THAT SINKING FEELING.....
MY OPINIONSOkay time for a quick rant. Does anybody else get the feeling that this election is NOT bringing changes? Look past all the hype and phony promises....whadya' see?
I see the status quo, waiting (stage left), with smiles and giggles about what is really going on. What is going on? Nothing of substance, that's what. The corporate interests are still going to own Washington. The emerging front runners represent the status quo at it's worst. I'm sure they are fine people, but they are not offering what people want. What do they want? REAL DEMOCRACY.
RANT / OFF
YOUR TURN!
Dave Shuck said:
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" - Winston Churchill
Real change will not occur with a particular candidate, but rather change in the system. Unfortunately anytime there is a candidate who truly represents change, they are usually slightly off the deep end and wind up filling a role as a comedic relief when contrasted with the mainstream candidates.
Real change will not occur with a particular candidate, but rather change in the system. Unfortunately anytime there is a candidate who truly represents change, they are usually slightly off the deep end and wind up filling a role as a comedic relief when contrasted with the mainstream candidates.
gster said:
If you want to change the "status quo", the place to start is Congress, as in recycle the lot and start again with term limits. Nothing else will achieve any meaningful change in the "business as usual" cycle they/we are stuck in. IMHO.
Come to think of it, you get the chickens and I'll get the tires and we'll make a party of it!
Come to think of it, you get the chickens and I'll get the tires and we'll make a party of it!
lindainks55 said:
As Dave and Gary said, no. Much more would be required before real change could happen. I think it has to start with the people and I don't mean the few who already accept the right / responsibility of voting.
I had a new-to-me experience last evening. The phone rang 6:15ish and Senator Robert's recorded voice invited me to participate in a town-hall meeting via phone. Very polite, said I only needed to hang up if I didn't want to and punch whatever number to tell them never to call me again... I hung around to see what this was. I entered this "meeting" while the Senator (now live) was answering a question about the caller's perceived inadequate cost of living raise in social security. Soon I caught on that there were Kansans from all over the state on the line and if you had a question to ask you would be put in line by pressing zero.
The questions ranged from the woman who said SRS had kidnapped her children, the 80 year old who along with her husband spent 45% of their monthly income on medicine, two calls from families of reservists serving our country in Iraq... I actually had pressed zero and gotten in line to ask his position of reauthorizing NCLB, but hung up before it was my turn. I spent about 45 minutes listening and my dinner was getting cold.
The Senator would say something like, "Next question comes from the Smith household in Hutchinson." Then the caller would ask their question and he would state his position, direct them to call his Wichita office with that personal need / concern...
To the two questions with regard to the war (both callers against the war BTW) he said something along the lines of he wanted to bring our soldiers back as soon as possible but it had to be a time when we knew they wouldn't need to return. Often the questions were so specific to that person he answered politely and with enough words to assure them he would like to help but it would be better handled privately.
One man from Wichita stated he was a Roberts supporter, thanked him profusely, offered his continuing support but then asked if the Reupblicans in Congress were aware that soon control of both houses and the presidency would be in the hands of the Democrats. Went on to ask if it wasn't possible to reign in spending and other suggestions that might help. The man sounded to me like the kind who planned to vote for whoever had an "R" beside their name but was worried. That one was humorous to me.
You know I write, I call, I email often. I receive the newsletters and the form letter and email responses but this is the first time I've had this experience. Roberts didn't really say anything but his words were always kind, reassuring and left everyone with the knowledge that he cares about all Kansans and their concerns. It was neat PR session!
I had a new-to-me experience last evening. The phone rang 6:15ish and Senator Robert's recorded voice invited me to participate in a town-hall meeting via phone. Very polite, said I only needed to hang up if I didn't want to and punch whatever number to tell them never to call me again... I hung around to see what this was. I entered this "meeting" while the Senator (now live) was answering a question about the caller's perceived inadequate cost of living raise in social security. Soon I caught on that there were Kansans from all over the state on the line and if you had a question to ask you would be put in line by pressing zero.
The questions ranged from the woman who said SRS had kidnapped her children, the 80 year old who along with her husband spent 45% of their monthly income on medicine, two calls from families of reservists serving our country in Iraq... I actually had pressed zero and gotten in line to ask his position of reauthorizing NCLB, but hung up before it was my turn. I spent about 45 minutes listening and my dinner was getting cold.
The Senator would say something like, "Next question comes from the Smith household in Hutchinson." Then the caller would ask their question and he would state his position, direct them to call his Wichita office with that personal need / concern...
To the two questions with regard to the war (both callers against the war BTW) he said something along the lines of he wanted to bring our soldiers back as soon as possible but it had to be a time when we knew they wouldn't need to return. Often the questions were so specific to that person he answered politely and with enough words to assure them he would like to help but it would be better handled privately.
One man from Wichita stated he was a Roberts supporter, thanked him profusely, offered his continuing support but then asked if the Reupblicans in Congress were aware that soon control of both houses and the presidency would be in the hands of the Democrats. Went on to ask if it wasn't possible to reign in spending and other suggestions that might help. The man sounded to me like the kind who planned to vote for whoever had an "R" beside their name but was worried. That one was humorous to me.
You know I write, I call, I email often. I receive the newsletters and the form letter and email responses but this is the first time I've had this experience. Roberts didn't really say anything but his words were always kind, reassuring and left everyone with the knowledge that he cares about all Kansans and their concerns. It was neat PR session!
Wendy said:
The entire system is corrupted, IMHO. There will never be effective change, because there is noone NEW in the system, and the few new people who ARE there do not have enough experience or clout to effect a REAL difference.
I admit to being torn. I like Obama. I recognize that he is unlikely to win the nomination, much less the election, due to the fact that he is young, inexperienced and black. That last fact bothers me the most. In this country, the color of your skin isn't supposed to matter. But it does, which is, I think, a sad reflection on our society. I think Obama has some great ideas. Unfortunately, I think his presidential run would have been a better bet in 4 or 8 years, when he has more political experience under his belt. But we need someone REALLY motivated to change in order to right this country. And it is going to take more than one person. I had hopes that when control of congress switched hands, maybe we would see some change, but instead we are stuck here with status quo. And I think part of the reason their approval rating is so low is that Bush has essentially tied their hands on the topics that America really cares about, to the point that they HAVE to go with what he wants, because the alternative would be even more disastrous... it's a sad commentary on our society as a whole... but you know what they say about the road to hell...
I admit to being torn. I like Obama. I recognize that he is unlikely to win the nomination, much less the election, due to the fact that he is young, inexperienced and black. That last fact bothers me the most. In this country, the color of your skin isn't supposed to matter. But it does, which is, I think, a sad reflection on our society. I think Obama has some great ideas. Unfortunately, I think his presidential run would have been a better bet in 4 or 8 years, when he has more political experience under his belt. But we need someone REALLY motivated to change in order to right this country. And it is going to take more than one person. I had hopes that when control of congress switched hands, maybe we would see some change, but instead we are stuck here with status quo. And I think part of the reason their approval rating is so low is that Bush has essentially tied their hands on the topics that America really cares about, to the point that they HAVE to go with what he wants, because the alternative would be even more disastrous... it's a sad commentary on our society as a whole... but you know what they say about the road to hell...
Danny said:
While I won't say who I like entirely yet, still a little bit early for me...
I agree with a couple things said above:
1. Need term limits in congress, but I don't see that happening any time in the near future.
2. No one candidate in and of themselves is going to cause much change.
I agree with a couple things said above:
1. Need term limits in congress, but I don't see that happening any time in the near future.
2. No one candidate in and of themselves is going to cause much change.
lindainks55 said:
You, my friends who put up with me, know how I feel about NCLB. I heard bush recently encouraging Congress to send him the reauthorization for this act AND (with his face screwed up, his eyebrow lifted) snarled that if they sent it with the accountability portions reduced or altered he would veto it!
How many times since the elections last fall has he made this veto threat! All too often. He begins the threat before the bill ever reaches him. He is not just stubborn, he is obstinate. And the Republicans walk lock step with him without question and 60 votes are necessary in the Senate to pass ANYTHING! I'm telling you, they are all incomeptents!
My hope is NCLB isn't reauthorized. The only part of the law I like is the noble sounding name. But just maybe if they do send it to him with major changes and he does veto it as promised, just maybe this will be the time his veto can be overridden. I doubt it. But ever the pollyanna...
How many times since the elections last fall has he made this veto threat! All too often. He begins the threat before the bill ever reaches him. He is not just stubborn, he is obstinate. And the Republicans walk lock step with him without question and 60 votes are necessary in the Senate to pass ANYTHING! I'm telling you, they are all incomeptents!
My hope is NCLB isn't reauthorized. The only part of the law I like is the noble sounding name. But just maybe if they do send it to him with major changes and he does veto it as promised, just maybe this will be the time his veto can be overridden. I doubt it. But ever the pollyanna...
Vaughn Tolle said:
Danny,
I agree with you on the two things listed. While the idealist in me thinks that there is no need for term limits for congress, given the election cycle, the realist notes ruefully that the power of the incumbency has risen to the point that seeking a constitutional amendment for term limits for congress is likely the only way to destroy the current system. Another change, as long as we are talking about the same, would be a one, six year term for President, so the incumbent isn't spending the bulk of the first term planning for the next election.
Change will happen if and only if the power of the money can be diffused from the concentration it currently presents to being spread among the electorate. While term limits might be helpful in a small way to break up the power of the major contributors in certain election cycles, there would still be much influence for the elections which incumbents might stand after their initial election.
We, the People, could effect change by our being more consistent in our voting, that is, by voting each and every election, regardless of how "minor" or "major" it is. I don't see that happening as the system currently exists.
Finally, Tracy, the Constitution created a Republic, not a Democracy. I don't really favor a pure Democracy; there are many reasons for this, among these is the feeling that money (and the power accruing therefrom) would become even a bigger factor in elections. As a country, the U.S. has become more "democratic" following the ratification of the Constitution, to be true to what has happened. However, de Tocqville's observation of the "tyranny of the majority" becomes more true if there is a pure Democracy. Yes, our Bill of Rights, e.g., affords protection to the rights of the political minority, but as we know, in a purely democratic state where 50.1% of the voters can force their will upon the people, which could include amending the constitution to eliminate some or all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. Further, in a pure democracy, there would be little need for a representative body such as the congress, which, in fact, is antithetical to the concept of a democracy. So, we are "stuck" with the democratic Republic our founders created, with all its warts. Can it be improved? Sure it can; but improvement in the system depends on the involvement of all who wish it improved, which right now seems unlikely.
I agree with you on the two things listed. While the idealist in me thinks that there is no need for term limits for congress, given the election cycle, the realist notes ruefully that the power of the incumbency has risen to the point that seeking a constitutional amendment for term limits for congress is likely the only way to destroy the current system. Another change, as long as we are talking about the same, would be a one, six year term for President, so the incumbent isn't spending the bulk of the first term planning for the next election.
Change will happen if and only if the power of the money can be diffused from the concentration it currently presents to being spread among the electorate. While term limits might be helpful in a small way to break up the power of the major contributors in certain election cycles, there would still be much influence for the elections which incumbents might stand after their initial election.
We, the People, could effect change by our being more consistent in our voting, that is, by voting each and every election, regardless of how "minor" or "major" it is. I don't see that happening as the system currently exists.
Finally, Tracy, the Constitution created a Republic, not a Democracy. I don't really favor a pure Democracy; there are many reasons for this, among these is the feeling that money (and the power accruing therefrom) would become even a bigger factor in elections. As a country, the U.S. has become more "democratic" following the ratification of the Constitution, to be true to what has happened. However, de Tocqville's observation of the "tyranny of the majority" becomes more true if there is a pure Democracy. Yes, our Bill of Rights, e.g., affords protection to the rights of the political minority, but as we know, in a purely democratic state where 50.1% of the voters can force their will upon the people, which could include amending the constitution to eliminate some or all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. Further, in a pure democracy, there would be little need for a representative body such as the congress, which, in fact, is antithetical to the concept of a democracy. So, we are "stuck" with the democratic Republic our founders created, with all its warts. Can it be improved? Sure it can; but improvement in the system depends on the involvement of all who wish it improved, which right now seems unlikely.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Aye, Linda; the issue there (NCLB) is that there is the feeling that accountability is needed (with which I agree, BTW) in public education. The real issue to me is that how does one measure accountability? The political types have chosen the "easy way out" with a reliance on standardized testing, a seemingly simple answer to a complex question.
How, then, to provide accountability with meaning? Not how it is done now, to be sure. With all due respect to teachers, most of whom I hold in high regard, accountability doesn't stop with their grading and their assessments. There are too many factors that influence those things that remove, IMHO, any possible accountability to us, the folks paying the bill, for the success or lack thereof.
I know what I'm about to type will not be a popular position, but "damn the torpedoes" and all that. There must be a national standard; no state standards at all. I say this recognizing the fact that traditionally, education is the business of the states, a concept that makes sense if there is little to no population mobility, that is, most everyone grows up, works and dies within the state in which they are born. Given the intrastate movement of the population, the international nature of business, etc., local standards fail to make any sense to me any more. Thus, I feel the need for national standards, with the assessment process to ascertain achievement of the same to be created on the national level. Another part of this is placing some accountability on the individual student, not just the faculty and administration of the several schools in the several states. Bluntly, no one obtains a high school diploma without showing s/he has met the expectations of the standards. No one is allowed to take the GED until his/her class has graduated from high school.
There must be a way to adequately compensate good teachers, and frankly use "punishment" against poor teachers. Tenure, as such, should not be a protection for those who cannot do the job. I also think that if, e.g., high school math or science teachers are in short supply, there should be compensation differential to attract new folks to the areas of shortage, even if the American History teacher is paid less.
There is, within me, a feeling that true education should really have few, but lofty, goals. One: to allow each student to maximize his/her academic potential. Two: to provide each student with the basic knowledge to be able to successfully continue to learn after school is completed, at whatever level, as "things" change, and to apply the knowledge learned to new situations. Three: to promote excellence at each level, and a high degree of achievement. Four: to provide the basic skills needed to allow those who are successful within their chosen fields to communicate in a meaningful way with others their achievements, so the same may be understood and applied by the others.
The devil is in the details, to be sure. I don't have any "master plan", but I've many ideas on how to approach these goals. Most of these aren't too popular with most folks with whom I've shared them. One idea: we need to "ability group" the students, in the various areas. A student may be outstanding in the area of the Humanities, e.g., and not be a good Math student. Fine, let the student take accelerated courses within the Humanities, while being placed with others of similar Math abilities to "learn" the essentials. If this means a ten year old is taking High School English courses, and only "fourth grade arithmetic", so be it.
Better close this rant for now.
How, then, to provide accountability with meaning? Not how it is done now, to be sure. With all due respect to teachers, most of whom I hold in high regard, accountability doesn't stop with their grading and their assessments. There are too many factors that influence those things that remove, IMHO, any possible accountability to us, the folks paying the bill, for the success or lack thereof.
I know what I'm about to type will not be a popular position, but "damn the torpedoes" and all that. There must be a national standard; no state standards at all. I say this recognizing the fact that traditionally, education is the business of the states, a concept that makes sense if there is little to no population mobility, that is, most everyone grows up, works and dies within the state in which they are born. Given the intrastate movement of the population, the international nature of business, etc., local standards fail to make any sense to me any more. Thus, I feel the need for national standards, with the assessment process to ascertain achievement of the same to be created on the national level. Another part of this is placing some accountability on the individual student, not just the faculty and administration of the several schools in the several states. Bluntly, no one obtains a high school diploma without showing s/he has met the expectations of the standards. No one is allowed to take the GED until his/her class has graduated from high school.
There must be a way to adequately compensate good teachers, and frankly use "punishment" against poor teachers. Tenure, as such, should not be a protection for those who cannot do the job. I also think that if, e.g., high school math or science teachers are in short supply, there should be compensation differential to attract new folks to the areas of shortage, even if the American History teacher is paid less.
There is, within me, a feeling that true education should really have few, but lofty, goals. One: to allow each student to maximize his/her academic potential. Two: to provide each student with the basic knowledge to be able to successfully continue to learn after school is completed, at whatever level, as "things" change, and to apply the knowledge learned to new situations. Three: to promote excellence at each level, and a high degree of achievement. Four: to provide the basic skills needed to allow those who are successful within their chosen fields to communicate in a meaningful way with others their achievements, so the same may be understood and applied by the others.
The devil is in the details, to be sure. I don't have any "master plan", but I've many ideas on how to approach these goals. Most of these aren't too popular with most folks with whom I've shared them. One idea: we need to "ability group" the students, in the various areas. A student may be outstanding in the area of the Humanities, e.g., and not be a good Math student. Fine, let the student take accelerated courses within the Humanities, while being placed with others of similar Math abilities to "learn" the essentials. If this means a ten year old is taking High School English courses, and only "fourth grade arithmetic", so be it.
Better close this rant for now.
Wendy said:
Vaughn,
Much of what you said makes sense, at least in my opinion.
I think a big portion of the problem with NCLB IS the accountability portion. I see SO MANY things wrong with the way it is handled. One, it has been PROVEN that standardized tests tend to be (albeit typically unintentionally)biased to one gender and culture - most typically white males. That in and of itself sets many schools up for failure. Two, Standardized testing once per year is feasible. It is my understanding that currently they are tested more frequently than that? Is that correct? If so, it defeats the purpose. There is only enough time allowed for teachers to teach what is on those tests. That accomplishes NOTHING as far as educating our children - all of life does not come in the form of a standardized test to which you have someone teaching you all the answers. There are many OTHER skills they need to learn, like reasoning and rationlization, that testing in this manner cannot teach, and there is not enough time left over for the teacher to teach it.
I have no problem with the idea of paying someone for the job they do. Isn't that how the real world operates anyways? And none of the teachers should know how much the other ones make anyways - the same as in any corporate world.
I completely agree that it should be national standards rather than state standards. Look at the evolution issue here in KS as an example. Had that nonsense actually managed to hold place in our schools, ALL of our students would have be woefully unprepared for college level science, whether at a state school, or an out-of-state school. And you are right, most people DON'T stay in the state they grew up in... so if they are leaving this state to go somewhere else, then don't they need to have the same types of education that the state they are going to has? How else will they be successful?
Much of what you said makes sense, at least in my opinion.
I think a big portion of the problem with NCLB IS the accountability portion. I see SO MANY things wrong with the way it is handled. One, it has been PROVEN that standardized tests tend to be (albeit typically unintentionally)biased to one gender and culture - most typically white males. That in and of itself sets many schools up for failure. Two, Standardized testing once per year is feasible. It is my understanding that currently they are tested more frequently than that? Is that correct? If so, it defeats the purpose. There is only enough time allowed for teachers to teach what is on those tests. That accomplishes NOTHING as far as educating our children - all of life does not come in the form of a standardized test to which you have someone teaching you all the answers. There are many OTHER skills they need to learn, like reasoning and rationlization, that testing in this manner cannot teach, and there is not enough time left over for the teacher to teach it.
I have no problem with the idea of paying someone for the job they do. Isn't that how the real world operates anyways? And none of the teachers should know how much the other ones make anyways - the same as in any corporate world.
I completely agree that it should be national standards rather than state standards. Look at the evolution issue here in KS as an example. Had that nonsense actually managed to hold place in our schools, ALL of our students would have be woefully unprepared for college level science, whether at a state school, or an out-of-state school. And you are right, most people DON'T stay in the state they grew up in... so if they are leaving this state to go somewhere else, then don't they need to have the same types of education that the state they are going to has? How else will they be successful?
lindainks55 said:
I love to communicate with people of good minds. ;-)
No, it isn't because I agree (although I do), it's because you've thought it out, reasoned and have good thoughts!
Why haven't they asked for our solutions to the world's problems!? lol
No, it isn't because I agree (although I do), it's because you've thought it out, reasoned and have good thoughts!
Why haven't they asked for our solutions to the world's problems!? lol
lindainks55 said:
Since the subject of the thread started out to be change I'll tell you I DON'T DO CHANGE WELL! lol
Seems yesterday's electrical problems fried my monitor. I'll wait until my grandson has time to have a look at it to declare it deceased but it doesn't work. So, I'm on Wayne's 'puter or that little laptop -- both CHANGES to what I prefer. And, I'm kinda grumpy about the whole thing.
Seems yesterday's electrical problems fried my monitor. I'll wait until my grandson has time to have a look at it to declare it deceased but it doesn't work. So, I'm on Wayne's 'puter or that little laptop -- both CHANGES to what I prefer. And, I'm kinda grumpy about the whole thing.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linda, the only thing that doesn't change is change. :-) I find that I don't do change as well as I used to, but that, I'm sure, is a personal problem of mine.
Wendy, as to the assessment schedules, there is something for everyone. Staying with Middle School and High School state assessments, these are administered annually; however, not at the same time, and not to all levels. To this, one may add the "nationally normed" assessments given at certain times in certain schools. Then, of course, there are the college admission tests (ACT/SAT) administered outside normal school times, Saturdays. So, in a nutshell, the NCLB assessments (the State assessments) are administered once a year, but not necessarily at the same time; the "nationally normed" assessments (MAT-7, ITBS, SAT (Stanford Achievement Tests) as examples) are administered once a year. 259 began a program this academic year to have all Sophomores sit for the PSAT (the "assessment" that is used to determine National Merit Scholars when taken as a Junior), which is being utilized in a diagnostic manner; this occurred in October. Thus, if one is a student at the level where State Assessments are mandated, it is conceivable that such a student will be administered three assessments during the academic year (at a minimum).
Wendy, as to the assessment schedules, there is something for everyone. Staying with Middle School and High School state assessments, these are administered annually; however, not at the same time, and not to all levels. To this, one may add the "nationally normed" assessments given at certain times in certain schools. Then, of course, there are the college admission tests (ACT/SAT) administered outside normal school times, Saturdays. So, in a nutshell, the NCLB assessments (the State assessments) are administered once a year, but not necessarily at the same time; the "nationally normed" assessments (MAT-7, ITBS, SAT (Stanford Achievement Tests) as examples) are administered once a year. 259 began a program this academic year to have all Sophomores sit for the PSAT (the "assessment" that is used to determine National Merit Scholars when taken as a Junior), which is being utilized in a diagnostic manner; this occurred in October. Thus, if one is a student at the level where State Assessments are mandated, it is conceivable that such a student will be administered three assessments during the academic year (at a minimum).
lindainks55 said:
My daughter and I were talking yesterday about a friend of hers who teaches up in the northeast part of our state. This woman is one Tonya admires and they've had several discussions about NCLB. Most teachers aren't fans and in fact, if you can get them alone in a trusted situation, they will unload worse than I do about the negatives, the damage overall, the fact that bringing everybody to the middle makes NO sense. Anyway, this lady uses the old saying, "You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," to make her own point about teaching. She says, "You must salt the hay!" Of course, then the horse will want to drink. She goes on to explain how little time is left to find what salts the hay for each of her students since NCLB entered their lives.
And, that finding what will interest each student is only one of the things we lose. Nothing will ever replace the value of loving to learn. LEARN vs teaching to the test, memorizing the answers. This means you know how to think. The child who enjoys learning will become the adult who wants to find the solution, is less likely to give up when challenged, who is a happier individual, is able to use resources, can communicate the problem in the quest for the solution... That's what we need to be teaching each child!
And, that finding what will interest each student is only one of the things we lose. Nothing will ever replace the value of loving to learn. LEARN vs teaching to the test, memorizing the answers. This means you know how to think. The child who enjoys learning will become the adult who wants to find the solution, is less likely to give up when challenged, who is a happier individual, is able to use resources, can communicate the problem in the quest for the solution... That's what we need to be teaching each child!
Vaughn Tolle said:
Yes, Linda, that is what we need to be teaching each child.
Regarding memorizing the answers as opposed to teaching that which is presumably to be assessed, e.g., the standards, I believe that is what bit USD 259 in the butt on last year's state assessment in reading (high school level). There was a question (likely more than one, but one that I've been shown) that instead of a define and provide examples of the topics being assessed in prior years, it asked about two other heretofore uninvestigated areas. Now, the standards clearly identify five (IIRC), but the two which had been asked in the past were concentrated upon to the exclusion of the other three. Now, if teaching time had been spent really "teaching to the test", that is, to the standards to be assessed rather than what had been asked on prior assessments, there would have been less heartburn, IMHO, and the students assessed would likely have done well; but, again IMHO, too much time was spent in preparation for the same question, and the 259 students were caught flat footed, by and large. Sorry, I don't recall the exact question, but it had to do with forms of writing, which shouldn't have resulted in any difficulty to students who had been taught the five different forms; but, of course, as 259 had concentrated only on the two previously assessed, many if not most of the students had no idea about those that were asked on the 2007 state assessment.
Regarding memorizing the answers as opposed to teaching that which is presumably to be assessed, e.g., the standards, I believe that is what bit USD 259 in the butt on last year's state assessment in reading (high school level). There was a question (likely more than one, but one that I've been shown) that instead of a define and provide examples of the topics being assessed in prior years, it asked about two other heretofore uninvestigated areas. Now, the standards clearly identify five (IIRC), but the two which had been asked in the past were concentrated upon to the exclusion of the other three. Now, if teaching time had been spent really "teaching to the test", that is, to the standards to be assessed rather than what had been asked on prior assessments, there would have been less heartburn, IMHO, and the students assessed would likely have done well; but, again IMHO, too much time was spent in preparation for the same question, and the 259 students were caught flat footed, by and large. Sorry, I don't recall the exact question, but it had to do with forms of writing, which shouldn't have resulted in any difficulty to students who had been taught the five different forms; but, of course, as 259 had concentrated only on the two previously assessed, many if not most of the students had no idea about those that were asked on the 2007 state assessment.
Danny said:
Education is an interesting proposition and one of the more difficult things to assess. I think standardized tests should occur, at most twice a year but better one time a year. This provides a way for teachers to get to understand the unique ways in which different students learn.
Secondly, the standardized test should state areas it is going to cover broadly but not provide specifics. An example of this would be, freshman year science is going to cover basic concepts of biology, chemistry, and physics(probably what should have been covered in some freshman year science courses and explained topically in 6th-8th grades).
But in doing that, the downside the becomes: exceptionally bright students are now forced to take this "lower level" course when they may have otherwise taken biology, chemistry, or physics as a standalone course their freshman year, so that in some cases they could get a back to back science classes out of the way in high school and not worry about having to take their back to back science credit in college.
A possible upside, all students would be exposed to roughly the same material. Exceptions to that would be elective coursework. I don't know if that is necessarily a bad thing though. Understand this is my simplistic take on the matter, I'm not an educator but I take the matter of education seriously as at some point in the near enough future I'll have two daughters headed that route.
Secondly, the standardized test should state areas it is going to cover broadly but not provide specifics. An example of this would be, freshman year science is going to cover basic concepts of biology, chemistry, and physics(probably what should have been covered in some freshman year science courses and explained topically in 6th-8th grades).
But in doing that, the downside the becomes: exceptionally bright students are now forced to take this "lower level" course when they may have otherwise taken biology, chemistry, or physics as a standalone course their freshman year, so that in some cases they could get a back to back science classes out of the way in high school and not worry about having to take their back to back science credit in college.
A possible upside, all students would be exposed to roughly the same material. Exceptions to that would be elective coursework. I don't know if that is necessarily a bad thing though. Understand this is my simplistic take on the matter, I'm not an educator but I take the matter of education seriously as at some point in the near enough future I'll have two daughters headed that route.
Wendy said:
Danny,
that is my concern too, as a parent with a child who will be entering the school system sometime in the next year...
I just have SO MANY ISSUES with this program. I understand the need for assessments. I understand that standardized testing TYPICALLY is the easiest, most efficient and cost effective way of achieving said assessments... However, they do not always provide an accurate view. And as you pointed out, if each grade is expected to be tested and you are based on your actual grade level, not the classes you are taking, this will result somewhat in a "dumbing down" of our higher achieving students, who will take lower level coursework to keep information fresh in their minds in order to pass the test, rather than taking a higher level coursework to stimulate their minds. Which puts everyone at a disadvantage. Plus, if they are so busy teaching to the test, then those students that don't perform as well get rather lost in the flush - as some students are able to easily memorize information, while others are not, and that may not be indicitave of their actual learning level or capabilities. And no matter what you might say, memorization is NOT learning - they are two radically different things... and unfortunately it seems to be that learning is something our children can no longer get in schools...
that is my concern too, as a parent with a child who will be entering the school system sometime in the next year...
I just have SO MANY ISSUES with this program. I understand the need for assessments. I understand that standardized testing TYPICALLY is the easiest, most efficient and cost effective way of achieving said assessments... However, they do not always provide an accurate view. And as you pointed out, if each grade is expected to be tested and you are based on your actual grade level, not the classes you are taking, this will result somewhat in a "dumbing down" of our higher achieving students, who will take lower level coursework to keep information fresh in their minds in order to pass the test, rather than taking a higher level coursework to stimulate their minds. Which puts everyone at a disadvantage. Plus, if they are so busy teaching to the test, then those students that don't perform as well get rather lost in the flush - as some students are able to easily memorize information, while others are not, and that may not be indicitave of their actual learning level or capabilities. And no matter what you might say, memorization is NOT learning - they are two radically different things... and unfortunately it seems to be that learning is something our children can no longer get in schools...
Tracy Phillips said:
WOW,.........thasalotta comments.
My .02
The daughter(15yrs old) got put into a couple of "advanced" classes, science & math.
GREAT! right?
NOPE.
These are some fairly tough classes for her age, and she can't seem to do better than a C.
Meanwhile, "average" students get the easier classes, and always end up with a higher GPA.
Now I don't wanna dumb her down, but sheesh.
The lesser student will end up looking great, while she will seem average. I believe we will be taking this up with the school at the next chance.
My .02
The daughter(15yrs old) got put into a couple of "advanced" classes, science & math.
GREAT! right?
NOPE.
These are some fairly tough classes for her age, and she can't seem to do better than a C.
Meanwhile, "average" students get the easier classes, and always end up with a higher GPA.
Now I don't wanna dumb her down, but sheesh.
The lesser student will end up looking great, while she will seem average. I believe we will be taking this up with the school at the next chance.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Wendy, an example of how some schools are using the "system" to do better. The high school math assessment must be taken once in high school, on or before the Junior year. Identifying "at risk" students as Sophomores, these students take it then, and if they do not perform at the "Proficient" level, they take it again as Juniors, with the hopes of improvement. Only the Junior year assessment counts in this case, as I understand it. Also, on the other side of the coin, there are certain high performing students who take the State math assessment as Sophomores, and if they do as well as expected, they do not retake it the Junior year. Thus, the higher performers get it out of the way early when the lower level math is fresh, and don't need to "get up to speed" on that in another year.
How being too advanced can hurt (a bit); the elder was advanced in Math; as I've bragged previously, she took AP Calc as a Junior, then Calc II and Calc III at WSU her Senior year. On the SAT-I math section, while she scored well (a whole lot better than her dad), her performance was hindered, in her opinion, by the loss of certain lower level math skills and knowledge due to the passage of time; meanwhile, on the SAT-II math test, she obtained the magic 800 score. Her comments were that as the SAT-II "tested" higher level math, she felt it a better measure of her knowledge and ability than the SAT-I, which at the time, "tested" Algebra I and Geometry.
How being too advanced can hurt (a bit); the elder was advanced in Math; as I've bragged previously, she took AP Calc as a Junior, then Calc II and Calc III at WSU her Senior year. On the SAT-I math section, while she scored well (a whole lot better than her dad), her performance was hindered, in her opinion, by the loss of certain lower level math skills and knowledge due to the passage of time; meanwhile, on the SAT-II math test, she obtained the magic 800 score. Her comments were that as the SAT-II "tested" higher level math, she felt it a better measure of her knowledge and ability than the SAT-I, which at the time, "tested" Algebra I and Geometry.
Vaughn Tolle said:
TRACY, don't do it! Here's why; if her overall "record" is of concern, please be aware that in the college admission process, the level of coursework is considered by the admissions folks, and a "C" in the higher/highest level course available is given more weight than an "A" in lesser courses. I know this is a way of saying "trust me", but I'm serious. Her abilities, cultivated in these higher level courses, will be shown on the ACT/SAT, assuming she's a competent test taker.
We saw this with our younger, my blog friend. Her overall GPA didn't look all that good when compared to some others in her graduating class who "went the other way", but the nature of the courses she took, combined with a reasonable ACT composite, gained her admission to Colby College (as well as Skidmore; University of Rochester;KU), where she has flourished as a person and done well as a student.
The elder, BTW, took after her mother, thank goodness, and was admitted to all schools to which she applied (as was her sister), and matriculated at Carleton, where she graduated magna cum laude in Math.
If college isn't the reason for how you feel, please ignore the above.
We saw this with our younger, my blog friend. Her overall GPA didn't look all that good when compared to some others in her graduating class who "went the other way", but the nature of the courses she took, combined with a reasonable ACT composite, gained her admission to Colby College (as well as Skidmore; University of Rochester;KU), where she has flourished as a person and done well as a student.
The elder, BTW, took after her mother, thank goodness, and was admitted to all schools to which she applied (as was her sister), and matriculated at Carleton, where she graduated magna cum laude in Math.
If college isn't the reason for how you feel, please ignore the above.
lindainks55 said:
I could be very wrong and hope someone will correct me if they know I am, but even our parochial schools are subject to NCLB requirements. I think all accredited schools are and that would include Independent. I think it excludes some smaller church schools and Collegiate. I am not making a determination of quality in this, just that accreditation brings some "accountability" (for lack of a better word) to the school.
Danny and Wendy, I know you are both going to stay involved in your children's education and enrich what they find at school in your homes. I don't even have a question that your children will have your support to expand their opportunities. You both are thinkers and lifetime learners and already share those traits with your small pre-school age children. You'll always seek ways to enrich their educations.
You'll find the earlier years easier. My experience has been the years termed junior high or middle school to be the most difficult. What about you other parents of grown children? When did your children face the temptations that caused you to need to be on your toes? And, what do you think of K-8 schools? Are the temptations of those middle years reduced or does the student just face them at high school instead?
I've thought K-8 might be a really smart change. I see the advantages being the older children can mentor the younger and be role models. Those responsibilities could bring a pride which I think would benefit the older children. Of course, the younger children benefit too. And, maybe the peer pressure would be reduced by not putting them into a situation where "growing up" is expected. What do you think?
As important as education is I think most children will learn with involved parents and maybe we're overlooking the fact that they have ONE chance to be children and we need to concentrate on that too. It isn't just the "book learnin," the social learning and guidance are extremely important. Sometimes guiding them through might ensure they don't get in with a wrong crowd, develop addictions or anorexia or get pregnant or...
Danny and Wendy, I know you are both going to stay involved in your children's education and enrich what they find at school in your homes. I don't even have a question that your children will have your support to expand their opportunities. You both are thinkers and lifetime learners and already share those traits with your small pre-school age children. You'll always seek ways to enrich their educations.
You'll find the earlier years easier. My experience has been the years termed junior high or middle school to be the most difficult. What about you other parents of grown children? When did your children face the temptations that caused you to need to be on your toes? And, what do you think of K-8 schools? Are the temptations of those middle years reduced or does the student just face them at high school instead?
I've thought K-8 might be a really smart change. I see the advantages being the older children can mentor the younger and be role models. Those responsibilities could bring a pride which I think would benefit the older children. Of course, the younger children benefit too. And, maybe the peer pressure would be reduced by not putting them into a situation where "growing up" is expected. What do you think?
As important as education is I think most children will learn with involved parents and maybe we're overlooking the fact that they have ONE chance to be children and we need to concentrate on that too. It isn't just the "book learnin," the social learning and guidance are extremely important. Sometimes guiding them through might ensure they don't get in with a wrong crowd, develop addictions or anorexia or get pregnant or...
Vaughn Tolle said:
To Wendy and Danny,
I want to encourage you to do that which you feel necessary to see to the future education of your children. Being involved is essential, if I may be permitted to give advice.
We, too, started with ours at a young age. I think this is a key, because there are, in Wichita, so many options, a parent who waits until the child is of the age to start kindergarten, there's just not enough time to obtain the data from which reasonable conclusions may be drawn.
Rant on:
Linda, I don't see K-8 schools as an answer. I have come to the conclusion that the age group we (those of our vintage) refer to as "junior high", now popularly referred to as "middle school" will be subject to the pressures asserted by our society, both positive (darn few) and negative (too many); regardless. I feel that having the current middle schoolers around K-5 will result, in many cases, in "negative mentoring". The differential in physical size is also troublesome to me. I'm aware that a return to the K-8 model is the "newest and latest best" thing in the education world; I just don't see it resolving the issues many hope it will. If it did, then there would not have been the movement away from the traditional "grade school" (grades 1-8) and then "high school" model so prevalent in the earlier part of the 20th century. I realize the issues may not have been as complex then, but all in all, keeping the early adolescents together as a group, separate both from the grades K-5 group and the 9-12 group makes sense.
On the parochial, etc., schools being subject to NCLB. They are not; they are, however, as a requirement of state accreditation, subject to the State Assessments. Yes, TIS is state accredited presently. This is undergoing change, and at some point in the future, TIS, as is Collegiate, will have an accreditation, just not a "state" accreditation. It is my understanding that the diocesan schools in Wichita intend to retain the state accreditation. I believe Holy Cross is also so accredited, with no plans to change (although it is K-8, IIRC, but separates into elementary and middle school sections).
My thoughts on the "one chance" to be children argument. I agree, there is but one chance to be a child. Given what I see with the structured lives of younger members of society, e.g., it's Monday, soccer practice; Tuesday, piano lessons; Wednesday, dance lessons; etc., etc., they aren't being children any more any way. Too many parents are, IMHO, abdicating their responsibility to third parties by the structured "out of school" lives in which the children are placed. Now, I know what I just posted may well not describe all or most parents of younger children, but it seems to me to grow annually. Look, given where we are as a national economy, both parents in a two-parent family have to work, and affording these extra curricular activities might assuage the discomfort resulting therefrom, but is it healthy? I think not. Frankly, I don't comprehend how single parents do it any more, especially when the lineal descendants are younger.
As Linda knows, I've a reactionary bent to me from time to time. Thus, let children be children; let them have free time. If their lives are going to be structured any way, then why not academically? The job of children, IMHO, from age 5 through age 18, is to attend school and do their best to achieve an academic education. This can be done and the children allowed to be children, but it takes the personal involvement of the parent(s) in supervising their offspring, which, I will add, is hard to do after a long day "at work". I fully understand the out sourcing of this to others (coaches, piano teachers, et al.), and suggest that it be kept to one or two activities, not the plethora I see almost daily.
Rant off.
I want to encourage you to do that which you feel necessary to see to the future education of your children. Being involved is essential, if I may be permitted to give advice.
We, too, started with ours at a young age. I think this is a key, because there are, in Wichita, so many options, a parent who waits until the child is of the age to start kindergarten, there's just not enough time to obtain the data from which reasonable conclusions may be drawn.
Rant on:
Linda, I don't see K-8 schools as an answer. I have come to the conclusion that the age group we (those of our vintage) refer to as "junior high", now popularly referred to as "middle school" will be subject to the pressures asserted by our society, both positive (darn few) and negative (too many); regardless. I feel that having the current middle schoolers around K-5 will result, in many cases, in "negative mentoring". The differential in physical size is also troublesome to me. I'm aware that a return to the K-8 model is the "newest and latest best" thing in the education world; I just don't see it resolving the issues many hope it will. If it did, then there would not have been the movement away from the traditional "grade school" (grades 1-8) and then "high school" model so prevalent in the earlier part of the 20th century. I realize the issues may not have been as complex then, but all in all, keeping the early adolescents together as a group, separate both from the grades K-5 group and the 9-12 group makes sense.
On the parochial, etc., schools being subject to NCLB. They are not; they are, however, as a requirement of state accreditation, subject to the State Assessments. Yes, TIS is state accredited presently. This is undergoing change, and at some point in the future, TIS, as is Collegiate, will have an accreditation, just not a "state" accreditation. It is my understanding that the diocesan schools in Wichita intend to retain the state accreditation. I believe Holy Cross is also so accredited, with no plans to change (although it is K-8, IIRC, but separates into elementary and middle school sections).
My thoughts on the "one chance" to be children argument. I agree, there is but one chance to be a child. Given what I see with the structured lives of younger members of society, e.g., it's Monday, soccer practice; Tuesday, piano lessons; Wednesday, dance lessons; etc., etc., they aren't being children any more any way. Too many parents are, IMHO, abdicating their responsibility to third parties by the structured "out of school" lives in which the children are placed. Now, I know what I just posted may well not describe all or most parents of younger children, but it seems to me to grow annually. Look, given where we are as a national economy, both parents in a two-parent family have to work, and affording these extra curricular activities might assuage the discomfort resulting therefrom, but is it healthy? I think not. Frankly, I don't comprehend how single parents do it any more, especially when the lineal descendants are younger.
As Linda knows, I've a reactionary bent to me from time to time. Thus, let children be children; let them have free time. If their lives are going to be structured any way, then why not academically? The job of children, IMHO, from age 5 through age 18, is to attend school and do their best to achieve an academic education. This can be done and the children allowed to be children, but it takes the personal involvement of the parent(s) in supervising their offspring, which, I will add, is hard to do after a long day "at work". I fully understand the out sourcing of this to others (coaches, piano teachers, et al.), and suggest that it be kept to one or two activities, not the plethora I see almost daily.
Rant off.
Danny said:
Wendy,
I think you summed it up a bit better than myself, standardized tests are the easy way of having accountability. Again, I'm not an educator so I don't have a ready alternative to that.
Tracy,
Don't take your daughter out of the advanced courses. She'll be better off for it when she gets to college as some of the early course work could be done by the classes she takes in high school and/or some of the classes may be easier as a result.
Linda,
Having been sent to the Catholic schools, I can not compare k-8 to how the current public school system is setup. I can describe my experience there at the grade school level and high school level.
The way my grade school was setup, is K-5 were in one wing of the school while 6-8 were in a different wing. Connected yes, but the only common areas were the gym and cafeteria. So, there wasn't much interaction with the younger students. Those students though who were able to learn more quickly, or "advanced" students were allowed to help tutor younger students in math, science, and English. There were other privileges were granted to those who did well also.
So I don't know given my circumstance that the environment was completely different from the public school or at least different enough to mean something.
I think you summed it up a bit better than myself, standardized tests are the easy way of having accountability. Again, I'm not an educator so I don't have a ready alternative to that.
Tracy,
Don't take your daughter out of the advanced courses. She'll be better off for it when she gets to college as some of the early course work could be done by the classes she takes in high school and/or some of the classes may be easier as a result.
Linda,
Having been sent to the Catholic schools, I can not compare k-8 to how the current public school system is setup. I can describe my experience there at the grade school level and high school level.
The way my grade school was setup, is K-5 were in one wing of the school while 6-8 were in a different wing. Connected yes, but the only common areas were the gym and cafeteria. So, there wasn't much interaction with the younger students. Those students though who were able to learn more quickly, or "advanced" students were allowed to help tutor younger students in math, science, and English. There were other privileges were granted to those who did well also.
So I don't know given my circumstance that the environment was completely different from the public school or at least different enough to mean something.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Danny, you and Wendy have hit upon why "standardized tests" (in Kansas, the State Assessments; in Maine, for high school, the SAT-I) are used for NCLB purposes; a quick and dirty way to show "results" which are, for the most part, unreliable as a measure of educational attainment, but which may be easily published and used by parents to make (in many cases, erroneous) decisions.
I believe there can be assessments implemented that would do a lot better job than what is out there presently. However, these would not be "fill in the bubble on the answer sheet" types, but would require meaningful amounts of time and effort to "grade", with complex rubrics in place, etc. This would be a better way, but the drawback is the time before the results are available, diminishing any diagnostic effects which might flow therefrom, not to mention a damper on "accountability". I know you and Wendy have this to look forward to with your offspring, but it is frustrating as a parent to have the student who resides with you be subjected to an assessment in early Spring, and not have the results thereof by the time school is out for the year. That was life in the early days of State Assessments. The results come more quickly now, as a result of machine scoring in many cases; but, if anything, are less meaningful than those "back in the day".
I believe there can be assessments implemented that would do a lot better job than what is out there presently. However, these would not be "fill in the bubble on the answer sheet" types, but would require meaningful amounts of time and effort to "grade", with complex rubrics in place, etc. This would be a better way, but the drawback is the time before the results are available, diminishing any diagnostic effects which might flow therefrom, not to mention a damper on "accountability". I know you and Wendy have this to look forward to with your offspring, but it is frustrating as a parent to have the student who resides with you be subjected to an assessment in early Spring, and not have the results thereof by the time school is out for the year. That was life in the early days of State Assessments. The results come more quickly now, as a result of machine scoring in many cases; but, if anything, are less meaningful than those "back in the day".
Danny said:
Vaughn,
Holy Cross is setup the same as the grade school I had gone to. So this may be more common among the Catholic schools than I realized.
Also, I happen to agree with your assessment of parents should play an active role in the education of their children. Though I understand that some families can not afford to not have one parent stay home and so I think this is why these activities are "needed" or pursued. I don't know if I will limit what my daughters want to do for school activities(sports, music, etc) so long as the time spent on that doesn't affect their time spent on homework to cause grades to suffer.
Anyway, my two cents today. :D
Holy Cross is setup the same as the grade school I had gone to. So this may be more common among the Catholic schools than I realized.
Also, I happen to agree with your assessment of parents should play an active role in the education of their children. Though I understand that some families can not afford to not have one parent stay home and so I think this is why these activities are "needed" or pursued. I don't know if I will limit what my daughters want to do for school activities(sports, music, etc) so long as the time spent on that doesn't affect their time spent on homework to cause grades to suffer.
Anyway, my two cents today. :D
Vaughn Tolle said:
Gotcha, Danny. We went with two extra curriculars with the elder (piano and dance) early, which reduced to one (piano) later. The younger quickly became involved in volleyball and basketball in late elementary and Middle School, after not wanting to do piano, etc. earlier, and then in High School, the musicals and the Thespian group took over as her activities.
Wendy said:
Vaughn,
this is an issue the fiance and i have debated quite frequently...
Our agreement was that we will let the monster make a determination if he wants to try his wings at something. If it turns out he does not like it, we will not force him to continue past the point we have already paid for... I don't want to limit him TOO much, but also don't want him overdoing... we shall see... he is already expressing interest in music, with piano, guitar and drums - he has little kid versions of all three, and has a rather impressive sense of rhythm for not having anyone show him how to do it.. :) We are hoping to encourage that one at least... i think music is an important skill - learning music really teaches you how to learn many other things, including nuance and such...
this is an issue the fiance and i have debated quite frequently...
Our agreement was that we will let the monster make a determination if he wants to try his wings at something. If it turns out he does not like it, we will not force him to continue past the point we have already paid for... I don't want to limit him TOO much, but also don't want him overdoing... we shall see... he is already expressing interest in music, with piano, guitar and drums - he has little kid versions of all three, and has a rather impressive sense of rhythm for not having anyone show him how to do it.. :) We are hoping to encourage that one at least... i think music is an important skill - learning music really teaches you how to learn many other things, including nuance and such...
Loading....