unison.
Standardization of curriculum and educational method is anathema to genuine educational improvement, and high stakes testing has only reinforced the artificial uniformity and placed meaningful, substantive improvement (i.e. other than test scores rising) further out of reach. Like Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences, for example, education experts know that every child is unique, has different approaches to learning about the world around them, different potentialities, and different schedules for achieving milestones in emotional, intellectual, and spatial intelligence and development. But the ones who realize how difficult improving schools and education for all children is to accomplish are drowned out by pitch men/women pushing the latest educational panacea.
Agreed, it just doesn't work.
|
|
aflanigan
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
Posted:
May 30, 2017 - 3:20pm |
|
kcar wrote:There are two things about online or computerized learning systems, however, that really work for me (and I think other people too). One, you can learn something without having to deal with another person or class schedules and physical locations. That apparently was a big deal for Salman Khan's nieces. He was tutoring them in math IIRC across the American continent by webcam. When their schedules fell out of sync, he started recording videos for them. The nieces eventually told him they liked the videos more than the live sessions! The more in-charge or empowered a person feels of his/her education, the more s/he will learn.The other thing I like is online/computerized systems allow for smaller chunks of instruction interspersed with small tests providing immediate feedback. Khan Academy does this. This e-book introducing the syntax of JavaScript to beginners has the same approach: 1-2 pages of instruction on a topic, followed by 25 questions on the material just covered. If you get a question right, you move on to the next. Get one wrong and you're immediately shown the right answer before you see the next question. At the end of the 25 questions, the e-book repeats the questions you got wrong and lets you answer them again. I don't know if you've ever learned a foreign language, but you pretty much have to embrace the fact that your communication abilities have been reduced to that of a child or stroke victim. You have to put your ego aside. However, most language courses give you very fast feedback: if you're supposed to say "I hit the ball" but instead utter "I hot the bowl", your teacher will correct your errors right away. That's a far cry from sitting in a giant lecture hall listening to a guy drone on about calculus and taking a couple of tests over a semester (oh, and it'll take week to grade them). I believe that the faster the feedback, the more you'll learn. Immersion in the subject helps. Learning French in France, for instance, or learning auto mechanics by working on a car in a garage or learning football by getting lessons and coaching while playing football are better than listening to lectures in a large classroom. "Without smart, savvy, qualified teachers as guides to oversee the process, I am skeptical it will bring the profound change hoped for."
Yes. Absolutely. I'm impressed with all the work that teacher did to get his approach off the ground. His vision of mastery learning sounds like it would take a LOT more preparation and coordination between teachers in order to work. And yes, there's the risk that educational "entrepreneurs" would just see mastery learning as a money-making scheme via watered-down videos and such. I get the impression that a lot of educational innovations get watered-down or perverted when governments try to scale them up and don't do enough work to maintain quality, rigor and commitment. So yes, you need smart, qualified and DEDICATED teachers. Talent is a biggie too: some people are natural born teachers and thus a mix of educator, entertainer, mentor, leader and disciplinarian. Teachers also have to keep kids up to the mark and not let them slack off or slide through a subject. DC schools seem to do that on an incredible scale. School systems also have to let students, teachers and parents know that the kids will have to meet or exceed minimum standards to advance or graduate. New York state has exit exams called Regents exams (no idea how rigorous they are). You also need parents who actually walk the walk when it comes to education. Kids can learn a lot outside of the school. Parents' attitudes about and involvement in education rub off on their kids. I think a lot of parents in DC (and yes I live there) think that the school will do all the necessary work to teach their kids or don't have the time to be more involved. People here aren't committed to education as they are in the Boston area where I grew up. The notion that learning a subject empowers and develops you as a person isn't popular here. There's an acceptance of learning enough to get by or fake it. The colleges and universities here, even Georgetown, are meh. Mastery learning isn't the magic bullet, but it's a good start. You need to give kids a sense that they can control how they learn. You also have to provide them with structure, high support, high expectations, immersive educational approaches and rapid feedback. It would be great if this country respected education enough to pay teachers good money and worked to move beyond lecture-style learning.
Final thought: standardized tests are largely a way for non-educators and people in government to cover their asses and blame other people. I'm enjoying this conversation. I concur that self paced, potentially self guided instruction can work well for some people. At the end of my career as a Physics student at WPI I was a consultant/monitor in what they called the "IPI" lab (for individually paced instruction). It was basically what you're talking about. Packaged modules on basic Newtonian physics. A student could come and review the material at their convenience, ask me or other consultants questions, and get an exam from us to take and get graded on the spot. The problem is, as the article/op ed I linked makes clear (and as anyone who has been paying attention to education reform in K-12 the last few decades could tell you), public education curriculum has increasingly been based on a one size fits all model. Getting schools, particularly struggling ones, to move away from that model is an uphill battle, to put it mildly. In Virginia they call them "pacing guides". Every state has guidelines regarding what students in each grade should be learning each day, each week, each month, etc. It's sort of like a scene from a dystopian novel, such as the scene from A Wrinkle in Time where children bounce balls and skip rope in unison. Standardization of curriculum and educational method is anathema to genuine educational improvement, and high stakes testing has only reinforced the artificial uniformity and placed meaningful, substantive improvement (i.e. other than test scores rising) further out of reach. Like Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences, for example, education experts know that every child is unique, has different approaches to learning about the world around them, different potentialities, and different schedules for achieving milestones in emotional, intellectual, and spatial intelligence and development. But the ones who realize how difficult improving schools and education for all children is to accomplish are drowned out by pitch men/women pushing the latest educational panacea.
|
|
Proclivities
Location: Paris of the Piedmont Gender:
|
Posted:
May 30, 2017 - 9:08am |
|
aflanigan wrote: One of the glaring flaws in the use of high stakes educational testing as we do, as any psychometrician will tell you, is that they are almost always being used these days for two different purposes: To judge student learning, and to judge school quality. It's like using a yardstick to measure the size of an atom, and to measure the distance between planets. Yes, I've met psychometricians and other people in the field (statisticians, teachers, counselors, etc.) who lament that, but they keep trying. It may seem futile but people have to try - even if it's only little steps.
|
|
|