Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"our schools are slipping" yet where do rich foreigners send their kids to college?
Our colleges are still world class, our secondary schools are not, in much of the country. Here in the northeast, our schools are on par with the best schools in other parts of the world. The problem is that schools in the south and midwest lag far behind.
We I get students from these parts or the country, they are 1 to 3 grade levels behind. When I get students from Europe or Asia, they are usually about even with NJ, or perhaps a grade level ahead.
Our colleges are still world class, our secondary schools are not, in much of the country. Here in the northeast, our schools are on par with the best schools in other parts of the world. The problem is that schools in the south and midwest lag far behind.
We I get students from these parts or the country, they are 1 to 3 grade levels behind. When I get students from Europe or Asia, they are usually about even with NJ, or perhaps a grade level ahead.
When southern states are proud to cut taxes & cut education spending (see NC), nobody should be surprised that they constantly trail the northeast educationally.
When southern states are proud to cut taxes & cut education spending (see NC), nobody should be surprised that they constantly trail the northeast educationally.
Yes its no surprise.
One good thing I can say about what I saw in TX was that the schools are organized in Independent School Districts. The boundaries of these districts are not bound by city/town lines and encompass a relatively large area.. large number of schools, faculty, and students. While I am not claiming that there are no problems (damn politics and personal agendas infiltration), the whole system is more efficient because resources are pooled together. For example. When a school experiences a spike in attendance and risks over crowding, its easy to alleviate by shifting students to another school without all of the red tape since both schools would reside under the same administration within the same ISD. My old elementary school no longer is open because the census dropped over the years. The few remaining students are bused to another school. Couldn't do that easily or cost effectively if a town only has 1 elementary school and the town needs to negotiate with other schools to take their children.
In NJ, each tiny town, township, city, municipality has to fend for themselves... each with their faculty. We have way too many, overpaid, superintendents/faculty, resources are not shared. Example, my local town here in NJ (with good schools) has a population of about just about 16k (2010 census) of which 23% are under the age of 18. Our superintendent in 2012 makes about $120k a year to manage 3 schools and less than 4000 students as we bus high school ages to another town (another superintendent).
Meanwhile, my old ISD in TX has a single superintendent who is responsible for 72,000 students across 75 schools. Yes.. that's a small city population or the size of a decent corporation. That's a lot to manage and I certainly wouldn't argue a high salary to take on such responsibility. In the end, its more cost effective while maintaining a certain level of quality.
"our schools are slipping" yet where do rich foreigners send their kids to college?
Why is this a surprise? The schools we are talking about don't charge tuition and are financed by taxes.
"Our" colleges are the most expensive in the world. Tuition in state colleges is also going up again. If a private school charges someone $50k to teach them English then they are making an enormous profit margin. Even if they discount tuition and charge let's say $30,000k then they still make huge profits.
And in average colleges, I understand that these foreigners and other immigrants are pretty much the only ones able to handle college curriculum. At least 50% of American born students are spending their time in remedial curriculum, essentially repeating their years in high school. The ones that did not teach to the test.
Last edited by DefiantNJ; 02-03-2015 at 08:39 AM..
Parents are flipping out about something they still know little about. NJ hasn't done a great job implementing the new curriculum or the new test, but much of the criticism I hear is not directly about the test.
1. "teach to the test" - that's the fault of the curriculum, not the fault of the test. The test is supposed to be designed to test the curriculum. If you have a problem with the curriculum, you should be arguing that there are issues with the curriculum. The test doesn't drive the curriculum, rather, the curriculum drives how the test is designed.
2. It's part of teacher evaluations - yes, it is. it's 20%, i believe, in the first year. and the only way it has a real impact on the individual teachers is if they have multiple consecutive years of poor performance (to help control for a teacher having a bad class one year). Is 20% the right amount? Maybe not. But should teachers not be evaluated at all based on their students' performance over time?
3. Tests are administered on computers! - in 2015, is this seriously a complaint? And as for people complaining schools didn't have time to prepare, they've known for over 2 years that PARCC was going to be administered on computers. My sister teaches in Deleware, and they use a different test that's administered on computers. They have had no issues with students being able to type answers or understand how to take a test on a computer. Again - it's 2015. If my school doesn't have computers in it's classrooms yet, I've got much bigger complaints than a test being given on a computer.
4. Too much time is spent on testing - PARCC test is 7.5 hours. Schools are spreading this out over multiple days in many cases. Which is fine. But any of the time spent outside of that is largely the school's decision.
5. It's all about the money! - well, so is the textbook industry. But I don't see anyone arguing we should abolish textbooks from schools because the companies that print them make a profit. This is a silly argument. Is the test bad? Yes? Then find a better test. No? Then who cares if the company making it makes a profit making it? Should we require any businesses that deal with education be non profit? Different issue. But someone has to do it.
6. Test prep takes up too much time! - Oh yeah? What do we call teaching students english, and then giving them a test to see what they know? Is that "test prep"? Or is it "teaching"? If you have a problem with what's being covered in test prep - change what's being covered. It's an illogical circular reference to claim that test prep is ruining teaching time.
To the poster talking about testing taking up 2-3 months - where is this the case? That's a new one I haven't heard yet.
I believe the 2-3 months was in regards to some schools not having enough computers for every student. So the tests will have to be staggered by grade and class until all classes of all grades get through the testing procedure. Many schools in NJ are k-8. That is generally a LOT of students to push through the testing process.
Growing up I personally never liked the standardized testing. I always saw it as a waste of time. I clearly remember a discussion with my 3rd grade teacher that my grades should be enough to know whether we are doing well. That if they truly wanted everyone to have the same level of knowledge then everyone should be taught the same curriculum. (of course, not in those exact words).
I've tried my best to raise my boys in the same manner I was raised. Little to no TV, video games, etc. You want to play, lets go outside and play, and learn and explore and discover. Hands on, getting dirty, making things, and always trying to sneak in a life lesson along the way if I could. They both excel at "figuring things out" and understanding concepts and applying them to the world around them. But they both also do horribly on tests. You ask them a question verbally, they will give you the correct answer. You ask them to read the question quietly to themselves and select an answer, they second guess themselves and it becomes a 50/50 chance they will answer correctly.
So I'm not sure how I feel about these "harder" tests. I guess we will see what happens.
Growing up I personally never liked the standardized testing. I always saw it as a waste of time. I clearly remember a discussion with my 3rd grade teacher that my grades should be enough to know whether we are doing well. That if they truly wanted everyone to have the same level of knowledge then everyone should be taught the same curriculum. (of course, not in those exact words).
So I'm not sure how I feel about these "harder" tests. I guess we will see what happens.
Well, growing up I did not like any tests. I did not like any studying actually until I was about ten to nine years old. Does it mean that there should not be any reasonable testing?
My wife and I are still on the fence but many schools are allowing the option of opting out. We are trying to approach the situation with an open mind without being too critical. I am considering talking to my school about the option of opting out but I don't want my personal experiences (previous post) to bring bias to that decision.
There are a few other places online that are being used as sounding boards for parents' concerns and frustrations but these two on facebook were the first couple that came up as fairly active.
In particular, I found the following testimony informative:
Quote:
My testimony at the Public Testimony Session for the Study Commission on the Use of Student Assessments in New Jersey in Jersey City on 1/28/15:
Good evening Members of the Study Commission on Assessment and stakeholders,
My name is Dr. Jennifer Ra and I have my doctorate in School-Clinical Child Psychology. Professionally, I work in a school as a School Psychologist. I am also a mother of a 6-year-old son, 4-year-old daughter, and 1-year-old son. I am here to present some of my questions and concerns regarding the PARCC test.
First I would like to share a personal story. My 6-year-old son, who is in the first grade, came home one day and I asked him how Library was that day. He said, "Good. We are learning how to type on the computer because we have to take a test in the third grade." I wanted to cry. I feel that my son's time in school can be much better used than training for the PARCC two years before it is even administered. What happened to the librarian reading a book to a class of first graders? Or giving first graders time to look through books or read them if they are developmentally ready? At that moment, I vowed to find out more about how the PARCC will affect my children.
I recently listened to an interview conducted by Jim Gearhart on NJ 101.5 on January 23, 2015 with Dana Egreczky, a member of Governor Christie’s Study Commission on Assessments, regarding the PARCC test. One of the things that she said regarding the PARCC is, “For the first time ever, students and parents will know absolutely and unequivocally whether they are on time and on target for college and career.” She did not cite any empirical research regarding this statement. In fact, there has been no research conducted on the PARCC to even look at validity, reliability, and control factors such as test anxiety, motivation, ability, poverty, lack of parental involvement, etc.? On the PARCC website, there is a PARCC Program Evaluation Memo dated April 25, 2014 that states that PARCC has planned a series of validity studies. These studies have not yet been conducted; therefore no conclusions can be made regarding the effectiveness of the PARCC as an evaluation tool for college and career readiness or teacher effectiveness. Currently, students should not be subjected to take the PARCC when there is not sufficient research to show that this test is even meaningful, and additionally, not harmful. Students are speaking out saying that they hate school and they are stupid because they are failing the practice PARCC tests and the requirements of the Common Core (when often they are not even developmentally ready to learn these skills). I feel that the Common Core and PARCC are setting up our children, who are curious and eager to learn, for failure. We are crushing their interest and confidence, often at a very young age. If we keep this up, I feel that there will be an increase in dropout rates and a state full of children with low self-esteem, anxiety, depression, and poor decision-making skills.
Dana Egreczky was also interviewed on WCTC 1450 Talk Radio on May 6, 2014 regarding a program, College Career Ready Academy, where she is a staff member. During that interview, Ms. Egreczky stated regarding the College Career Ready Academy, “We aim to take about 250 of our most promising students and make sure they are as equipped as they possibly can be for college, the competitive nature of admissions, and the work force afterwards because a lot of kids are smart, but smart doesn’t mean ready and we need to help them get ready.” Not once during this interview was the PARCC deemed to be how we will determine if these students are ready. In fact, the PARCC was not even mentioned in this interview. I actually took away from this interview that even when smart kids pass the PARCC, it doesn’t mean that they are college and career ready.
When I looked up the College Career Ready Academy website, collegecareerreadyacademy.org, the program looks amazing. It states, “Research indicates that the main reasons for low college graduation rates are that students have not worked hard enough in high school, have taken the wrong courses, or make other ill-considered decisions.” Additionally, it states that the College Career Ready Academy “uses the influence of businesses as future employers and shocking research to create a clear road to success.” Where is this “shocking research” and does this research examine standardized testing like the PARCC? Nowhere on the website does it even mention the PARCC. Throughout the website, it uses words like practice leadership, decision-making, team work, creativity, taking direction, presentation, develop a design project, exhibit behavioral competencies, etc. None of these skills are measured on the PARCC. If these skills are required to be college and career ready, why aren’t we asking that high schools take on this model? It seems that college and career readiness requires more than just earning a passing score on the PARCC.
I oppose the misuse of standardized test scores. I oppose what the overemphasis on high-stakes testing is doing to our children and teachers. Weeks of instructional time is being lost to PARCC preparation and administration and meaningful learning is not taking place. Depending on the school district, the PARCC is being administrated for 6 weeks (in two 3-week increments) and for those 6 weeks, the school district will have delayed openings. Six weeks of delayed openings so that the school district can administer the PARCC. In addition, in order to comply with the mandate of PARCC testing, schools must spend precious money (which is unfunded) on technology to accommodate the online PARCC tests, which do not actually have meaningful technological value. I feel that the PARCC is taking time and money away from other educational priorities. I feel that teachers are forced to teach to the test. I feel that too much of the school year is spent preparing for the PARCC. I want to limit the number of hours of testing. I want test companies to disclose taxpayer-funded profits, and disclose their political donations. I want to delay any decisions based on PARCC tests for at least two years until the results have been studied. I want transparency on high-stakes tests, including costs and uses of student data. I want parents to have the right to have their children opt out of the PARCC and other high-stakes standardized tests. As a parent, I want my children to be passionate about learning. I want them to be excited to go to school and be involved in learning that involves group discussions, character building, creativity, and hands-on experiences. I want my children to graduate from public school as well-rounded, productive, generous, creative, critically thinking, and determined citizens. I have questions about whether the CCSS and PARCC will play a positive role in my children’s education.
PARCC received its $186 million federal grant on the condition that at least 15 states participate in its testing work. There were originally 26 states participating. On January 16, 2015, Mississippi withdrew from the PARCC, making it the 16th state to withdraw. Currently, there are only 10 states plus the District of Columbia participating in the PARCC. With all of the questions and concerns surrounding the PARCC, why is New Jersey still administering this test?
If our goal is to ensure that after graduating from high school, students will contribute in a positive way to society in terms of work and social relationships, I am unclear as to how the PARCC will play a role in this goal. Maybe we should be creating more early childhood education programs and focusing on involving families in education at a child’s early age. Maybe we should be focusing on student strengths and creating programs revolving around those strengths (not only academic related programs, but trade or arts programs such as automotive, plumbing, art, music, computer technology, etc.). Maybe we should be focusing more on community outreach programs and educating parents and improving quality of life for those in poverty. Maybe we should be creating more after school programs to further build on students’ strengths or to help students who are having difficulty in school. In terms of improving our education system in general, I feel that you need to involve all stakeholders. Rather than giving millions (or billions?) of dollars to testing agencies and corporations, a suggestion would be to ask stakeholders. Ask questions about education and opinions about how people feel their schools are in their communities and ask for suggestions on how to improve. I am hopeful that as a community, we can develop better ways of funding our children’s education than through standardized testing.
Well, growing up I did not like any tests. I did not like any studying actually until I was about ten to nine years old. Does it mean that there should not be any reasonable testing?
Testing is a tool. No one is saying that testing should be excluded from the curriculum.
The question is whether or not a particular test is appropriate tool AND how it is applied to the learning process. As someone already mentioned, there are some very talented and intelligent kids who simply don't test well...
Let's not forget that testing in classroom as directed by the teacher is very different from the standardized tests such as PARCC.
I believe the best person to apply the tool is the teacher based on their day to day interaction with his/her class.... not some board that is far removed from the student body.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
