It pisses off people from the left AND the right.

And that's what matters, right? Hasn't he said something to the effect of that's how he knows he's doing things right?

(sarcasm)

Actually the left overall doesn't care. Teachers care, parents care....it is discouraging to them.

The right is passionately against it, the left overall just accepts it as new Democratic policy.

"the left" doesn't like it.
"the left" supports teachers, and teachers unions.

It's only "New Democrats" and DLC centrist types who support this type of school reform. And even then many of them may not even support it but can't say anything bad about it because it's an Obama policy and they are sworn to defend him above any policy or principals.

help their alumni get jobs, and other jobs if they get laid off.

your posts regarding "reform" are valuable and matter to me. All this is beyond frustrating to see and experience. As a progressive educator (influenced by Dewey, Rogers, Piaget, Vygotsky, Montessori, among them) I have a very hard time working in this sort of culture -- does anyone in the DOE know ANYTHING about teaching, learning to teach, learning? Teaching/Learning is a process, not some event that can be deemed "successful" by a standardized test.

Again, thank you madfloridian.

Good question. I would say no. But they sure do know how to test.

But we have to, the shortsightedness of these policies is staggering.

....meanwhile India and China's educational system is eating our lunch. Wonder how much high pressure testing involved there?

And the teacher's unions and their minions here are complaining about more "high pressure testing". God forbid there be more accountability built into the system.

Test scores reflect learning.

The standardized tests are not based on classroom learning or what is taught in classrooms. The testing companies format them secretly.

Thank god I went to private schools, where they had no such qualms.

We switched them to public school when my daughter was entering 3rd grade (she's now in 6th) and my son was entering 7th (he's now in 10th). The private school cost more than $20,000 per year (at the time), though my kids received financial aid. The private school parents didn't want all the testing, either, and their money gave them more clout than public school parents. (And this was a school that had a majority Asian and biracial Asian-Caucasion population, with quite a few parents who were born in China or elsewhere in Asia, since the school was Mandarin Immersion.)

Who cares? Why are you telling me your life story?

In my experience (unlike your "life story&quot , private schools have MORE "such qualms."

<<Bullshit.

Thank god I went to private schools, where they had no such qualms.>>

I included my children's grade levels to show their experience is recent. (Don't know about yours.) I went to public schools in the 1960s and 70s, and there was much less testing than there is now. Those additional details also show my children were not in private school for junior high or high school, times that might (I don't know) involve more test prep in private school. (Preparing for the SSAT or SAT, etc.) I told you the type of private school because maybe schools with a more religious focus (or other less expensive schools) might be more into testing. I mentioned the Asian focus and demographics of the school because you had said: <<....meanwhile India and China's educational system is eating our lunch. Wonder how much high pressure testing involved there?>> More than half the teachers at my kids' private school had been educated in China, and they definitely tended to value and expect high achievement, but the school didn't seem to think high pressure testing was the way to get there. (Just another perspective...)

lots of standardized testing in addition to the regular curriculum. No "teaching to the test"

With respect to China and India, I'm more interested in how their educational systems approach testing. It's not relevant how the Chinese and Indian teachers at your kids school approach testing. The fact is those countries are eating our lunch in STEM. And if the Chinese and Indian method were inferior to the American method, then your kid's fancy wouldn't be importing STEM teachers from China and India.

In the upper grades, with less immersion (not the 50% English/50% Mandarin of the lower grades), the science and math teachers are not (or were not when my kids were there, anyway) from China (or India or any Asian countries). They are teaching those classes in English only.

I was comparing my children's experience now in public school (lots of testing, and yes, lots of "teaching to the test&quot vs. their recent experience in private school (and vs. my long ago experience in public school). There are a lot of benefits to their public school experience, but the testing isn't one of them. (And now, it's all changing again... with the testing to new and different standards.)

I'd rather have them teaching to the test, than what I've witnessed them doing otherwise.

I did prefer the K-8 aspect of the private school (although there are also advantages--like band and orchestra-- of large, comprehensive middle schools)... and the smaller class size (that more money could buy). And, my son couldn't continue in Chinese immersion because it didn't yet exist in the public schools at his higher grade level. Fortunately, my daughter was able to continue in immersion, and she already knew her 3rd grade Chinese teacher from the private school. (The teacher had switched at the same time...) The teachers weren't better at the private school, but kids who had any challenging issues were "counseled out" by third grade, so the teachers had fewer "issues" to deal with. Of course, the school had a very selective screening process, so most kids weren't admitted in the first place.

My adult daughter is severely disabled, and she would never have been admitted to any "general ed" private school. We had to fight for her rights in public school (for inclusion, accessibility, adequate speech therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, etc.), but she had no right to attend private school at all. She eventually ended up at UC Berkeley, another public school.

Public schools aren't perfect. (The private school was far from perfect, too, and way too expensive-- even with the financial aid.) But, public schools have to take all kids. (Which is a good thing.) Some of those kids bring very big issues with them, and that is likely to be reflected in their test scores. (And blamed on their teachers and schools.) But (where I live, anyway), the public schools are very transparent about achievement test scores. The school and grade level scores are very easy to find. That is not true of local private school test results.

to their previous private school or as a stand-alone statement.

Last edited Wed Apr 30, 2014, 12:37 AM - Edit history (1)

Well if you disagree with that then there's not much to discuss. Maybe you're in a suburban, mostly white area, but I've volunteered in some tough school districts. And the public schools are underserving our children, especially children of color. I want these children to get the kind of education I was lucky enough to get, ideology be damned. If you haven't already seen them waiting for superman and the lottery are great documentaries.

http://putlocker.bz/watch-waiting-for-superman-online-free-putlocker.html

Last edited Wed Apr 30, 2014, 03:21 AM - Edit history (1)

We are a white family (well, we are also Asian since our youngest child is adopted from Vietnam), and I worked in San Francisco and Oakland schools for more than 15 years, bringing speakers with disabilities into hundreds of classrooms to meet with thousands of students of all ages. (And before that, I volunteered in San Francisco schools.) I think about 11% to 12% of students in public school in San Francisco are white. San Francisco has a high percentage of private school families and many agree with you that the public schools are "bad." (Again, from personal experience, I disagree.)

It seems like what you are really saying is "some" public schools are bad, since you seem to think it is possible for suburban white schools to be okay, and you are mostly worried about children of color in inner city schools? Is that correct? I worry about those kids, too... but I'd look more to Finland for inspiration than to China or India... and more to Montessori than to KIPP.

We did some work in a Montessori program in a public school serving mostly low income kids, but the Montessori program was economically diverse by design (it appealed to middle class parents, too, so they were willing to send their kids to this program in a school they might not ordinarily consider), and I wasn't able to tell the difference between the more privileged and less privileged kids-- which was pretty remarkable.

Another low income public school was trying to replicate the KIPP Charter school approach-- but with younger kids, without the creaming and without the massive financial support from private donors--and there was a concentration of kids with very high needs from some very difficult economic and other situations, and it was too many kids with such high needs, even though the teachers were performing heroically under very stressful conditions. The KIPP-type model involved longer school days, Saturday school, a military-like atmosphere, etc.. In fact, many solutions for low income black kids seem to involve a military-like model. I prefer the idea of offering low income black (and other) kids the type of environment that middle class and wealthy families (often white) might choose for THEIR kids-- like Montessori and other programs where it is not all about drill and kill (and constant testing). In the KIPP-like program I saw too much cramming of academics into kids who first needed to learn to play nicely together, to use their imaginations, etc. I saw kids who were already learning that they weren't good at school (at five!) because they were not developmentally ready.

Some people think the solution is more academics-- earlier and with more intensity. I think the solution lies more in first facilitating the type of enriched and nurturing environment that middle class and upper class kids get as young children... and an economically (and racially) mixed Montessori experience is just one possibility, not necessarily the best, just the one I witnessed. [It's getting late, and that sounds simplistic... but the KIPP-like model for younger kids (and again, without the creaming and infusion of money from private donors) was very depressing to witness.]

Some public schools (and teachers) are expected to do too much without adequate resources to serve their very needy students. That doesn't make public schools "bad."

took who attended in the same era you did.

We did SRA reading comprehension tests. Maybe by doing these so often I did get better at taking tests. But it's undeniable my reading skills improved, my vocabulary improved, and my language abilities improved. I vaguely remember lots of other standardized tests by ets, some company Iowa, maybe some others too. And the fact is that tests like the SAT, LSAT, GRE, include the same types of reading comprehension test component. Those are also high stakes/high pressure tests that can determine your future. So how exactly are you helping students by shielding them from those types of tests they'll have to take later anyway? You're not.

As a practical matter, I don't see any other way of holding teachers accountable. I don't trust them b/c there's a severe lack of accountability built into the public school system, in part because of the teachers unions.

"I don't see any other way of holding teachers accountable. I don't trust them b/c there's a severe lack of accountability built into the public school system, in part because of the teachers unions."

I won't bother alerting, since I know not enough DU people care about RW anti-union bullshit. But that's what that is.

is really elitist. Shame on me.

know how to do multiplication or division? test scores do not mean learning.

Once you factor in the rural poor kids who make up huge swaths of those countries populations, they're not competing with anybody.

India's got problems getting people in rural areas basic sanitation and electricity, let alone schoolbooks and trained teachers.

I used to work in the education field for a company that also did testing. I supported their products (and a lot of educational software) from K through GED testing (mainly focused on the prison industry on that end). Someone also mentioned SRA - that was something I also supported and overall I thought the program was good (the software was crap and I feel fine saying that as I have done a lot of development).

Also, I home school my daughter who has to take the state tests and work closely with all that is involved leading up to such tests (including being here with her for all the tests she takes leading up to those tests).

The theory behind it all seems to make sense. One set of tests for all students in grade x. If the kid learned what they were supposed to in class they will pass and everything is peachy keen.

Reality is different. Something which seems to go against common sense.

Until you look closer (and even to the past like when I was in school before all this started).

Students are not all the same (ie, not robots) and don't learn the same. Now again, one might say 'so'. If they pass a test it means they know something.

Knowing something and learning something are not the same.

When I managed data centers it was part of my job to hire in technical engineers. I don't know how many had their MCSE but it was most of them. 6 tests they had to pass to get Microsoft Certified. And they didn't know jack. They took a two week bootcamp, focused on the test, passed it.

They didn't understand some of the most basic things. I got to the point I would put people who had their certs at the bottom of my list and preferred to hire people with Unix skills as they seemed to understand operating systems better.

Schools are spending less time teaching the core ideals, how everything works together and relates, and more on how to pass a test. Their curriculum is centered on they types of things you will find on the test, etc. Students aren't learning the topic, they are learning how to find the right answers to keep funding.

Can you, and will some, learn this way. Yes. Some. But students, and any good teacher knows this, don't all learn and comprehend the same way. You used to have time to address these things, focus more on core ideals and concepts, etc. Now it is all progress charts on tests through the year to track where they will be on the big tests.

They are some great teaching tools and software to help students, to individualize instruction. But the focus is on 'pleasing' the machine by getting the right answer out of four choices.

Lastly - you or I could probably write up some decent tests to test the basic skills learned. Some people don't want schools (public ones) to succeed and they make tests that are just pain asinine if not deceitful. Part of our training for the software to scan in tests (calibrate scanners, troubleshoot, etc) was taking some of these tests (even GED tests were often scanned in as prisons mostly didn't let the inmates use computers where the score could be calculated via internet - job training centers were different on that).

English ones were the worst. You basically could end up with two correct answers. Or none of the answers even seemed relevant. I sit with my daughter and she does at least 4 tests per day (5-25 questions) and good lord some of the things just make me shake my head. Her big Ohio test was only 36 questions - now think about that. She has several english classes per day (different subject areas in it) and probably does minimum 15 questions a day. She passed all of her blue ribbons for the year.

So now everything depends on just 36 questions. Should all the others tests not matter? Do they not offer proof? Have a bad test day and well, you didn't learn a thing at all apparently. Throw in stupid ass questions that are just plain silly - scores go down. You are teaching to a test that you don't have the questions to made by someone who is barely accountable to anyone and who has a stake in seeing you fail.

Versus a teacher who has been with you all year and seeing you test. 150 questions every two weeks for the school year, passed, versus 36. And if you get one wrong too many...bam.

I'll stick with the people in the class each day all year long and not some testing company.

And the fact that those tests have nothing to do with classroom curriculum doesn't matter at all.

So, I concede.

Let's teach the teachers a lesson they won't forget. Never mind what is good for the students, after all it's all the fault of the teachers.

Obama is right. Colleges not good enough, schools not good enough, teachers not good enough. So we test and test and test.

Problems all solved.

So glad I teach ceramics. Don't know how many more years I can take this shit.

who continues these policies.

Bye bye, Democratic Party.