How Do You Define Morality?

[9th Engineer]

I've never really understood what was so evil about teachers in low performance areas teaching to a test. The standardized tests cover a baseline proficiency in math, reading, and writing. If students cannot even score reasonably well on these, then shouldn't the focus be on making sure the basics are covered before launching into more esoteric subjects?

[piercehawkeye45]

Its brainwashing. I don't want to be to be taught word for word what to think, I would rather be taught how to think and figure it out by myself. You can't test how well you can think on standardized tests. There are times when you have to have subjects force fed to you, but a lot of times you don't and it ruins the whole point of getting an education.

Standardized tests also have a very bad reputation for being culturally biased.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Its brainwashing. I don't want to be to be taught word for word what to think, I would rather be taught how to think and figure it out by myself. You can't test how well you can think on standardized tests. There are times when you have to have subjects force fed to you, but a lot of times you don't and it ruins the whole point of getting an education.

That's crap. Basic arithmetic should be "word for word what to think." There is no deep analytical skill involved in the base levels of these tests.

The answer you're actually looking for is: the problem with teaching to the test is that every student who isn't a complete moron is bored out of their minds. Which just means there should be more honors/regular/remedial separation at younger ages, and more willingness to make kids repeat grades early on. Poor test scores reflect very little on a teacher's skill and very much on the general performance of the students in the area.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

That's crap. Basic arithmetic should be "word for word what to think." There is no deep analytical skill involved in the base levels of these tests.

Thats why I said some subjects need to be force fed to you.

The answer you're actually looking for is: the problem with teaching to the test is that every student who isn't a complete moron is bored out of their minds. Which just means there should be more honors/regular/remedial separation at younger ages, and more willingness to make kids repeat grades early on. Poor test scores reflect very little on a teacher's skill and very much on the general performance of the students in the area.

That would help but it still doesn't allow a child develop basic problem solving skills for situations they've never been in before. All it does is give them more information they can forget in three months.

There should be two different types of classes, one be the type we have right now where it is an A-F scale and more or less standardized and then there should be another group that would be pass/fail that isn't based off a curriculum but can help the students with life skills and basic understanding of the world. Those classes would be mostly electives and be classes like Phy Ed, Sociology, Psychology, Child Development, Political Science, Debate, Personal Finance, etc.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

There should be two different types of classes, one be the type we have right now where it is an A-F scale and more or less standardized and then there should be another group that would be pass/fail that isn't based off a curriculum but can help the students with life skills and basic understanding of the world. Those classes would be mostly electives and be classes like Phy Ed, Sociology, Psychology, Child Development, Political Science, Debate, Personal Finance, etc.

You're honestly not making any sense. You do realize there's a difference between "standardized testing" and the generally accepted curriculum for classes in a given state, right?

[piercehawkeye45]

Yes, but on the part you quoted me on I was talking about actually removing the generally accepted curriculum or at least really limiting it for some of the elective classes.

[Clodfobble]

Okay... but that still has nothing to do with standardized testing. There's "improving the overall education system," which seems to be what you're talking about, and "standardized testing," which is a quick little check-in from the state making sure kids can actually read and add numbers long after they were supposed to have learned it in the first place.

If the kids can't read, it's not because they didn't have enough 'P.E., Sociology, Psychology, Child Development, Political Science, Debate, or Personal Finance' classes. If the kids could pass these incredibly low-end tests in the first place like they ought to be able to, then there would be room to talk about adjusting the curriculum to more life-enhacing topics. Being taught how to think for yourself and figure out real-world problems comes after knowing how to add.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Its brainwashing. I don't want to be to be taught word for word what to think, I would rather be taught how to think and figure it out by myself. You can't test how well you can think on standardized tests. There are times when you have to have subjects force fed to you, but a lot of times you don't and it ruins the whole point of getting an education.

Standardized tests also have a very bad reputation for being culturally biased.

Reading, math and science cannot be culturally biased if it is a standard.
Unless you are talking about not putting slang on the tests?
I have no issue with a low-end standard test for those basic subjects... the union would have to agree on the test though.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Okay... but that still has nothing to do with standardized testing. There's "improving the overall education system," which seems to be what you're talking about, and "standardized testing," which is a quick little check-in from the state making sure kids can actually read and add numbers long after they were supposed to have learned it in the first place.

Ok.

Reading, math and science cannot be culturally biased if it is a standard.
Unless you are talking about not putting slang on the tests?
I have no issue with a low-end standard test for those basic subjects... the union would have to agree on the test though.

It is the word problems that make them culturally biased, not the actual material.

[Griff]

Please remember that rkzenrage continues to discuss all of American education based on his very limited knowlege. New York and Pennsylvania both have powerful teachers unions, high salaries, and huge barriers to employment. You cannot use a broad brush when discussing education in the US.

[DanaC]

What do you mean by barriers to employment?

[Griff]

Certification requirements. Rob apparently lives in a state where anybody can teach in a public school. In NY/PA you need your degrees (BA and MA) along with a lot of testing and continuing coursework beyond the degrees. I was talking to a friend yesterday who was a certified elementary teacher in Minnesota, but can't even substitute in PA.

It is the word problems that make them culturally biased, not the actual material.

A word problem is a word problem. If it is mangos or trains the math is the same.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

A word problem is a word problem. If it is mangos or trains the math is the same.

No, it is not. There was a question on the 4th grade(?) math exam in New York State a few years ago dealing with subway stops, something completely foreign to rural upstate children, which they could not put into context. Cultural bias needs to be considered when writing tests.

Yeah, I'm sure they have no trains there & that it entirely changed the nature of the math.