Test Scores Sink as New York Adopts Tougher Benchmarks

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, Aug 7, 2013.

  1. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #1
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/n...ts-see-sharp-decline-in-test-scores.html?_r=0

    We need to stop teaching to the test and actually educate our kids.
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #2
    I understand what you are saying, but, if the test is very good, teaching to the test actually does educate. I think what you mean is that we need to stop teaching to tests that measure primarily rote memorization. It is difficult to tell from the results, though, how good the test is.

    I wonder if anyone on this group has experience with the new Common Core tests? Do they actually measure deep understanding?

    I would also be interested in how other countries compare on these tests. Are there countries where performance on the Common Core tests is much better? If so, I wonder what distinguishes those countries.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #3
    We can't compare to other countries that go to school 6 days a week for 340 days a year. We will never beat Japan or India in education. We need to compare to the other 50 states first.

    Plus the whole everyone needs to go to college mentality needs to stop, all it does if make colleges richer while doing nothing to help our students.

    I also don't know how a test can measure deep understanding when everyone learns differently.
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #4
    Maybe I'm in a contrary mood, but, countries where students study 70 hours a week don't necessarily impress me. It is kind of like companies where people all claim to work 60-70 hours a week. I doubt if someone "working" 70 hours a week gets more done than someone who works 50 hours a week. Beyond a certain point, most people start to squeeze in all their personal business, because they have to, and, their brains are not going to produce more anyway. I'm going to hazard a guess that 50 hours a week of mental work, or, studying, is about all most people can produce no matter how many hours they "work".

    I would also be willing to bet that a valid test of genuine deep understanding is going to go better for countries that work/study a reasonable number of hours, where the teachers have a better understanding themselves, and where the emphasis is on understanding rather than memorization.

    For some reason, I'm guessing Scandinavian countries probably would excel, if there are comparable test results. Anybody know of any such tests?

    I'm not sure it is making colleges richer, but, unlike Lake Wobegon, in the real world all the children are not above average. It makes no sense for those who are not good at academics (or, if they aren't that good, at least love learning), to spend $100K+ in college.

    On the other hand, education is a public good, and, a reasonable amount of education at a reasonable cost obviously pays off for society as a whole as well as the individual.
     
  5. thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #5
    The point is that there are countries that have a stronger emphases on education that the US doesn't have. We need to compete with ourselves first before trying to out smart the rest of the world.

    Do you need a college education to really succeed. Are there other easier ways to get a higher education for less cost and better results. Is the notion of college outdated in the internet age where there is a world of information at a persons fingertips. The way we think about education has to change and not just in the way we test students.
     
  6. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #6
    It all depends on the industry. But if you want to make any decent money now, you need some type of post high school certification or degree.

    But I totally agree and understand with what you're trying to say. All high school students nowadays are told "You have to go to college," when in reality, many of them just won't be able to cut it in college and just don't get accepted or drop out. Kids like this used to be encouraged to go to something like a trade school. Many of the trades are important jobs, high paying, and can't be outsourced.. these kids would be way better off getting into a career path like that, but instead they are told "go to college", it doesn't work out, and they end up stuck working at dead-end minimum wage job with no certification, degree, or experience.
     
  7. thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #7
    Lets say college equivalent, if there was a higher learning without the expense or fluff. Just a way to learn the courses you want and get expertise in a desired field. Is the 4 year college model outdated for most jobs. Not counting lawyer or doctor that need more in depth training.
     
  8. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #8
    From the article.

    I don't know a lot about Common Core but it seems to me that it is a step in the right direction and is a move away from teaching for the test.

    Also, since Michelle Malkin is vehemently opposed to it, a rational person can only think it's a good thing. :D
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #9
    [RANT]

    It is easier to 'raise standards' and blame teachers, students and parents than it is to raise taxes to provide more resources for education.

    All I can say is that if we conducted medical research and policy making like we do for educational research and policy making, then life expectancy would be steadily decreasing (interestingly, education is one of the best ways to increase life expectancy).

    The US has the National Institutes of Health and the UK has the Medical Research Council (and NICE). Why don't we have a US National Institute of Education (for proper research, including multicenter trials that compare new practices to current best practice) and a UK Educational Research Council? Politicians are currently making educational policies on whims and very poorly conducted research....

    [/RANT]:eek:
     
  10. thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #10
    A ton of tax money goes to education. More than half of a local budget actually. The problem is the curriculum that is funded is crap. It has nothing to do with lack of money.
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #11
    Actually for many private colleges that specialize in low income, they are giving them the education that they should have received in high school (at the cost of about $40-60k). Public educators and the education system have failed the children in the US.

    ----------

    Get rid of tenure for elementary/secondary teachers and I imagine that will change fairly quickly. Budgets go down and performance goes up.
     
  12. macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #12
    There is good and bad in tenure. Both of my parents were teachers (my father ended as a high school principal) on Long Island, and in a union (NYSUT is probably the strongest educational union in the country), and I've listened to the debate numerous times.

    The one issue is that many school districts, in an effort to save $$, tend to force out the teachers with the most experience so they can hire younger, less qualified teachers and pay them less. While it may save money in the long run, is it really in the best interests of education? Tenure has always been something that protected those teachers from losing their job for no reason (other than they make too much $$).

    The other side, of course, is that it allows underperforming veteran teachers to keep their job, whether they deserve it or not. It's a fine line, that's for sure.
     
  13. thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #13
    My mom was a teacher as well and I agree that tenure is only half of the problem. You also have kids that don't care and there is nothing you can do to teach them. But who takes the blame, the teacher. On the other hand, districts will only cater to the "smart college bound kids" and brush the others under the rug.
     
  14. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #14
    Like healthcare, the US spends more per capita than other countries yet we achieve lesser outcomes. We need to prune our education bureaucracy and get these dollars into the classrooms.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #15
    The tenure system was developed to prevent professors from being fired from outside interests (ie. you don't like this research so make a donation and the professor gets fired).

    I don't think that is an issue in elementary/secondary schools because they have a set curriculum that they teach each year, thus they do not deserve the protection of tenure. Its like not differentiating between an engineer and an assembly line worker.
     
  16. macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #16
    I just explained why you can make an argument that teachers do need the protection of tenure. Money. Money. Money. It has absolutely nothing to do with the curriculum, and it has nothing to do with why the system was developed. It's certainly not being used that way these days.

    I assume you think that firing those with experience for no other reason than financial and hiring those with none is ok? Do you honestly think that's good for the system?

    There are many issues with our system and tenure is nowhere near the top of the list.
     
  17. VulchR, Aug 8, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2013

    macrumors 68000

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #17
    It does not follow that education is fully resourced if it takes up more than half the local budget, for the needs of the school system is based on the cost of educating students well – not the size of local government. The 'half of local budget' statistic is meaningless because the local budget depends on tax revenue, which in turn rests on wholly political decisions about taxation.

    I have relatives who teach in the 5th richest county in the US (average income >$100,000) but still have class sizes of >32 pupils and have to hold classes in temporary huts rather than permanent buildings. In the state in which they live, the so-called public universities get <10% of their operating budget from state funds. Overall the US spends only about 5.6% of GDP on public spending for education, whereas Finland, which performs so well in the graphic posted above by rdowns, spends about 6.8% of GDP on education. Jamaica and Cuba spend more of their GDP on public funding of education than the US. (source http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS).
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #18
    I agree. Education has long been driven by fads without serious attempts to determine outcomes. The type of outcome testing that is usually done has to be cheap (every child every year), so, teaching to the test - AKA rote learning - is the norm.

    What if we actually attempted to carefully measure outcomes, as is done in medicine? A fairly recent trend in medicine has been to start measuring the efficacy of medical tests-- for example, including measuring the cost of false positives, relative to not testing at all. Does the testing actually improve overall life expectancy and quality of life?

    How do you know that all curricula are deficient?

    Is this something you have quantitative data for? What proof do you have that children of tenured teachers learn less?

    Back in the day, education always depended on young women working on the cheap in elementary school. Then, they got married, quit teaching, and were replaced. Sometimes they would return to teaching after the kids grew up. It usually was a secondary job to the primary breadwinner. Demographics changed. Naturally, costs had to go up, as they did in nursing as well, as demographics changed. If teaching is going to be a middle-class career, it is bound to cost a lot of money compared to the old days.

    Sure, some students have a bad attitude. But, if they excelled, would their attitude change? Sometimes a bad attitude is a natural reaction when you are not doing well compared to most other kids.

    I have to wonder how much the high cost is due to "bureaucracy" and how much is due to simple demographics? High-achieving women can excel in a lot of career fields now and they are not forced into teaching and nursing as they once were.


    As far as I am concerned, there are a lot of questions regarding education that have never been answered. Many educated people seem to know a lot more about the latest studies on health and diet (doesn't always stop them from drinking soda by the liter) and medicine these days than education. Back to the beginning of this thread:

    What do we know, actually, about the testing associated with Common Core standards? Do we know that the tests actually measure deeper understanding, or, can the tests be gamed through memorization just like all the other standardized machine-graded tests?

    In short, has this new Common Core testing program been tested itself?
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
    I would only fire those who do not perform at an adequate level for their pay. Why would I pay $20-40k a year more for someone with 15 years experience when the teacher with 2 years experience is outperforming them?

    Doesn't work in the private sector, shouldn't work in the public sector. Especially since I am paying for it.

    ----------

    It doesn't really matter what studies I present, you will just say its due to the student's socio-economic background and not the teachers themselves.

    In a scenario where you knew at your work that you could never be fired except for in extreme cases, would you really put in 110% every day or would you cruise on into retirement?

    I think the US elementary and secondary education numbers speak for themselves. They are cruising at 40 mph on a 70 mph highway.
     
  20. thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #20
    Systems use a one size fits all approach. If a kid doesn't learn to that approach they get left behind. Everyone learns differently but there is no time to teach every student. You either get the material and keep up or you are left in the dust.
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #21
    This does seem to reflect some of the experiences I have had in education, both as a student and as a university lecturer with 20 years of experience. However, merely changing the goalposts isn't going to get the kids where they need to go. It seems to me from having watched university students both in the UK and the US that they use horrible strategies for studying. Rather than focusing on goalposts and blaming teachers, we should start by helping each student learn what works best for them when they study, but that would take more resources....
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #22
    More resources? How about not squandering the resources they are provided by the tax payers? The chart above clearly illustrates that other countries are getting better results with less resources.
     
  23. macrumors 68000

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #23
    That's fewer resources. :p

    The chart above shows absolute spending, and does not appear to have factored in the cost of resources. In countries like the US, where the standard of living is high, costs are higher for everything from basic supplies to labor. That's why I referred to the % of GDP above, for this tells us how much we invest in education compared to what we could invest. Also, one has to be careful about interpreting bubble charts - is the amount of spending for a given country in the chart related to the radius, diameter, area, or volume of the equivalent sphere? Bubble charts are a poor way to visualize information.

    For the record though, I'd love to see teachers freed from irrational or unsupported policies that waste time and money.
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    #24
    But your chart also shows that we spend a higher % of GDP than Japan, and yet we still get worse results. The cost of living is extremely high over there.

    The same is true for Germany, whose cost of living is a bit closer.

    A big part of this isn't so much the total amount we're spending on education, but the socioeconomic class of the students. In some other countries, where they less income inequality and a wider social safety net, there aren't so many disadvantaged children taking the tests. Finland, for example...

    I would imagine if you looked at the distribution of scores on these tests against household income, the picture would be a lot more clear.
     

Share This Page