Teaching

[xoxoxoBruce]

This struck me as a clever gadget for teaching what large numbers represent.

[DanaC]

That's fucking genius.

[Gravdigr]

Yep.

[Clodfobble]

Very nice!

[Griff]

I'm confused, how does Pearson make any money on that?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Who is Pearson?

[Griff]

Pearson Publishing sells the textbooks, the other curriculum materials, and the assessments used for the Common Core. They own a fair number of lawmakers as well.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Ah so, the evil empire sucking the life blood from primary education. Dat splain it.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Griff

I'm confused, how does Pearson make any money on that?

FTmotherfuckingW!

[xoxoxoBruce]

The Australian tests.


See, now that's all wrong. Any kid that doesn't measure up by third grade should be pruned to keep them from slowing the good children. Send them to the outback to herd sheep, or to the mines providing China with the minerals to satiate walmart.

[Clodfobble]

Yes, children with IEPs are receiving special education services. The point is they are still required to take these tests, even though only 7% may be expected to pass them, and failing the test (or to a lesser degree, fighting to be allowed to opt out of it) leads to very real consequences for both the students and their teachers.

Standardized testing is not the only way, but it is currently the default way to have national standards. But the testing itself very much gets in the way of actual learning, and then when the children aren't doing well the justification is that we need stricter standards, and more frequent testing. All of which is designed and sold to the state by corporations, not actual teachers.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Yes, children with IEPs are receiving special education services. The point is they are still required to take these tests, even though only 7% may be expected to pass them, and failing the test (or to a lesser degree, fighting to be allowed to opt out of it) leads to very real consequences for both the students and their teachers.

Standardized testing is not the only way, but it is currently the default way to have national standards. But the testing itself very much gets in the way of actual learning, and then when the children aren't doing well the justification is that we need stricter standards, and more frequent testing. All of which is designed and sold to the state by corporations, not actual teachers.

wss

[Lamplighter]

Griff, I haven't drifted away. I've been reading your links and the links of your links and...

I'd like to quote various things I've read, but it's become a maze or haze of this and that.

In reading the websites of Common Core, and the procedures they say they have followed,
and who they used as sources, and how they went about "standardizing",
and how they went about setting "cutoff levels" of the proposed assessments,
I am having a very hard time equating all of that with the furor and anxieties this process has generated.

My first assumption is that some state, some school districts, some schools,
and (yes) some teachers are not doing all they should be doing for their students,
and therefore some sort of nation-wide standards probably are needed.
If someone disagrees with that notion, to me the burden of justification lies with them, not Common Core.

I understand the "anxieties" over the testing of NCLB, and can believe it went too far.
But given that recommendations and testing of other programs (NAEB) seem
to have been accepted by the profession and teachers,
I don't see the justification of denigrating the participants who participated
in generating CCSS or the subsequent assessments.

To me, most of the negative blogs and comments I read would fall
in the arena of politics and almost a low level of fear-mongering.
And so far in my reading, what seems ironic is that there is so little change involved in CCSS.

Obviously, children with IEP's are, almost by definition, not expected to perform as well on CC assessments,
but I see no reason for teachers to use this as a fear for their jobs.

I ended up with a web site that described the process Oregon is following to implement the CC standards.

Here is the link to that 51 page pdf

It's much the same as followed by the national process.
That is, teachers from many different school districts gathered to compare
CC standards with Oregon's current state standards, to prioritize them,
and to develop ways for individual teachers at all grade levels to review the elements of CC,
and decide how their own teaching methods achieve those outcomes.

All in all, I'm not seeing the reason for all the politics and anxieties that are whirling around this effort.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

<snip>
Standardized testing is not the only way, but it is currently the default way to have national standards.
But the testing itself very much gets in the way of actual learning,
and then when the children aren't doing well the justification is
that we need stricter standards, and more frequent testing.
All of which is designed and sold to the state by corporations, not actual teachers.

Sorry Clod, but you may have made it sound as if non-standized testing
could be better than standardized testing. I doubt that is what you mean.
Or do you feel there is an alternative to tests and/or grading students ?
I know I'm liberal, but that sounds a bit progressive, even for me.

I fail to see the argument that tests (necessarily ?) interfers with actual learning.
Of course there will be always be testing of some sort,
just as there will be grades on report cards because
parents want some indication of how their kids are doing in school.
Likewise, citizens want to know how their well their school system
is doing as compared with others in the city/state/nation.

And even more importantly, if students are graduating high school and
are not actually prepared for "college or career" in terms of being able
to understand and communicate at the expected levels, then they are missing
their basic right to an education.

And, while I certainly want to limit the power and monopolies of corporations,
I think it is quite misleading to say "actual teachers" are not involved.
From all I've read on CC, it looks to me as though "actual teachers"
are involved at all levels, and that CC goes out of it's way to assure
that teachers are not being told how or what to teach.

I am not trying to be an advocate of Common Core, but it appears more and more
that a great deal of politics is unnecessarily entering the national discussion about it.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I fail to see the argument that tests (necessarily ?) interfers with actual learning.

Trust me, there are only so many hours in a day, only so many school days in a year. Every single class has to be shut down for the duration of every test, and they become longer and more onerous the older the children are.

Every child has to complete the test, which means any off ill have to be supervised separately, taking a Teaching Assistant out of her role.

Nothing else can be done during these times, not marking, hearing readers, lesson planning. Everyone is required and needs to be vigilant.
And in fact if there are any staff absences (teachers genuinely do get ill too!) it messes up the whole school in terms of cover.

I'm not able to suggest anything more positive, just wanted to put my two pennies worth in from the school side. All the staff hated the tests as much as the children. And some children used to have crying fits from the pressure.