You Get What You Pay For

Off Topic
81

You know, “teaching the test” gets bandied about a lot, but I seriously doubt anyone knows what it really means.

As background, I was a tutor for the SAT I/II and AP tests for about 2 years (if you eliminate the breaks between sessions). Many students came to my classes without proper math or English skills. I found that the easiest way to prepare them for the test was (wait for it, wait for it) to teach them proper math and English skills.

Sure, I “taught the test,” but only in that I knew which subjects had to be covered because they were on the test. But guess what? The subject list was pretty comprehensive.

In my opinion, this “teaching the test” phenomenon has more to do with the incompetence of teachers. A competent teacher will never “teach the test,” except perhaps in the few weeks before the actual exam, since it is by far easier to teach the subject at hand.

In fact no students really lose out if the “teaching the test” phenomenon exists. If you think about it, teachers who only “teach the test” likely do not know their subjects very well anyway, so their students have not lost any more than they would have already.

82

[quote]TKL.ca wrote:
Solution: Move to canada for a better education.

Just kidding…

Anyway, from what I’ve heard about education in the states, it seems that it is always about the lowest common denominator. You get the really smart kids, the average kids, and the not so smart kids. Instead of teaching curriculum in a manner that benefits all students, they are presenting the material so that the not so smart kids can squeeze by and somehow manage to pass everything.

Meanwhile, the smart and average kids are bored as hell and due to lack of attention for their needs, they become unmotivated and apathetic towards learning.

Here in Canada, the province is responsible for education: curriculum, funding, standardized testing, and school rules/policy.

I attended public schools for both elementary and high school. Here, the teachers are paid well (40-80k per year), have benefits, 2 months off in the summer, and a great retirement package. We have smaller classes, specialized programs (both remedial and advanced), and a more individual focus on education.

Best of all, no particular type of student is favoured or being focused on. If you fuck up, don’t study, don’t go to class, you will fail your diploma exams and not get a HS diploma. However if you study your ass off, attend class, and APPLY (key word APPLY, not be taught certain instances of exam questions) your knowledge to do well on the test, you will be rewarded.
[/quote]

Have actually worked in a school in Alberta?

First off, show me ANY teacher in ANY school district making $80,000 and I might consider going back in to the classroom. I am at the top of the grid for years of education and have 7 years experience (pay tops out at 10 years) I made about 64,000 (CDN.) last year and it will rise to a maximum of about 70,000 (which I know is not bad).

I recently quit, and I am managing a bar and own a small training studio and I make the same wage in my first month of managing as I was after 7 years of teaching!!!

If you honestly think kids are not being pushed through our system in Canada you are crazy. It is the same here as it is in the states, if the kid will not perform just lower the standard by which you grade them. Almost every classroom I have ever been in has at least a couple of kids who are on a “modified” program. Not because they are not capable (although there are some kids that are in that boat unfortunately), but because they are lazy.

Oh, and the best part of all of this is that all these little fuckers that are too lazy to do anything in school can drop out, work on the oil rigs, and make well over $100,000 a year. I would do the same, but I know I would be working with the same idiots who can’t read safety manuals and are too stupid to understand or recognize the dangers asociated with their job until someone is hurt or killed on the jobsite (at which point they still don’t understand and it is likely to happen again).

For the record I also know that there are just as many talented individuals working in the oilfield, they are not all idiots

In short, education in North America is a mess, and the only people who kids can rely on for a true education is their parents (the apple generally doesn’t fall far from the tree!!!).

Too bad the state of parenting is just as fucked up as the state of education in many cases!!!

Great parents=great kids

just my .02 cents…

AJ

83

Some people have also said in this post that standardized are useless. I disagree. Standardized tests are extremely useful. However, they are frequently misused.

I read about that the SAT does not indicate how smart someone is. That’s very true. That was never it’s purpose. The SAT I English test is supposed to measure how good you are at comprehending written English. The SAT I Math test is supposed to measure how good you are at basic mathematics. Other standardized tests are the same.

Incidentally, a good grasp of English and math is essential to doing, well, anything (maybe not math).

The true test, of course, is in the reverse. Does a decent English score mean that the tester has a decent grasp of the English language? Does a low English score mean that the tester does not? This really depends on how well the test is designed. If you don’t believe this is possible, you might as well eliminate tests (any sort of “test,” in the broadest sense) altogether. That’s just stupid.

The last area of misuse (that I can think of) is that people worry too much about minute differences in score. For example, in the SATs, any score over a 750 is basically the same. Likewise, a score of 650 is not necessarily better than a score of 600. It just means that each scorer is “good” at whatever subject.

I don’t know the exact details of the NCLB act, but I suspect that it suffers from many of the misuses above.

84

[quote]PGJ wrote:

Just about every kid these days has a computer in their house now. Between that and iPods, cellphones, and all other manner of digital crap kids absolutely can’t live without…I think they get enough exposure to technology.

Computers are so common, that it’s not even considered technology now. They are more like appliances (TV, oven, diswasher, computer, microwave…) Schools aren’t using computers to teach technology, they are using them to teach math and reading and social studies…A lot of the curriculum now is computer based self-paced instruction.

It’s not like in the 80’s where we learned how to actually write basic computer programs in the computer labs. Computers are teachers now. [/quote]

Exactly. The point of education is to have your brain be a computer independent of other tools.

There is a difference between training and educating. A well-trained computer expert who knows how to run every conceivable program and search for information but can’t do anything when you take his tool away - i.e., a long division problem or explain the War of 1812 - is not educated.

85

[quote]ActionJackson wrote:
TKL.ca wrote:
Solution: Move to canada for a better education.

Just kidding…

Anyway, from what I’ve heard about education in the states, it seems that it is always about the lowest common denominator. You get the really smart kids, the average kids, and the not so smart kids. Instead of teaching curriculum in a manner that benefits all students, they are presenting the material so that the not so smart kids can squeeze by and somehow manage to pass everything.

Meanwhile, the smart and average kids are bored as hell and due to lack of attention for their needs, they become unmotivated and apathetic towards learning.

Here in Canada, the province is responsible for education: curriculum, funding, standardized testing, and school rules/policy.

I attended public schools for both elementary and high school. Here, the teachers are paid well (40-80k per year), have benefits, 2 months off in the summer, and a great retirement package. We have smaller classes, specialized programs (both remedial and advanced), and a more individual focus on education.

Best of all, no particular type of student is favoured or being focused on. If you fuck up, don’t study, don’t go to class, you will fail your diploma exams and not get a HS diploma. However if you study your ass off, attend class, and APPLY (key word APPLY, not be taught certain instances of exam questions) your knowledge to do well on the test, you will be rewarded.

Have actually worked in a school in Alberta?

First off, show me ANY teacher in ANY school district making $80,000 and I might consider going back in to the classroom. I am at the top of the grid for years of education and have 7 years experience (pay tops out at 10 years) I made about 64,000 (CDN.) last year and it will rise to a maximum of about 70,000 (which I know is not bad).

I recently quit, and I am managing a bar and own a small training studio and I make the same wage in my first month of managing as I was after 7 years of teaching!!!

If you honestly think kids are not being pushed through our system in Canada you are crazy. It is the same here as it is in the states, if the kid will not perform just lower the standard by which you grade them. Almost every classroom I have ever been in has at least a couple of kids who are on a “modified” program. Not because they are not capable (although there are some kids that are in that boat unfortunately), but because they are lazy.

Oh, and the best part of all of this is that all these little fuckers that are too lazy to do anything in school can drop out, work on the oil rigs, and make well over $100,000 a year. I would do the same, but I know I would be working with the same idiots who can’t read safety manuals and are too stupid to understand or recognize the dangers asociated with their job until someone is hurt or killed on the jobsite (at which point they still don’t understand and it is likely to happen again).

For the record I also know that there are just as many talented individuals working in the oilfield, they are not all idiots

In short, education in North America is a mess, and the only people who kids can rely on for a true education is their parents (the apple generally doesn’t fall far from the tree!!!).

Too bad the state of parenting is just as fucked up as the state of education in many cases!!!

Great parents=great kids

just my .02 cents…

AJ

[/quote]

For 80K a year I was referring to principals, not teachers. I know that regular teachers hit the cap of 64K like you said. But overall, the wage of teachers in Canada is a bit higher. Also, 64K a year plus benefits and 2 months off is nothing to complain about at all.

As for the comparison of the canadian system and american system, on average, the canadian system is churning out more knowledgable students especially in the area of science and mathematics. Alberta’s math scores are some of the best in the world when comparing to other countries. Of course many kids are still being pushed through the system, but at least the curriculum they are being pushed through is better.

I know what you mean about the whole oil boom and how kids are dropping out and going to work on the rigs. 100K a year is pretty damn sweet for any age, but the labour involved in the job is pretty crazy, as well as the hours worked. Sure it’s good when your young, but when you get older, that job is gonna be shit, and you will be away from home all the time.

That’s what frustrates me from time to time, I did really well in highschool and im going to university the next 4 years, but in the meantime I will be a poor ass student. While assholes who didn’t do shit all in school are making good money.

Also, as for the SAT. It’s a piece of shit, and has to be the easiest test I’ve ever written when compared to the diploma examinations. The math section was mostly stuff I did in grade 11, and the reading/writing component was a joke (joke as in any person minimally proficient in the english language could get a good score).

The college board sounds like a bunch of morons who don’t have a clue what students actually need to learn. I also took the AP exams for english and calculus, which again were more challenging, but were way easier than the in-class assignments and final exams given by my teachers.

86

I’ve taken the SATs and the ACTs. I got very high scores, particularly for a girl. I have a high GPA and have taken many difficult classes and am in college right now with a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry and a minor in Mathematics.

To be honest, those tests only test how much you think like th test makers. They don’t test on many subjects, and most of them are learned at an early grade, so when you take the test you are trying to recall something from 4-th grade. Most of the math was basic Algebra, like junior high version. The reading would be tricky for most people if they never read scientific journals.

The test only tests the test. Screw them if they want to put everyone to one standard. Some people get test anxiety. I’ve also seen people at my university with scores of 32 on the ACT and another with a score of 34 (his SAT was just shy perfect) flunk out, because they didn’t know how to study, didn’t know much period, and were just lucky morons who thought like the test makers and remember 4th grade too well.

I’ve seen kids who barely made college get 4.00 GPAs in difficult majors. The tests don’t predict how well you will do in college or in life for that matter. They are just stupid tests.

87

Ok, I came into this discussion a little late, so I apologize if I’m repeating what many others have said.

For once, I agree with tme, at least in part. The new SAT is far, far too long. I disagree that this has anything to do with “attitude” on the part of the students. I’m usually the first one to jump on my students for being lazy or not putting in the level of effort that they should.

However, it’s pretty miserable to be forced to sit there, hour after hour, grueling over a mentally challenging test that basically determines the next four years of your life.

The test is simply too long.

88

[quote]grew7 wrote:
tpa wrote:
grew7 wrote:
Saying that Mexicans don’t value education may be no more racist than saying Americans don’t.

My point exactly.

He could have been referring to the country of Mexico. I don’t care whether he was incorrect or not. That wasn’t racist.

What?
MEXICANS = a native or inhabitant of Mexico

And when you make a sweeping statement (especially a negative one) about an entire culture that is racist.

No.

You just said yourself, that a Mexican is a native or inhabitant of Mexico. I am not of Mexican heritage, but if I were a permanent resident of Mexico, I would be a Mexican.

His statement would not be racist, because I am not of Mexican heritage. It would still be directed at me because I would be a Mexican citizen, but that does not make it racist.

He could have been referring to Mexican culture, not race. Making a sweeping statement about an entire culture is not racist. Another example is that you can say that Americans are fat without being a racist.

From dictionary.com:
rac‧ism  /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?noun

  1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

  2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

  3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.[/quote]

Huh? So if it wasn’t racist, would you agree that his statement was discriminatory or prejudiced or bigatory?

89

[quote]pookie wrote:
On a more serious note, there have been many claims made that since the No Child Left Behind policies came into effect, teachers have been “teaching the test,” in effect preparing the kids for a specific set of questions, and not teaching the subject matter in the way it was previously done. They do this because the school’s performance directly affects it’s funding; hence their salary and bonuses are impacted by the kid’s performance or lack of it.

Could that explain the sudden drop in the SAT scores? I’ve never seen an SAT test, but from what I know of it, it covers a rather broad base of subjects. Subjects the kids might not have studied properly if it wasn’t “scheduled” on a previous exam.
[/quote]

Doubt it. The SAT is more of a skills test than a knowledge test (with the exception of the vocab portion).

90

I have to laugh at all these people who think teaching to the test is restricting the teachers or something. I dunno if you’ve ever been to a public school recently, but they aren’t full of these creative genius teachers who are sadly being oppressed by the necessity to teach to the test. There are exceptions, but the vast majority of teachers are just going through the motions; these just happen to be different motions than they usually do.

91

[quote]stall wrote:

To be honest, those tests only test how much you think like th test makers.

The test only tests the test.

Screw them if they want to put everyone to one standard.

The tests don’t predict how well you will do in college or in life for that matter. They are just stupid tests.[/quote]

That was exactly how I saw them.

This was a very good post.

92

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
PGJ wrote:

Just about every kid these days has a computer in their house now. Between that and iPods, cellphones, and all other manner of digital crap kids absolutely can’t live without…I think they get enough exposure to technology.

Computers are so common, that it’s not even considered technology now. They are more like appliances (TV, oven, diswasher, computer, microwave…) Schools aren’t using computers to teach technology, they are using them to teach math and reading and social studies…A lot of the curriculum now is computer based self-paced instruction.

It’s not like in the 80’s where we learned how to actually write basic computer programs in the computer labs. Computers are teachers now.[/quote]

First, please don’t assume that every kid has a home computer, iPod, and cellphone. There are many areas where students with home PCs are the minority.

Second, do you really think that the kids with home computers are using them for to analyze spatial data with geographic information systems or to examine and manipulate large data sets, or to create and modify spreadsheets or to design structures with Autocad, etc.

99% of the kids with home computers are using them to look at porn, play games, talk on msn, or to post crappy pics of themselves on T-Nation. Most of today’s well paying jobs in are in the tertiary and quaternary sectors of the economy and they require employees to be proficient with technology/computers.

[quote]
Exactly. The point of education is to have your brain be a computer independent of other tools.

There is a difference between training and educating. A well-trained computer expert who knows how to run every conceivable program and search for information but can’t do anything when you take his tool away - i.e., a long division problem or explain the War of 1812 - is not educated.[/quote]

This is something I don’t understand and it seems to be an idea shared by older individuals. They seem to think…“if we suffered through it in high school then so should kids today”.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think that kids need to learn basic skills in reading, writing, and math, but when we have all of this information readily available to us today why don’t we use it? Instead of having a kid walk to the library and search for a boring book on “the war of 1812” why can’t we have him watch an interactive reenactment online? It’s faster and more effective.

Again, I’m not saying we should have students on computers all day, but exposing students to technology will only help them prepare for the modern workforce. If all of this information is at our fingertips via (palm pilot, PC, cellphone, the Internet, etc.) why don’t we use it?

Wouldn’t it be better to teach kids how to effectively and efficiently use our modern tools to solve problems then to have them memorize facts?

93

[quote]blooey wrote:
You know, “teaching the test” gets bandied about a lot, but I seriously doubt anyone knows what it really means.

As background, I was a tutor for the SAT I/II and AP tests for about 2 years (if you eliminate the breaks between sessions). Many students came to my classes without proper math or English skills. I found that the easiest way to prepare them for the test was (wait for it, wait for it) to teach them proper math and English skills.

Sure, I “taught the test,” but only in that I knew which subjects had to be covered because they were on the test. But guess what? The subject list was pretty comprehensive.

In my opinion, this “teaching the test” phenomenon has more to do with the incompetence of teachers. A competent teacher will never “teach the test,” except perhaps in the few weeks before the actual exam, since it is by far easier to teach the subject at hand.

In fact no students really lose out if the “teaching the test” phenomenon exists. If you think about it, teachers who only “teach the test” likely do not know their subjects very well anyway, so their students have not lost any more than they would have already.[/quote]

Dead on. Teach them to read, teach them math, and they pass.

NCLB has definitely exposed crappy teachers. If you feel like your kid’s teacher is “teaching to the test”, be thankful there is a test. That is a shitty teacher. If they weren’t at least held accountable for teaching your kid MINIMUM skills, your kid (with that teacher) would end up even farther behind than he/she is going to while being “taught the test.”

94

[quote]TKL.ca wrote:
First off, show me ANY teacher in ANY school district making $80,000 and I might consider going back in to the classroom. I am at the top of the grid for years of education and have 7 years experience (pay tops out at 10 years) I made about 64,000 (CDN.) last year and it will rise to a maximum of about 70,000 (which I know is not bad).
[/quote]

Actually if you’re at the top of the pay grid in Ontario you’re making over $80,000 and most principals are making over $100,000. Superintendants and directors are making between $115,000 and $165,000. You need to move man.

95

[quote]tpa wrote:
grew7 wrote:
tpa wrote:
grew7 wrote:
Saying that Mexicans don’t value education may be no more racist than saying Americans don’t.

My point exactly.

He could have been referring to the country of Mexico. I don’t care whether he was incorrect or not. That wasn’t racist.

What?
MEXICANS = a native or inhabitant of Mexico

And when you make a sweeping statement (especially a negative one) about an entire culture that is racist.

No.

You just said yourself, that a Mexican is a native or inhabitant of Mexico. I am not of Mexican heritage, but if I were a permanent resident of Mexico, I would be a Mexican.

His statement would not be racist, because I am not of Mexican heritage. It would still be directed at me because I would be a Mexican citizen, but that does not make it racist.

He could have been referring to Mexican culture, not race. Making a sweeping statement about an entire culture is not racist. Another example is that you can say that Americans are fat without being a racist.

From dictionary.com:
rac‧ism  /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?noun

  1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

  2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

  3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Huh? So if it wasn’t racist, would you agree that his statement was discriminatory or prejudiced or bigatory?

[/quote]

  1. I did not say I was superior to anyone.

  2. I have not adopted a policy fostering a superiority doctrine.

  3. There was no hatred of any kind involved.

You prove my point. I am however prejudice though…in a lot of ways. Who isn’t? I develop my own judgements based on MY experiences.

96

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

  1. I did not say I was superior to anyone.

  2. I have not adopted a policy fostering a superiority doctrine.

  3. There was no hatred of any kind involved.

You prove my point. I am however prejudice though…in a lot of ways. Who isn’t? I develop my own judgements based on MY experiences.[/quote]

He didn’t post that. I did as proof that he was wrong.

97

[quote]grew7 wrote:
Rockscar wrote:

  1. I did not say I was superior to anyone.

  2. I have not adopted a policy fostering a superiority doctrine.

  3. There was no hatred of any kind involved.

You prove my point. I am however prejudice though…in a lot of ways. Who isn’t? I develop my own judgements based on MY experiences.

He didn’t post that. I did as proof that he was wrong.[/quote]

duhhhhh…my bad

98

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

You prove my point. I am however prejudice though…in a lot of ways. Who isn’t? I develop my own judgements based on MY experiences.
[/quote]

I would hope that you are mature and intelligent enough to not make statements or judgements about an ENTIRE CULTURE based on your experiences with a small portion of a demographic. For example if you saw a black man committing a crime, would it be ok for you to say that blacks are criminals?

99

There is going to be an education special on tv tonight (Fri) on 20/20 dealing with some of the issues from this thread.

100

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Ok, I came into this discussion a little late, so I apologize if I’m repeating what many others have said.

For once, I agree with tme, at least in part. The new SAT is far, far too long. I disagree that this has anything to do with “attitude” on the part of the students. I’m usually the first one to jump on my students for being lazy or not putting in the level of effort that they should.

However, it’s pretty miserable to be forced to sit there, hour after hour, grueling over a mentally challenging test that basically determines the next four years of your life.

The test is simply too long.[/quote]

I actaully fell asleep in the middle of the SAT (this was 1986). Barely did well enough to get into a State school (950 total). Got a BA at State U. then went on to get a Masters Degree from a very prestigious University. SAT is not a good indicator of potential or ability.