"Waiting for “Superman” A must see movie - All discussions

Parents Forum
261

<p>

</p>

<p>No; that’s not what it means. The “type of instruction” is “working,” but the “type of instruction” is not geared, in my professional opinion, to the demands of high school, and then college. As I already said, the requirements for 7th/8th grade, in my area, vary vastly from what my classmates and I were expected to produce at the same age: not my fellow GATE classmates, but just mainstream students, universally in my State’s publics: urban, suburban, rural. The “type of instruction” is inappropriate, IOW. This is a content issue, not a methodology (pedagogy) issue. The jr. high curriculum has been dumbed down. How much of that dumbing down reflects low expectations for performance, vs. the realities of achievement (going into 7th), I don’t know; very likely, it is a combination of both. I have seen much more repetition and below-grade-level assignments in junior high than in any other level of public schooling – at least in the last 3 years. Again, that may be “realistic,” but it is not prescriptive. The solution is not to dumb down the curriculum.</p>

<p>In particular, in both language arts & history I do not see the curriculum as being appropriate to grade level. There do not seem to be enough grade-level reading & challenging writing assigments being required in 5th/6th as well, and the math in 5th/6th is leaving students unprepared for pre-algebra & algebra in 7th/8th. Much of the time students are getting F’s in both 7th grade pre-algebra & 8th algebra. (Students who fail in one are generally, unless identified as LD, required to be passed to the next math anyway.)</p>

<p>Interestingly, the science curriculum, from 3rd grade on – but particularly beginning in Grade 5, continues to be quite challenging, in my area. I think this reflects the expected feed into industry. I applaud the challenging content. Unfortunately, though, children who cannot critically read, cannot inference, cannot draw conclusions, cannot distinguish fact from opinion – all of which are reading skills – will not benefit much from a high-level science curriculum when they cannot understand the material, have not been taught root vocabulary, and are lost when it comes to application of scientific principles (appropriate to age). </p>

<p>And when they have not been taught specifically how to determine cause and effect in a passage, and how to predict, it will be difficult for them to understand much of the “why” of history.</p>

262

<p>epiphany: speak on it!! and there are some who would say that this dumbing down is deliberate–in order to have a permanent underclass…</p>

<p>one of the reasons education reform has been so stalled is due to asinine assumptions people make about poor people. to suggest that poor folks–as a group–value education less than any other group of people is wrong. scapegoating has helped (as much as unions, horrifically bad teachers and lazy parenting) create the mess we find ourselves in today. why bother fixing something when it only affects “those people” who don’t value education anyway? look where that thinking has gotten americans: “inappropriate instruction”, regardless of SES.</p>

263

<p>calimami, thanks for your thoughtful response.</p>

<p>It might be easier if we could classify this as a classist/racist thing, but fortunately or unfortunately, it is not. The dumbing down is equally pronounced in mid-level suburban publics (sorry if I didn’t make that clear :)); however, you are correct about the assumption. That is, whether or not the school administrations/districts/departments feel that families “can’t” do it, they surely believe that they won’t meet a challenge. (That they “won’t” write, that they “won’t/can’t” sustain attention for a lengthy passage or assignment; that they will refuse to tackle challenging material, etc.)</p>

<p>This is not conjecture or mere deduction on my part: this is straight from the horses’ mouths: from teachers who tell me, or tell parents of my students, that students “won’t” do thus and so (they assume), so the work is not assigned. This is true both in the reading and in the writing areas.</p>

<p>Too bad I don’t happen to be in those same classrooms at present. They sure as bloody hell would do it if I assigned it, or they would fail my class. If they didn’t have the skills to do it, I would teach those skills, but they would do it.</p>

<p>(I know, meeeeaaannn teacher. :smiley: )</p>

<p>So in other words, these teachers (and they are in the majority in these publics) are cooperating with the anti-intellectual bent of the culture. They are not taking up arms in the culture war, which frankly they should be doing.</p>

264

<p>i understood exactly what u meant–u made yourself very clear! my point is that the general feeling among many (that it IS a class thing) has led to a deep and abiding complacency…which is why we haven’t made any movement (yet) toward real reform. yes–it crosses all races, classes, etc. (which was what i was trying to say in my last sentence…i didn’t make myself clear, lol!). </p>

<p>btw, i’m pretty sure you’re talking about california schools. if not, u certainly might as well be.</p>

265

<p>

</p>

<p>Which is why you don’t “test” 5 year-olds with tests. You are criticizing a straw man; that’s not how evaluation of young children works.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That argument is positively silly. You can determine how a teacher of average skill would do by looking at how all teachers did with all such kids and finding the average or median. But why would you need to do that? The point of evaluating teachers is not to assign them a class rank. The point of evaluating teachers is to be able to identify those with extraordinary skill or extraordinary lack of skill, and to act accordingly. That turns out to be fairly obvious when you look.</p>

266

<p>

</p>

<p>How did you guess? :D</p>

<p>Well, as to your point, I think it may have begun as a class/race perception, but I think it has expanded much more universally. I think this is the height of irresponsibility on the part of teachers who call themselves professionals. If they don’t hold the line on mediocrity, who are they expecting will do so? We teachers are supposed to not just represent literacy, and the full education enabled by literacy, but to advocate it and to be activists in its defense. Physicians understand that advocating for personal responsibility in one’s own individual health maintenance is something that benefits all of society, and the health profession as well. Education is even more dependent on individual effort than full health is, so in effect to tolerate laziness – lack of effort – is indirectly to promote illiteracy, or certainly not to object to it. It’s intolerable to me, and it directly relates to the health of a democracy, which depends on a fully literate & informed electorate to function optimally.</p>

267

<p>

And how do you define “all such kids”? How broadly or narrowly do you cast your net? Do you compare results with all kids in the state? In the county? In the district? In the school? Do you filter your comparison group according to socioeconomic factors, or not?</p>

268

<p>

Well, I invite you into my kindergarten classroom tomorrow, where you will see me administering the required weekly assessment/tests in 3 different subjects, and then (after kids go home) creating the required form documenting each student’s score and the percentage of hispanic kids /African American kids passing at a level 3 or above. Welcome to a school where the tail is wagging the dog; repressive at the least, with outrageous micromanaging that takes ALL control of curriculum, delivery, planning, scheduling, etc. out of our hands. :frowning: Would that I was treated like a professional!</p>

269

<p>epiphany wrote:

</p>

<p>Yes, and did you see in my post 253 that 83% of education professors believe it’s “absolutely essential” to teach 21st Century skills, but just 36% say that teaching math facts is essential.</p>

<p>Around here, this translates into teaching elementary students how to make PowerPoint presentations, but not teaching them math fluency. Apparently, math facts are so “20th century.”</p>

<p>The problem starts in the education colleges.</p>

270

<p>

Not sure I understand the issue with thinking young kids can’t be “tested”. We have standardized test with norms down to toddler age.</p>

271

<p>**We have standardized test with norms down to toddler age. ** But should we?</p>

272

<p>Well, yes of course we should. If you child has a possible developmental disorder and may need diagnosis, intervention, or other treatment services, they need to be evaluated. Are you saying there should be no methods to measure development?</p>

273

<p> <a href=“http://journal.naeyc.org/btj/200401/shillady.pdf[/url]”>http://journal.naeyc.org/btj/200401/shillady.pdf&lt;/a&gt; discusses ECE assessment methodology and describes some specific tools. Only one resembles a test.</p>

274

<p>I distinguish between evaluative testing for purposes of determining whether a child is exhibiting developmental delays etc. (often instigated by observations of a parent, caregiver, teacher or medical professional) and tests within a school setting administered to measure children’s abilities on a given day, or to rate teachers. There are good tests, appropriate for their use, and there are lousy tests, used for the sole purpose of sorting, not evaluating. I don’t believe there is a one-size-fits-all answer for these issues.</p>

275

<p>You implied that there should be no standardized tests for kids down to toddlerhood and I took exception to your statement.</p>

<p>The reality is, there simply has to be a way of measuring outcome. That is what RTI is all about, and like it or not, it is a part of our educational system for kids with identified learning problems.</p>

276

<p>I’m talking about the obsession with testing overall. I recognize that testing is needed for annual evaluations to measure outcomes for students with identified learning issues. I have a D who was classified, with IEPs and then 504 Accomodations. I know and recognize the value of that drill. My issues are with the excessive, poorly designed testing mandates implemented as a result of state and federal regulations that have, in many (though not all) cases, a deleterious effect on quality education. JMO.</p>

277

<p>Standardized testing does some good. It was valuable to our family because our local public schools did not offer any programs for gifted kids; therefore, they never tried to identify them. When the scores came back after second grade, we decided that we should do some investigating on our own.</p>

278

<p>School testing is commonly to evaluate if a child qualifies for services. Within the schools, testing isn’t for diagnostic purposes, but to determine eligibility.</p>

279

<p>Quick change of subject as I am not sure if there is a thead yeat on this upcoming film about the pressure on our kids to perform/excel and the price the kids pay. IT will be released later in October [Race</a> to Nowhere | Changing lives one film at a time](<a href=“http://www.racetonowhere.com/]Race”>http://www.racetonowhere.com/)
[About</a> the Film | Race to Nowhere](<a href=“http://www.racetonowhere.com/about-film]About”>http://www.racetonowhere.com/about-film)</p>

280

<p>Jym, not sure about a separate thread, but check my post 34 and 189 regarding a number of recent films on related themes.</p>

<p>To save you the trouble, here is a new link to a wonderful site:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.edutopia.org/education-reform-documentaries[/url]”>http://www.edutopia.org/education-reform-documentaries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In addition to the trailers presented, check the documentary “The Rubber Room” at <a href=“http://www.rubberroommovie.com/[/url]”>http://www.rubberroommovie.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Star Wars, Darth Vader, and the union leaders? Leave it to George Lucas to make it look pretty!</p>