Rhee fires 241 D.C. teachers; 165 cited for poor performance

[Placid Dingo]

WIll look at NCLB in a sec, I'm familiar with the name but not the details (except that Michale Moore says it is a Very Bad Thing)

I am familiar with the hideousness that is teaching to the test, which should be averted anywhere it possibly can (which really, should be everywhere).

There's a very very good reason to have standardised testing; so professionals (teachers, admin etc) can obtain data of use to them, to let them know what they are doing well/poorly at, and where, and to gather this data on a large scale systematic level.

When you tie test results to pretty much anything else, you have a number of issues waiting to rear their ugly head.

[Jasper]

Right.  Because we totally want a nation of people who were all taught the same exact facts.

I'm down for that.  That totally doesn't make it extremely easy for textbook publishers cough texas cough to sneak in complete rubbish to the entire nation's classrooms.

[Juana]

Right.  Because we totally want a nation of people who were all taught the same exact facts.

I'm down for that.  That totally doesn't make it extremely easy for textbook publishers cough texas cough to sneak in complete rubbish to the entire nation's classrooms.

Texas is pretty much setting the standards these days, I would say (Cram probably has a better idea than I do, though). I would point out that in some areas, the exact same facts are fine, like in the sciences. Everyone should have an idea of what covalent bonds, for example. And even in American history. We just need to reform how textbooks are done.

[Jasper]

History is trickier though, because the phrasing and nuance can cast different light on different subjects.  There's a great deal of political motivation to control the way history is conveyed, and the only good way to learn history is to read different accounts of the same events.  If all the history books gave the exact same accounts,  and if all historians have the same version of the facts, then there's no controversy, but our history tends to be rife with glossed over problems and atrocities, and lionized and vilified characters.  Which to believe?

[Juana]

History is trickier though, because the phrasing and nuance can cast different light on different subjects.  There's a great deal of political motivation to control the way history is conveyed, and the only good way to learn history is to read different accounts of the same events.  If all the history books gave the exact same accounts,  and if all historians have the same version of the facts, then there's no controversy, but our history tends to be rife with glossed over problems and atrocities, and lionized and vilified characters.  Which to believe?

I'm aware of that, lol. I intended to teach high school history at one point and I always intended to teach my students that while certain facts are concrete, how we interpret them isn't. The basic facts is what I meant (I should have been more clear about that, yeah?). George Washington was the first president,Thomas Jefferson was involved with the formation of the government, Martin Luther King was assassinated - these  are facts and people who must be included in all text books. My argument is that we need to reform how textbooks are produced so that things like Texas's bullshit retard exclusion of Jefferson isn't forced on everyone else. I don't have the answer as to how, but the way we do it now sucks.

[Jasper]

Okay, yeah.  Agreeing at the top of my lungs. 

[Placid Dingo]

Right.  Because we totally want a nation of people who were all taught the same exact facts.

I'm down for that.  That totally doesn't make it extremely easy for textbook publishers cough texas cough to sneak in complete rubbish to the entire nation's classrooms.

I'm not certain, so I apologise if this isn't directed at me.

But at a primary school level, testing tends to focus on literacy and numeracy, not 'do you know this true fact'.

So a question might be;

What is (3+4) (10 + -3)

There might be an answer space or there might be a multiple choice Question.

The data is useful, not just for IF they get it wrong, but HOW.

If the answer is B and most say A, then they are barking up the wrong tree. So something we teach them is confusing them in the way we do it.
BUT if it's B and they say... pretty much everything they CAN say, then they DON'T GET IT AT ALL. Which is extremely useful for a teacher.

Same deal with English. Questions are things like
What is the mistake in this sentence: ["I'm going to tell you're father about this," yelled James.]


There's no kind of

'Explain why Australia is justified in lowering immigration'

propaganda-y questions.

[Jasper]

Those subjects are pretty hard to slant, it's true.  But when you get history or literature in the curriculum, it becomes very easy to slant.  That was my only gripe.

[Cramulus]

The NCLB act has got to go. A large number of my coworkers used to be teachers until it passed, then decided to jump ship into textbook publishing. They didn't want their careers to be jeopardized by the insane amount of bureaucracy that it introduced into education. Did you know that they start teaching kids how to pass state exams in KINDERGARTEN? yeah, after learning the names of shapes, there's naptime, and then they spend a few hours familiarizing themselves with grading rubrics.

There are so many factors which influence student performance - levels of funding being a huge one. Teacher skill is just one slice of the pie. Even if you're the best teacher in the world, your students are still going to perform poorly if your school doesn't have any money.

Back when I was taking a class called Sociology of Education, I saw a documentary about this one county in Indiana (?), where they didn't have enough money to repair the leaks in the roof. Predictably, kids were reading at about four grade levels under the target. A third of graduating fifth graders were illiterate. Jnder NCLB, they're just going to get less funding. The documentary said that the amount of money needed to get all schools in the county to the point where the kids can read at the expected levels wouldn't even be a ton of money. Equal to the cost of one fighter jet. The teachers were furious!

really sends a message about this country's priorities, no?

[Doktor Howl]

The NCLB act has got to go. A large number of my coworkers used to be teachers until it passed, then decided to jump ship into textbook publishing. They didn't want their careers to be jeopardized by the insane amount of bureaucracy that it introduced into education. Did you know that they start teaching kids how to pass state exams in KINDERGARTEN? yeah, after learning the names of shapes, there's naptime, and then they spend a few hours familiarizing themselves with grading rubrics.

There are so many factors which influence student performance - levels of funding being a huge one. Teacher skill is just one slice of the pie. Even if you're the best teacher in the world, your students are still going to perform poorly if your school doesn't have any money.

Back when I was taking a class called Sociology of Education, I saw a documentary about this one county in Indiana (?), where they didn't have enough money to repair the leaks in the roof. Predictably, kids were reading at about four grade levels under the target. A third of graduating fifth graders were illiterate. Jnder NCLB, they're just going to get less funding. The documentary said that the amount of money needed to get all schools in the county to the point where the kids can read at the expected levels wouldn't even be a ton of money. Equal to the cost of one fighter jet. The teachers were furious!

really sends a message about this country's priorities, no?

You're missing the point, Cram.  The NCLB Act is designed to produce a permanent aristocracy.

Neither party will eliminate it.  They've been working towards this since 1968.

[Jasper]

None of this would be a problem if we could use childrens' literacy to kill terrorists.

[Doktor Howl]

None of this would be a problem if we could use childrens' literacy to kill terrorists.

Pffft.  Nobody wants to kill terrorists.  They want to spend money killing terrorists.

And that doesn't include rampant socialism like "universal education", which only lets the terrorists win.

[Jasper]

Stupid progressives and their...progress.

[Juana]

The NCLB act has got to go. A large number of my coworkers used to be teachers until it passed, then decided to jump ship into textbook publishing. They didn't want their careers to be jeopardized by the insane amount of bureaucracy that it introduced into education. Did you know that they start teaching kids how to pass state exams in KINDERGARTEN? yeah, after learning the names of shapes, there's naptime, and then they spend a few hours familiarizing themselves with grading rubrics.

There are so many factors which influence student performance - levels of funding being a huge one. Teacher skill is just one slice of the pie. Even if you're the best teacher in the world, your students are still going to perform poorly if your school doesn't have any money.

Back when I was taking a class called Sociology of Education, I saw a documentary about this one county in Indiana (?), where they didn't have enough money to repair the leaks in the roof. Predictably, kids were reading at about four grade levels under the target. A third of graduating fifth graders were illiterate. Jnder NCLB, they're just going to get less funding. The documentary said that the amount of money needed to get all schools in the county to the point where the kids can read at the expected levels wouldn't even be a ton of money. Equal to the cost of one fighter jet. The teachers were furious!

really sends a message about this country's priorities, no?

On top of that, schools that don't preform well get less funding, and after a certain number of years (five or something - I don't remember for sure), they fire all the teachers. I cannot emphasize enough the effect of the administration on teachers' ability to teach.

You're missing the point, Cram.  The NCLB Act is designed to produce a permanent aristocracy.

Neither party will eliminate it.  They've been working towards this since 1968.

I really wish I didn't suspect you were right.

[Doktor Howl]

I really wish I didn't suspect you were right.

Suspicion, my ass.  It's cold, hard fact. 

Poorer schools = less resources = worse scores on tests = less Title I funding.
Richer schools = more resources = better scores on tests = more Title I funding.

It's a feedback loop.