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.
I get extremely annoyed reading posts that are littered with that kind of crap.
People that believe that a school will protect them from poverty or set up their future are nuts.
Today schools teach people how to take a test. Remember, they are standardized now.
This is pathetic and only hinders development where it is needed. Knowing how to balance a check book or knowing that most of the crap you are buying is just that, crap and is wasting your time and money. The news is really the voice of the corporations parroting their message through the media. The military is a joke.
These are the things that we need them to understand.
I've never understood the notion that because the community is wealthy the schools must be excellent...I mean the parents are successful we get it but that school they send their kids to didn't educate the parents did it?
You don't think there is a correlation between socioeconomic status of a school district and the quality of the schools? That does not mean that because the community is wealthy the schools must be excellent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowpacked
I get extremely annoyed reading posts that are littered with that kind of crap.
People that believe that a school will protect them from poverty or set up their future are nuts.
Today schools teach people how to take a test. Remember, they are standardized now.
This is pathetic and only hinders development where it is needed. Knowing how to balance a check book or knowing that most of the crap you are buying is just that, crap and is wasting your time and money. The news is really the voice of the corporations parroting their message through the media. The military is a joke.
These are the things that we need them to understand.
Which post said that, "People that believe that a school will protect them from poverty or set up their future are nuts." I highly doubt you will find anything close to that in this thread.
Haven't schools always taught students how to take tests? Test were standardized back in 1962 when I took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. That standardized test dates back to 1935.
I'm not sure what your post has to do with the topic. Remember the topic is "Parents obsession with "best school district."" Balancing a checkbook and teaching students that "The military is a joke." have nothing to do with the topic.
You don't think there is a correlation between socioeconomic status of a school district and the quality of the schools? That does not mean that because the community is wealthy the schools must be excellent.
Which post said that, "People that believe that a school will protect them from poverty or set up their future are nuts." I highly doubt you will find anything close to that in this thread.
Haven't schools always taught students how to take tests? Test were standardized back in 1962 when I took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. That standardized test dates back to 1935.
I'm not sure what your post has to do with the topic. Remember the topic is "Parents obsession with "best school district."" Balancing a checkbook and teaching students that "The military is a joke." have nothing to do with the topic.
No correlation at all. I student taught in a high school in suburban Toledo, Ohio where the student body was maybe 1-2% free / reduced lunch and the teaching talent was mediocre at best. The teachers at the school even expressed the notion to me that the school would achieve regardless of who was standing in front of the kids. Essentially the school itself was irrelevant.
No correlation at all. I student taught in a high school in suburban Toledo, Ohio where the student body was maybe 1-2% free / reduced lunch and the teaching talent was mediocre at best. The teachers at the school even expressed the notion to me that the school would achieve regardless of who was standing in front of the kids. Essentially the school itself was irrelevant.
I don't think we disagree. By quality, I meant quality based on test scores, college acceptance, ACT/SAT scores, AP exam scores, etc. I don't think there is anyway to actually measure teacher quality or how much of a difference teachers in a particular district make in students education.
I have three children who graduated from the local high school. All three went on to graduate from college. Son went on to become a doctor. I have been subbing in the district for a number of years and know most of the teachers and administration. Could I give the high school a grade? Not really. I would have to look at test scores and see how they compare to other districts. They teach many AP classes such as AP calc III, AP chem, AP physics, AP bio, etc. so I have to assume they provide a better education than schools who don't have those classes. Some of the teachers have doctorates and some are adjunct professors at a few universities. I see teachers who I consider excellent, average, and poor. I doubt my rating is similar to the principal's rating, and I have spent more time in some of these classrooms than the principal and assistant principal combined.
It takes money to live in a district with great schools and the latest and greatest, because property taxes tend to be higher, even if the houses themselves are affordable, but that’s only one factor.
We always lived in nice, middle class towns with decent schools, but not country club schools. Just as important, was the fact that the communities we chose to live in were those in which families shared our values. We were involved, and so were most of the other parents. We exposed our kids to things, we taught them our values, we went to their sports activities. We baked the cupcakes.
Parental involvement is what makes the difference. These factors are what makes very poor disadvantaged children make it out of the worst neighborhoods and schools and succeed.
I'm a teacher that use to be a med student. I was also very poor growing up and went to the worst schools. The things that schools are measured by, standardized tests, are taken by students. Student achievement is most strongly influenced by parents and peer pressure. A wealthy school where are lot of the parents are pushing their kids to succeed will have a culture of academic competition, and kids will want to do well in school if they see that their friends are doing well. Teachers and administrators are irrelevant in this type of school because the kids would pick up a book and teach themselves if they had to. If you want lower performing schools to "improve" you meed to get AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY of parents to put pressure on their kids so that the kids want to succeed academically. The problem with low performing schools is that the parents in the community are either lazy and don't care, or they have to work and do other stuff and their child's educations isn't really a priority. So really what it comes down to is the values of the community, and if the child's parents have the time or energy to be involved.
Teachers and administrators are irrelevant in this type of school because the kids would pick up a book and teach themselves if they had to.
My son did exactly that. His AP history teacher was not teaching them anything. Just talking about politics and how much he hates Trump. They never got to the subject matter. So, my son bought an AP history prep book read that and the textbook and got a 5 on the test. He was going to drop the class because he knew he would fail the test and it woudl mess up his GPA. However our local librarian (mom) got the prep book for him and pressured him to read it and practice. He was not the only one who self-taught in that class about 8 of them got 4s or 5s. Enough so the teacher could declare himself a success even though he never taught them a thing.
I have a child with special needs. We’ve been in both the “best school districts” and the “mediocre school districts” in two states now. Hands down the best school districts seem to have much better resources for special needs kiddos. Probably related to $$$. But when you have a kid that needs that extra help, if you can you will go where they can get it, you will. It shouldn’t have to be this way but it is.
I get extremely annoyed reading posts that are littered with that kind of crap.
People that believe that a school will protect them from poverty or set up their future are nuts.
Today schools teach people how to take a test. Remember, they are standardized now.
This is pathetic and only hinders development where it is needed. Knowing how to balance a check book or knowing that most of the crap you are buying is just that, crap and is wasting your time and money. The news is really the voice of the corporations parroting their message through the media. The military is a joke.
These are the things that we need them to understand.
im not sure what bothers people about being taught to take the test. if the test is testing what we want the student to learn, then there is no better way to track whether or not they are learning it. tests are awesome. if you have an issue with tests; either the real issue is the curriculum or you likely havent performed well on tests so think negatively of them.
im not sure what bothers people about being taught to take the test. if the test is testing what we want the student to learn, then there is no better way to track whether or not they are learning it. tests are awesome. if you have an issue with tests; either the real issue is the curriculum or you likely havent performed well on tests so think negatively of them.
Yes, why don't people complain when they "don't teach to the test."
im not sure what bothers people about being taught to take the test. if the test is testing what we want the student to learn, then there is no better way to track whether or not they are learning it. tests are awesome. if you have an issue with tests; either the real issue is the curriculum or you likely havent performed well on tests so think negatively of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1
Yes, why don't people complain when they "don't teach to the test."
For the purposes of illustration I'll exaggerate a bit. If teaching to the test means teaching math for a math test, then that's not really teaching to the test. But if teaching to test means the test will ask three of the following:
5x5=25
2x5=10
2x2=4
2x3=6
then that's teaching to the test.
In one of my jobs I was one of the SME's asked to review a training course. At first it seemed logical: Decide what the students need to know. Then design a test that tests that knowledge. But there wasn't time to test everything, so the test only tested a subset of the knowledge. Which wouldn't be bad if the student still had to learn the entire range of knowledge because they didn't know what was on the test, but the next step is where it went off the rails. The courseware was designed to teach ONLY what was on the test. So someone who took the course, and passed the test with flying colors, would still only know that subset of material that was tested and would NOT get exposed to the rest of the body of knowledge.
So that's what's wrong with teaching to the test -- you only teach what will be tested and skip anything that won't.
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.
