Tea Party: No longer harmless nutters

[Jenne]

Many states are doing that now--so "teaching to the test" is becoming more and more of an imperative.

Fucking useless.

Assessment has its values. (seeingashowI'memployedbyonesuchassessmentcompanyahem)

However.  I think most would agree that it's short-sighted and doesn't seek to teach in a well-rounded fashion to any degree.  Sickens me how the pendulum has swung.  It does, every decade or so.  But it's soooo far to the "top-down" approach at this point it's driving me just a weensy bit insane (moreso that I am already).  Thing is, this is what the political catchall is for education.

It's become a religion, too.  NCLB was a joke from the beginning, but it's viewed as political suicide to say as much.  Mostly because the dems are spineless toads.  Even Olbermann was talking like it was a good thing.

Assessment is fine, but the tests should be an unknown and should cross multiple subjects.  They SHOULD be difficult, and they should be done at random times.  If the subjects are taught properly, there should be no problem.

Not only that, but the timing is key.  Testing someone for the next year in March makes no sense.  For one thing, you have no idea what the functionality of that assessment will look like come August and September when the student starts back up.  So the results are sort of nullified by the time spectrum.

Also, assessments are really only valuable if you can use them to predict performance over a timespan, so using them at least three times a year seems more to the point (beginning, middle and end).  The school districts that can afford to do this already have this in place.

...So guess which ones don't and suffer for it?

[LMNO]

NCLB was a stroke of genius, simply because it allowed politicians to shove the most worthless, harmful, and proven useless educational practices into play, simply due to the name.

I mean, you could trash the entire rest of the Bill of Rights with the stroke of a pen, if it was in a bill called "The Ending Infant Rape Act".


Because who would ever vote against ending infant rape?  Other than Enrico, of course.

[Jenne]

...and that's how a lot of legislation is passed.  I mean, "Patriot Acts" anyone?

[Doktor Howl]

 

Or, more currently, The Media Shield Act.



Good thing this isn't Bush's 3rd term, or anything.  

[Juana]

Many states are doing that now--so "teaching to the test" is becoming more and more of an imperative.

Fucking useless.

Assessment has its values. (seeingashowI'memployedbyonesuchassessmentcompanyahem)

However.  I think most would agree that it's short-sighted and doesn't seek to teach in a well-rounded fashion to any degree.  Sickens me how the pendulum has swung.  It does, every decade or so.  But it's soooo far to the "top-down" approach at this point it's driving me just a weensy bit insane (moreso that I am already).  Thing is, this is what the political catchall is for education.

These. My mom works in a poor school district in a very poor part of the city. Everything she does HAS to involve the standards (which is pretty much just math and reading). No art, almost no science (it's actually on the standards but there's like one question, the answer to which she teachers the day before), no history, no geography. She tries to add them in as much as she can with the reading materials, but there's only so much she can do.

I remember making paper turkeys and little Pilgrims out of felt and Popsicle sticks when we learned about the Mayflower in third grade and she can't do that kind of thing because it takes time away from the standards. It was hands on and made history fun--you want to do that with education as much as you can, I think.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I'm not entirely sure that education decreases crime per-se. In its function as a society-normalizing system, public schooling hemogenizes the types of crimes somewhat (drug use is more encouraged than murder, etc). In its function as actual education, it probably largely just makes people who commit crimes less likely to be convicted (between knowing what evidence is and is not allowed in court, what police are and are not allowed to do, more mundane methods of covering one's tracks learned from experience and classes on more or less unrelated subjects, etc.)

[Doktor Howl]

I'm not entirely sure that education decreases crime per-se. In its function as a society-normalizing system, public schooling hemogenizes the types of crimes somewhat (drug use is more encouraged than murder, etc). In its function as actual education, it probably largely just makes people who commit crimes less likely to be convicted (between knowing what evidence is and is not allowed in court, what police are and are not allowed to do, more mundane methods of covering one's tracks learned from experience and classes on more or less unrelated subjects, etc.)

Your data supporting that argument?

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I'm not entirely sure that education decreases crime per-se. In its function as a society-normalizing system, public schooling hemogenizes the types of crimes somewhat (drug use is more encouraged than murder, etc). In its function as actual education, it probably largely just makes people who commit crimes less likely to be convicted (between knowing what evidence is and is not allowed in court, what police are and are not allowed to do, more mundane methods of covering one's tracks learned from experience and classes on more or less unrelated subjects, etc.)

Your data supporting that argument?

I don't have any. That said, I have yet to see any data correlating education with crime rather than convictions or accusations. I'm just pointing out that it makes sense that the educated wouldn't be caught as often.

[Doktor Howl]

I don't have any.

Oh.  Never mind, then.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I don't have any.

Oh.  Never mind, then.

Do you?

[Doktor Howl]

I don't have any.

Oh.  Never mind, then.

Do you?

I'm not in the habit of supporting other peoples' assertions.  It was your statement, YOU back it up.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I don't have any.

Oh.  Never mind, then.

Do you?

I'm not in the habit of supporting other peoples' assertions.  It was your statement, YOU back it up.

My statement was a questioning of your statement -- namely, giving an alternate explanation for the data yours implied. Do you have any data that supports yours but does not support mine?

[Doktor Howl]

I don't have any.

Oh.  Never mind, then.

Do you?

I'm not in the habit of supporting other peoples' assertions.  It was your statement, YOU back it up.

My statement was a questioning of your statement -- namely, giving an alternate explanation for the data yours implied. Do you have any data that supports yours but does not support mine?

First hit of 143,000:

http://www.cybercollege.com/plume21.htm

I can get more, if you aren't wild about it.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I don't have any.

Oh.  Never mind, then.

Do you?

I'm not in the habit of supporting other peoples' assertions.  It was your statement, YOU back it up.

My statement was a questioning of your statement -- namely, giving an alternate explanation for the data yours implied. Do you have any data that supports yours but does not support mine?

First hit of 143,000:

http://www.cybercollege.com/plume21.htm

I can get more, if you aren't wild about it.

Alright. Where do these numbers come from, if they are neither from convictions nor accusations of crime?

[Doktor Howl]

I don't have any.

Oh.  Never mind, then.

Do you?

I'm not in the habit of supporting other peoples' assertions.  It was your statement, YOU back it up.

My statement was a questioning of your statement -- namely, giving an alternate explanation for the data yours implied. Do you have any data that supports yours but does not support mine?

First hit of 143,000:

http://www.cybercollege.com/plume21.htm

I can get more, if you aren't wild about it.

Alright. Where do these numbers come from, if they are neither from convictions nor accusations of crime?

You didn't even read that, did you?