I figured we'd hear from the Right Reverend Kraftster.
I sometimes wonder if it's just that some kids get it and some don't. My parents have four kids. My oldest sibling and me (the youngest) found school to be quite easy. My two other siblings are dropouts and thick as bricks. Not bad people, mind you, just highly un-teachable and destined for their sorry lots in life.
Same parents. Same genes. Same upbringing. Same schools. Same socio-economic class. Etc. But the difference is night-and-day.
Do you think it was a lack of interest or were your siblings just incapable? The whole nature/nurture thing is very interesting to me.
I don't know, really. It may be that they have learning disabilities that were never diagnosed as such. When I was about 12, I tried to tutor my older brother (six years older than me) in algebra for his ASVAB when he was going in to the Army. NOTHING I said got through to him. Learning disability? Lack of interest? Just plain stupid? I dunno.
I think anyone with half a brain can look at what is required for AYP and know that eventually it's going to fail. You must improve your test scores every year to make AYP. If you look at the picture with the article, you can see the scores are all hovering around 75% passing for the 3 subjects that have been tested for years and the teachers now know how to teach to that particular test. Ask any teacher out there, you got 3/4 of your students to do well on a test, are you happy? Most would say yes (or at least most from the school I came from). None of those scores are significant drops in test scores.
The science test is a disaster. Students are expected to know biology, chemistry, physics, ecology, earth science, etc. They cram all the science classes into one single test. It's hard enough to teach just one of those subjects and get a kid proficient in it, let alone 7 or 8 subjects. I honestly can't believe the system hasn't move past these tests yet.
Nice to see the state Education Secretary place the blame on cheating and not mention that positions were cut and class sizes went up.
count2infinity wrote: I think anyone with half a brain can look at what is required for AYP and know that eventually it's going to fail. You must improve your test scores every year to make AYP. If you look at the picture with the article, you can see the scores are all hovering around 75% passing for the 3 subjects that have been tested for years and the teachers now know how to teach to that particular test. Ask any teacher out there, you got 3/4 of your students to do well on a test, are you happy? Most would say yes (or at least most from the school I came from). None of those scores are significant drops in test scores.
It doesn't help that the base for science in elementary schools is usually every other day for 1/2 hour class and sometimes not at all depending on the needs of reading or math.
Yeah, I don't get why science isn't pushed more. In my daughter's elementary school they do three weeks of science, then three weeks of social studies. So half a year of science. In middle school it's the same way... Half a year. At my school we do it an hour a day. I really don't think the other schools can effectively cover the same content in half the time.
I can understand science being treated as secondary subject up until about 5th or 6th grade. At elementary levels there are certainly things that should take preference (reading, writing, math). They should have enough science class to show the kids what is involved in science, but you don't need to make it an everyday sort of subject. After that, I feel as though science is just as important as the other subjects.
With that being said, the test itself is still ridiculously stupid. It covers such a large range of topics that it's impossible to prepare for. It's more or less a crapshoot.
count2infinity wrote: I can understand science being treated as secondary subject up until about 5th or 6th grade. At elementary levels there are certainly things that should take preference (reading, writing, math). They should have enough science class to show the kids what is involved in science, but you don't need to make it an everyday sort of subject. After that, I feel as though science is just as important as the other subjects.
Here's the thing. If you give the students a good base in science from the second they get in school then they are better prepared for the more advanced concepts when they get into the middle grades. Ignoring it in the low grades is one of the worst things that can be done. Ignoring any subject I mean. People in general need a good base to build knowledge upon. They can't just be thrown into something and expect to do well at it.
Hopefully the $5 he's gotten in donations is a good indicator of his chances.
Well the thing that worries me is if too many republicans vote straight ticket, he's got a chance.
Great article that outlines some of the myths of charter schools. A bit old, but very relevant, given that both candidates are happy to push away from public education.
count2infinity wrote: Well the thing that worries me is if too many republicans vote straight ticket, he's got a chance.
I have no words. No one else could have taken the republican ticket?
Thoughts from the LGP teachers?
"There would also be, Weingarten says, 'some residency or actual classroom practice beforehand, some real internship before you walked into teaching.'"
Sounds good to me. Compared to the rest of the country PA (and NY) have very rigid requirements for teachers (should be harder) the Praxis exams do keep the dumb from becoming teachers... I'm too tired to write much on thi right now (jet lag) but I support a "bar exam" as long as that bar is set high.
I don't know.... You'd have to be pretty dumb to not pass the Praxis. As the article mentions, upping the college requirements would also be a good idea.
Something about barring the door behind you.
ExPatriatePen wrote: Something about barring the door behind you.
I did a paper on this years ago. There's actually a name for this (although I forget what it is) where individuals who have entered a particular profession, then join a standards body and/or actually campaign for tougher barriers of entry.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, just that it's a common practice.
I think it's a matter of good teachers noticing that the standards are very low to become a teacher, and they want to increase those standards so that future generations of teachers are better than what they had to put up with around them. Higher standards (whether through a test or college standards) and more experience before getting thrown into a classroom.
MWB wrote: I don't know.... You'd have to be pretty dumb to not pass the Praxis. As the article mentions, upping the college requirements would also be a good idea.
I should have said "very dumb."