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.
Not all of us have that advantage, even if we are white males.
I've found that being a white male is generally better than being anything else, all other things being equal.
Of course, all things are not equal. I'd rather be a black male or female with millions of dollars and I'll tolerate the racism. But I would rather not be a black male at my same income level. And if I was poor, I'd rather be white than anything else. At least in America. Maybe in other countries it's a bit different.
I've found that being a white male is generally better than being anything else, all other things being equal.
Of course, all things are not equal. I'd rather be a black male or female with millions of dollars and I'll tolerate the racism. But I would rather not be a black male at my same income level. And if I was poor, I'd rather be white than anything else. At least in America. Maybe in other countries it's a bit different.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. But it's completely off topic for this thread.
Had to wait until after work to get deeper here, so backtracking just a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001
.
What I don't understand is, you seem to have had a lot of lousy teachers. Why is it that you oppose standardized tests, when they are basically the only system of checks and balances against a teacher's power?
I would say most of my teachers were mediocre at best. Some downright bad, some decent, and a couple really good. But I don't see standardized tests as a check and balance on teacher's power.
Consider: A student can only be expected to know what has been taught. Sure, there are exceptions, but we're talking the typical, not the exceptions. My concern with standardized tests is "do they measure what they purport to measure?" They get discussed on here as if they measure innate intelligence vs what has been taught. So is the standardized test actually measuring ability or background?
A little background story. After I was accepted to college but before starting, I got a letter from the university directing me to take the ACT and submit my scores. Turns out my entering class was to be a part of a study on how well the ACT, a standardized test, predicted college performance. in order not to influence the results, it was only given to students who are already been accepted. This was followed up by taking the ACT again about halfway through first semester and again 2nd year. At the gross level, it was found the ACT correlated with performance in first year college math. But wait, it gets a little more complex. They also found it correlated with how much math a student had before college. AND first year performance also correlated with how much math they had before college. By second year, the correlation was much less. Turns out the test was merely a stand in for previous education.
In my case, going back to the quality of teacher and school, I had exhausted every math course my school provided. And I was struggling in first year calc. Thought I was dumber than dirt next to the others in there. The difference was most of them had at least one and often two years of calc in high school. Similar things in chemistry. I had one year. Others had two, three, and sometimes four of lab science. Foreign language. Same. First year I was basically a year or two behind everyone else. By second year, I had caught up. Scoring me on material I had never seen wouldn't have measured what I could actually do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations
Generalize much?
I specialize in generalizing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001
I think it's a fairly common problem. There used to be a teacher on this forum who always bragged that she almost never gave A's, and that she seemed proud that a lot of students lost scholarships because of her. Of course, the teachers who dominate this forum always defended her.
If you're thinking of the one I am, she was talking about giving grades that were earned, not artificially passing kids who just to pass them along like the admin wanted. She wasn't talking about withholding grades that were earned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001
Since you don't agree with requiring a certain range of percentage of students who get each grade (to avoid allowing teachers who give everybody an A, or teachers who refuse to give A's), and you despise standardized tests, would you at least agree that there needs to be standards that every teacher must follow on issues such as whether or not makeup exams are given and under what circumstances, how grades should be rounded, what the penalty should be for spelling errors, etc? What the policy is doesn't matter; what matters is that every teacher should have to follow the same rules. Do you also agree that the teacher grade overrides, which my high school allowed, should not have been allowed, since that gives too much power to a teacher?
I don't despise standardized tests. I just don't think they provide the data people believe they do and get misused because of it. But to talk to the specific question, I believe the curriculum should be criterion referenced. IE Do these things, know this information = A. Do something else, = B and so forth. I don't believe in making too many rules for daily details. There are just too many different circumstances for hard and fast all/nothing rules. That just results in a zero tolerance mentality.
...
What I don't understand is, you seem to have had a lot of lousy teachers. Why is it that yolu oppose standardized tests, when they are basically the only system of checks land balances against a teacher's power?
Seems this would be better addressed at the local level rather than removing a useful tool at the national level for those for whom this was not a debilitating issue. Again, a standardized test like the SAT measures not just effective teaching, but also innate intelligence as an indicator for a higher probability the student will succeed in college (extract maximum knowledge and skills), where failure to do so has personal consequences as well as societal.
Otherwise, what is your proposal to better address this for national standardized assessment tests like the SAT - without creating negative unintended consequences for those unaffected.
I think you were asking me. I believe in local control and local decision making. Not something the Federal Government should be setting. With that said, I also think the states should have some common (I hate to use that word because it brings back images of common core) intent for what college bound and trade bound students should know coming out of high school.
I think you were asking me. I believe in local control and local decision making. Not something the Federal Government should be setting. With that said, I also think the states should have some common (I hate to use that word because it brings back images of common core) intent for what college bound and trade bound students should know coming out of high school.
Yes, local control at the K-12 educational level, to educate their students such that each student who takes a national aptitude test such as the SAT comes into it on equal footing. This gives colleges nationwide the ability to apply a common yardstick to every applicant, regardless of their state or school of origin.
Equally important, they need to have the ability to accurately assess each applicant’s potential to successfully utilize and complete the college program within reasonable time frame. Because success in college not only depends on everyone entering on equal academic footing (prior coursework), it is also about the ability of the student to absorb new, oftentimes challenging material within a set time frame. It is about aptitude. Otherwise, failure to do so not only wastes time and money for both parties, but every slot filled by an ill-suited student who eventually drops out, or fails out, is a slot not available to another for whom it might have been a better match.
How many found themselves changing majors after the disastrous results of their first difficult exams in the ‘weed out’ classes? Now they need the ability to pivot quickly and learn material for a new major, material for which they may have had limited previous exposure. Depending on their aptitude, this change can add much more time towards the completion their degree, if a degree is even completed. And every additional year brings upon the student a greater debt load for a degree which may or may not provide enough ROI.
Yes, local control at the K-12 educational level, to educate their students such that each student who takes a national aptitude test such as the SAT comes into it on equal footing. This gives colleges nationwide the ability to apply a common yardstick to every applicant, regardless of their state or school of origin.
Equally important, they need to have the ability to accurately assess each applicant’s potential to successfully utilize and complete the college program within reasonable time frame. Because success in college not only depends on everyone entering on equal academic footing (prior coursework), it is also about the ability of the student to absorb new, oftentimes challenging material within a set time frame. It is about aptitude. Otherwise, failure to do so not only wastes time and money for both parties, but every slot filled by an ill-suited student who eventually drops out, or fails out, is a slot not available to another for whom it might have been a better match.
How many found themselves changing majors after the disastrous results of their first difficult exams in the ‘weed out’ classes? Now they need the ability to pivot quickly and learn material for a new major, material for which they may have had limited previous exposure. Depending on their aptitude, this change can add much more time towards the completion their degree, if a degree is even completed. And every additional year brings upon the student a greater debt load for a degree which may or may not provide enough ROI.
I agree with much of what you're saying. I think the biggest point where I don't support standardized testing is whether they actually test aptitude. Or at least to any level of granularity between low, middle, and high. I would agree that a 30 is better than a 20 is better than a 10 on the ACT. But I'm unconvinced that a 32 is better than a 30 or that a 36 is better than a 32, esp when you look at the distribution curve. It's presented to the public, and generally used as, a linear 1 to 36. But it's only linear in the middle section. The tails are essentially flat.
The problem as I see it, colleges make enormous admission and scholarship decisions on those single points between 32 and 33 or 33 and 34 when there really is no performance difference between them. And this isn't even beginning to discuss the misuse of standardized test data in school funding distributions.
Had to wait until after work to get deeper here, so backtracking just a bit.
I don't despise standardized tests. I just don't think they provide the data people believe they do and get misused because of it. But to talk to the specific question, I believe the curriculum should be criterion referenced. IE Do these things, know this information = A. Do something else, = B and so forth. I don't believe in making too many rules for daily details. There are just too many different circumstances for hard and fast all/nothing rules. That just results in a zero tolerance mentality.
But if Teacher A gives makeup exams if students are sick or have to go to a funeral, and Teacher B gives a 0 for any exam missed for any reason, then obviously Teacher A’s students will get higher grades. So it just comes down to a random lottery of who gets which teacher. That is why I feel that, especially if standardized tests are eliminated, that there will need to be more uniformity as far as policies that affect grades. Ideally, it would not be a zero tolerance mentality.
As a way of speaking your language: you always complain, rightly so, that teachers favor athletes. Aren’t standardized tests the one check and balance against that power, since the test doesn’t know if a student is an athlete or not?
Last edited by mitsguy2001; 04-10-2021 at 10:48 AM..
I think you were asking me. I believe in local control and local decision making. Not something the Federal Government should be setting. With that said, I also think the states should have some common (I hate to use that word because it brings back images of common core) intent for what college bound and trade bound students should know coming out of high school.
But it makes no sense to compare students on a national or international basis when every school district is playing based on different rules.
I agree with much of what you're saying. I think the biggest point where I don't support standardized testing is whether they actually test aptitude. Or at least to any level of granularity between low, middle, and high. I would agree that a 30 is better than a 20 is better than a 10 on the ACT. But I'm unconvinced that a 32 is better than a 30 or that a 36 is better than a 32, esp when you look at the distribution curve. It's presented to the public, and generally used as, a linear 1 to 36. But it's only linear in the middle section. The tails are essentially flat.
I would agree that a 4.0 is better than a 3.0 is better than a 2.0. But I’m unconvinced that a 3.98 is better than a 3.96 or that a 4.0 is better than a 3.96, esp when you look at the distribution curve.
Quote:
The problem as I see it, colleges make enormous admission and scholarship decisions on those single points between 32 and 33 or 33 and 34 when there really is no performance difference between them. And this isn't even beginning to discuss the misuse of standardized test data in school funding distributions.
The problem as I see it, colleges make enormous admissions and scholarship decisions on those single points between 3.96 and 3.98 or 3.98 and 4.0 when there really is no performance difference between them.
I think you were asking me. I believe in local control and local decision making. Not something the Federal Government should be setting. With that said, I also think the states should have some common (I hate to use that word because it brings back images of common core) intent for what college bound and trade bound students should know coming out of high school.
One of the things that I've learned over a long life is a general principle that small "systems" fail, and bigger "systems" step in and try to fix the failure.
I started out my teaching career in western NYS, and -- at least back then -- every community had their own school system. I student taught in a very good suburban school system (at least at that time) -- the Greece school district. My first job for pay was in the rural school district where the high school was Midlakes -- again a very good school system where the community took great pride in their schools. Then a year at East Irondequoit school system...and you know you have problems when you're sitting in front of your television sorting out the laundry and there's your principal being grilled on "60 Minutes". Individual communities having their own control in a school system is OFTEN a scenario for disaster. When I was growing up in the Palmyra-Macedon school system in western NYS, the population got to vote on the school budget each year. And almost every year it failed. The reason -- it was the only budget people got to vote on, so due to wanting lower taxes, they would vote down that one budget. Year after year. And in the end, each year, they would ultimately pass a scaled down budget...and then usually approve supplemental packages, typically resulting in the original budget essentially being passes. It was folly. On the other hand, the state Regents program was (at least at that time) excellent and well respected, and the state university system was almost a model for state university systems. Local failure, state success...at least in general.
I spent about 9 years of my career in Prince George's County, Maryland. It started out fairly decent, but they voted in "TRIM" (tax relief in Maryland) in the county, the school system's quality plummeted, and quite a few of us packed up and left. I just drove across the Potomac River and settled down in Fairfax County public schools -- one of the best school systems in the nation -- where people supported the school system.
What's my point with all this. The more local a school system is, the more it is at the mercy of ignorant voters. And I'm sorry, but a lot of voters are awfully ignorant.
One year I went on a trip to Thailand and was the guest of the Thai Ministry Of Education at several schools. At one school they asked me to explain the American education system. They actually laughed when I told them there was virtually no national policy or governing board for the most important nation in the world. And I don't blame them. Because it smacks of no real standards.
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.
