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.
No point in this discussion. Politicians love standardized testing, and so it will continue to be here no matter what.
Yeah, I know. The only way it is going to change is if parents start rebelling, demand their child be exempted from testing, and write nasty letters to the politicans that are elected in their precinct, whether local, state, or national.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
A limited amount of standardized testing serves the learning process well. However, my observation is that "standardized testing" is newspeak for "excessive testing."
Does excessive testing benefit or hurt students? Excessive testing results in less time learning, so the effect upon our kids is negative.
A day or two of an annual standardized tests, I could live with. Retesting over and over and over again, forget about it!
I think it should be mandatory but only at age 3 and beyond.
Infants and toddlers are able to learn as well, but I do not think it needs to be mandatory for infant and toddlers
Oh HECK no!! I am a preschool teacher and I would NEVER support mandatory preschool for all! OMG! I would prefer if half-day Kindergarten was still an option in public school!
My kids all went to 3 or 4 hour preschool, a few days a week (1 to 4) for a couple of years (1.5-3 years each.) That was MORE than enough to socialize and prepare them for Kindergarten. In school, they have all been praised for being kind, well-rounded, and quick and eager learners. They were praised in preschool for the same qualities. We live in Georgia and intentionally chose NOT to do lottery-funded pre-K. For MY family it's too long of day for such young children. I wanted more time with them.
Who would decide how long these little ones would be away from their parents each day? And for how many days? I have not seen a single study that shows preschool provides ANY measurable benefit for kids solidly in the middle class and above.
Oh HECK no!! I am a preschool teacher and I would NEVER support mandatory preschool for all! OMG! I would prefer if half-day Kindergarten was still an option in public school!
My kids all went to 3 or 4 hour preschool, a few days a week (1 to 4) for a couple of years (1.5-3 years each.) That was MORE than enough to socialize and prepare them for Kindergarten. In school, they have all been praised for being kind, well-rounded, and quick and eager learners. They were praised in preschool for the same qualities. We live in Georgia and intentionally chose NOT to do lottery-funded pre-K. For MY family it's too long of day for such young children. I wanted more time with them.
Who would decide how long these little ones would be away from their parents each day? And for how many days? I have not seen a single study that shows preschool provides ANY measurable benefit for kids solidly in the middle class and above.
K is half day here unless the students are zoned for a title 1 school. Tit'll 1 school's have full day. However at last check K was not required in VA.
K is half day here unless the students are zoned for a title 1 school. Tit'll 1 school's have full day. However at last check K was not required in VA.
Yes, I should have specified that I want half-day Kindergarten to still be an option in my district/state. I know it still exists elsewhere. A few years ago, I remember being baffled in a conversation with some friends who live in the Midwest as to why they wouldn't choose half-day Kindergarten since that was an option for them. Their reasoning: the second half had to be paid for, so only the poor kids did the free half-day Kindergarten
K is half day here unless the students are zoned for a title 1 school. Tit'll 1 school's have full day. However at last check K was not required in VA.
They aren't but the mandatory age to attend school is 5, which more or less means Kindergarten is mandated. We have full day kindergarten here.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
For what it's worth, while the research is mixed, some studies have shown that children that attend daycare later experience more behavior problems in elementary school. Further research has indicated that outcome does vary depending on various extraneous variables, such as whether the programs are structured or unstructured, parental influence, teacher quality, among others. But, just so you are aware, programs that do not primarily allow free exploration and that force academics are not on the positive list.
The way I interpreted the research that I've read is that kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and troubled homes benefited significantly later in life by attending quality daycare and preschool - mostly because the environment was more structured and nurturing than what they were getting at home. As OP works in an impoverished and rural environment, this may be her experience.
Kids from higher socioeconomic backgrounds with highly educated parents had children that either fared the same or did better by being "homeschooled" for preschool. Because they basically got preschool at home.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with standardized testing. It's what we do with the scores and outcomes that is the real issue. For example, if teachers' pay becomes tied to the outcomes, then regardless of any freedom on curriculum, teachers will "teach the test." On the other hand, if the outcomes are used, for example, to place high achievers in more appropriate-level classrooms, then where is the harm in that? Or if the state has a goal of ensuring all 8th graders are prepared for algebra, then a standardized test will reveal whether or not students are in fact ready for the subject. How else are we to assess the readiness of students in an objective way?
It seems to me your concern is more with how the tests outcomes are used, and not the actual tests themselves. (If not, then it should be.)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with standardized testing. It's what we do with the scores and outcomes that is the real issue. For example, if teachers' pay becomes tied to the outcomes, then regardless of any freedom on curriculum, teachers will "teach the test." On the other hand, if the outcomes are used, for example, to place high achievers in more appropriate-level classrooms, then where is the harm in that? Or if the state has a goal of ensuring all 8th graders are prepared for algebra, then a standardized test will reveal whether or not students are in fact ready for the subject. How else are we to assess the readiness of students in an objective way?
It seems to me your concern is more with how the tests outcomes are used, and not the actual tests themselves. (If not, then it should be.)
I am concerned that the last year I taught fulltime my middle school students had 1050 minutes of mandated testing a year and that did not include the district mandated tests and checks. Or my classroom tests. That is far, far, far too much.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I am concerned that the last year I taught fulltime my middle school students had 1050 minutes of mandated testing a year and that did not include the district mandated tests and checks. Or my classroom tests. That is far, far, far too much.
That's 17.5 hours, and seems excessive. Where did you teach if you don't mind my asking. We don't do that much here.
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.