Public Schools & Teachers WTF

[Polk]

It's not, but it's pretty strong evidence that unions aren't the problem.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's not, but it's pretty strong evidence that unions aren't the problem.

too stupid of course since public schools are a government monopoly as successful as any soviet government monopoly and are defended by unions most forcefully

 

[Polk]

If public schools are so terrible, why do private schools not do any better?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If public schools are so terrible, why do private schools not do any better?

no idea why you say that????????. There are several private schools that feed directly into the Ivy League, catholic schools are better than public for less money, etc etc

 

[Polk]

There are public schools that feed directly into elite universities as well. It has to do with the student populations, not anything special or unique about the school's pedagogy.

 

[Esmeralda]

No. We have to evaluate how well the educational systems are working. When states make up their own tests, they are watered down to show the best possible outcome. We need nationally normed tests.

Standardized testing does not evaluate how well a education system is working. It evaluates how well teachers, schools and school districts can teach students to pass standardized tests.

too stupid!! I suppose its just coincidence that Harvard and MIT students have the highest scores and accomplish the most in the world!!!!!!

This is totally irrelevant. Plus, a great many students at the best American universities are from other countries. Also, I know for a fact that getting into a top university is not based on standardized test scores. SAT is used but is not the only or most important indicator. The whole student is considered: their extra-curricular activities, for example, as well as one to one interviews with the admitting people at the university. Also, the top US high schools, which feed the top US universities, have the IB program and the AP program, both of which are not dependent on standardized testing to evaluate who are the top students. Bottom line, standardized testing has little to do with entering the top universities anywhere.

 

[Esmeralda]

I agree that standardized tests have value in measuring the success of teachers; while the system is not perfect, standardized testing provides the only means of comparing public schools across the board.

The problem, I think, is that teachers are teaching to the test so severely that the only thing that students actually learn is how to take the tests, not the actual knowledge that they tests are supposedly measuring. Thus, the million-dollar question becomes how to remedy this situation while maintaining a means of keeping tabs on the schools' progress.

Teachers are teaching students to pass the tests. That has become the focus. Standardized testing does not show us who are the the best educators: it shows us who is best a teaching students to do well on standardized tests.

The best way to remedy the situation is to look at other countries and what they do that provides educational success. As well, another important factor is the spectrum of social ills in the US that public schools are supposed to deal with. The schools expend about half their attention and energy dealing with the ills of American society rather than on educating the children. The family, the parents, for example: when schools have parent teacher conference open houses, about 10% of the parents attend, and most often those are parents of students who are doing well. That is why private schools do so much better, because parents are more involved in the education of their children, not just being in contact with the school, but making sure their children study, do their homework, attend school regular, and setting high standards of expectation from their children. Ninety percent of all public school parents just send their kids off to school and expect the school to fix everything, to take care of everything, and then they bitch their heads of when it isn't done: like on this thread.

Poor results in the US education system have nothing to do with unions: EU countries have teacher uniions and EU countries have much better success than the US in education. In EU countries, family ties are much stronger and more traditonal than in the US.

 

[squeeze berry]

private schools can do a better job because they can pick and choose students and the public schools can not. Public schools must take everyone including the most recalcitrant of students.

The parents and students in private schools likely will come from a better socio-economic background than average.


Private schools do not have special education services.

Public schools have more paper-work, regulations and accountability to deal with than private schools


Teaching to the test is not as bad as some believe. The tests are comprehensive and prove the student's mastery of the subject.

PS

I wanted to highlight this b/c it's so true

"Ninety percent of all public school parents just send their kids off to school and expect the school to fix everything, to take care of everything, and then they bitch their heads of when it isn't done: like on this thread."

 

[Polk]

Standardized testing does not evaluate how well a education system is working. It evaluates how well teachers, schools and school districts can teach students to pass standardized tests.

too stupid!! I suppose its just coincidence that Harvard and MIT students have the highest scores and accomplish the most in the world!!!!!!

This is totally irrelevant. Plus, a great many students at the best American universities are from other countries. Also, I know for a fact that getting into a top university is not based on standardized test scores. SAT is used but is not the only or most important indicator. The whole student is considered: their extra-curricular activities, for example, as well as one to one interviews with the admitting people at the university. Also, the top US high schools, which feed the top US universities, have the IB program and the AP program, both of which are not dependent on standardized testing to evaluate who are the top students. Bottom line, standardized testing has little to do with entering the top universities anywhere.

Both the AP and IB programs certainly have a standardized testing that's important, but you're right in that much of the initial selection for these programs are generally teachers who see a student as having additional potential.

 

[psu_student]

Teaching to the test is not as bad as some believe. The tests are comprehensive and prove the student's mastery of the subject.


I agree with this statement in some cases. AP and IB tests that are testing the knowledge of a certain subject are very effective. Final IB grades are based on oral and written exams, timed writings, formal essays, and creative projects. As a result, students are required to showcase a variety of skills beyond the rote memorization of facts.

The problem with teaching to the test, in my opinion, really arises in the standardized state assessment tests that influence the state funding that public schools receive. Rather than focusing on teaching important skills such as critical thinking, teachers are forced to place more emphasis on teaching techniques of multiple choice test-taking.

 

[Ernie S.]

Discipline--Homeschool teachers do have control over their students, not unlike the discipline teachers had that has now been taken away.

Unlike many public school students, homeschool students have parents that care..

So what you're saying is that some people shouldn't have kids?

 

[IanC]

private schools can do a better job because they can pick and choose students and the public schools can not. Public schools must take everyone including the most recalcitrant of students.

The parents and students in private schools likely will come from a better socio-economic background than average.


Private schools do not have special education services.

Public schools have more paper-work, regulations and accountability to deal with than private schools


Teaching to the test is not as bad as some believe. The tests are comprehensive and prove the student's mastery of the subject.

PS

I wanted to highlight this b/c it's so true

"Ninety percent of all public school parents just send their kids off to school and expect the school to fix everything, to take care of everything, and then they bitch their heads of when it isn't done: like on this thread."

people value what they pay for. private schools get better results because they get better parents not because they get better kids.

 

[IanC]

Discipline--Homeschool teachers do have control over their students, not unlike the discipline teachers had that has now been taken away.

Unlike many public school students, homeschool students have parents that care..

So what you're saying is that some people shouldn't have kids?

I'm a good parent, and taught them many things, but I don't think I would have liked to homeschool them. kids need an opportunity to interact with other kids and adults. homeschooling is not only not for everybody but it is only for a very few.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Discipline--Homeschool teachers do have control over their students, not unlike the discipline teachers had that has now been taken away.

Unlike many public school students, homeschool students have parents that care..

So what you're saying is that some people shouldn't have kids?

I'm a good parent, and taught them many things, but I don't think I would have liked to homeschool them. kids need an opportunity to interact with other kids and adults. homeschooling is not only not for everybody but it is only for a very few.

dear, almost anything is better than liberal public schools which turn out the dumbest kids in the civilized world, and that does even mention the compromised liberal values they have.

 

[Esmeralda]

I agree with this statement in some cases. AP and IB tests that are testing the knowledge of a certain subject are very effective. Final IB grades are based on oral and written exams, timed writings, formal essays, and creative projects. As a result, students are required to showcase a variety of skills beyond the rote memorization of facts.

The problem with teaching to the test, in my opinion, really arises in the standardized state assessment tests that influence the state funding that public schools receive. Rather than focusing on teaching important skills such as critical thinking, teachers are forced to place more emphasis on teaching techniques of multiple choice test-taking.

"Teaching to the test is not as bad as some believe. The tests are comprehensive and prove the student's mastery of the subject."

I disagree. They teach the student to do well on the starndardized test. To memorize information, to perform certain formulas or processes. They students don't 'master' the the subject, not by any means. They memorize certain things, most of which are soon lost because they were stored in short term memory. Education is not about passing tests or memorizing facts; it is about learning how to think, learning how to learn, acquiring the skills to acquire knowledge as a life long learner, about enjoying learning, about developing critical thinking skills, about being an inquirer, and many other things that have nothing to do with memorizing and regurgitating information.

 

[squeeze berry]

I agree with this statement in some cases. AP and IB tests that are testing the knowledge of a certain subject are very effective. Final IB grades are based on oral and written exams, timed writings, formal essays, and creative projects. As a result, students are required to showcase a variety of skills beyond the rote memorization of facts.

The problem with teaching to the test, in my opinion, really arises in the standardized state assessment tests that influence the state funding that public schools receive. Rather than focusing on teaching important skills such as critical thinking, teachers are forced to place more emphasis on teaching techniques of multiple choice test-taking.

"Teaching to the test is not as bad as some believe. The tests are comprehensive and prove the student's mastery of the subject."

I disagree. They teach the student to do well on the starndardized test. To memorize information, to perform certain formulas or processes. They students don't 'master' the the subject, not by any means. They memorize certain things, most of which are soon lost because they were stored in short term memory. Education is not about passing tests or memorizing facts; it is about learning how to think, learning how to learn, acquiring the skills to acquire knowledge as a life long learner, about enjoying learning, about developing critical thinking skills, about being an inquirer, and many other things that have nothing to do with memorizing and regurgitating information.

not all the tests are multiple choice. Not the writing exams.

The math multiple choice requires calculation.

Teaching to the test and teaching critical thinking skills are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Annika55]

EdwardBaiamonte posted:
"dear, almost anything is better than liberal public schools which turn out the dumbest kids in the civilized world, and that does even mention the compromised liberal values they have."
The problem with comparing US schools test results to those of other countries is that the US has two totally different sets of results. There is an enormous gap (the highest of all countries) between US top performers and our bottom performers. As one might expect, when we see a mean, the result is just "average."

The Answer Sheet - Do international test comparisons make sense?

"....Many critics cite the performance of American students on international comparisons of mathematics and science. The most often used comparison comes from rankings on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Most recently (2006), American students ranked 24th of 30 OECD nations in mathematics and 17th of 30 in science. Errors in the test booklets prevented the reporting scores for American students in reading.

It should be noted that these rankings are determined by nations’ average scores. Some researchers have suggested, however, that average score comparisons are not useful: even presuming that the tests have some meaning for future accomplishment, average students are not likely to be the leaders in fields of mathematics and science.

Those roles are more likely to fall to those scoring well. A publication from OECD itself observes that if one examines the number of highest-scoring students in science, the United States has 25% of all high-scoring students in the world (at least in “the world” as defined by the 58 nations taking part in the assessment—the 30 OECD nations and 28 “partner” countries). Among nations with high average scores, Japan accounted for 13% of the highest scorers, Korea 5%, Taipei 3%, Finland 1%, and Hong Kong 1%. Singapore did not participate.

The picture emerging from this highest-scorer comparison is far different than that suggested by the frequently cited national average comparisons; it is a picture that suggests many American schools are actually doing very well indeed.

Of course, the U.S. is much larger than these other countries and should be expected to produce larger numbers of successful students. But it is only when we look beyond the mean and consider the distribution of students and schools that we see the true picture. Students attending American schools run the gamut from excellent to poor. Well-resourced schools serving wealthy neighborhoods are showing excellent results. Poorly resourced schools serving low-income communities of color do far worse."

 

[Annika55]

I said it before and I'll say it again; if I were ever to have kids I would home school them rather than subject them to the utter failure that is public schooling.

The reality is that we have a 2 tier education system in the US with an enormous achivement gap between the two tiers. Students in relatively wealthy districts compete with the top students in the world.

Students in poor, urban schools populated by minority students do abysmally.

When we talk about US school results, unfortunately, we usually talk about the average results of these two groups.

The Answer Sheet - Do international test comparisons make sense?

 

[Annika55]

I said it before and I'll say it again; if I were ever to have kids I would home school them rather than subject them to the utter failure that is public schooling.

There's no fucking way I would pay the state to babysit everyone elses kid while I sweat it out at home with mine.

Plus, I have a job.

Yeah but the stats are striking
Statistic
s on Public School Vs. Homeschool

Two major studies have assessed academic achievement in homeschooling. The first study,Strengths of Their Own: Homeschoolers Across America was conducted in 1997 and followed more than 5,000 homeschoolers from over 1,600 families. The study showed homeschoolers typically academically outperformed children receiving a public education on standardized tests by approximately 30 to 35 percentile points in all subject areas.

In the second, the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA)
commissioned a study drawing data for the 2007-2008 school year from multiple standardized testing services. Once again, the national average
percentile scores were higher in all subject areas by at least 34 percentile points, and as high as 39 percentile points. Factors such as parental college degrees, how much parents spent on education, level of state regulation, and sex of the students made little difference in the range of scores in all areas among the homeschooled children.

Stats do show that students with parents who strongly value education and receive indivdual attention based on demonstrated needs will do very well. Students who are well-fed, have self-esteem and feel loved, and are not distracted by misbehaving students are likely to do very well. Students who are not deprived of teacher attention while teacher interacts with the neediest or
rowdiest learners, and students who are sitting next to other motivated, productive peers are likely to be high achievers. Wish we could transfer the
reasons why homeschooled kids do so well to the public school classroom.

 

[Annika55]

The only way I can see out of this is more competition from charter and private schools. That, and reduce the power of public school teacher unions. It's ridiculous, they care more about the paychecks and benefits than they do about the kids.

True.

The only reason they go into teaching is to become rich and drive $100,000 sports cars.

Nope. Those who cannot do, teach. Those who cannot teach, teach PhysEd.

That's an absurd generalization. People go into teaching for a variety of reasons, but the common denominator is a desire to help kids.
I graduated Summa Cum Laude with High Honors in English. I taught for 30 years because I loved literature and wanted to inspire students to share my passion for language, writing, and critical analysis.
My daughter entered college with sophomore credits due to her AP classes. She graduated college Summa Cum Laude with a math major and bio minor. She took the same classes as engineers and scientists and did superbly. I was so proud when she became a HS math teacher. Believe me, teaching is a demanding, exhausting profession. You are simply wrong when you ridicule all teachers.