|
0 members (),
391
guests, and
217
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,084 Likes: 9
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,084 Likes: 9 |
...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,157
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,157 |
I'm curious whether the students in Hong Kong who were tested were already top performing students, or at least average or above, because the low-level kids were filtered out and tracked to non-academic career pathways. In the US, the scores reflect all the kids, even the ones who come from low SES and have low cognitive ability. So in Hong Kong, and similar high-performing countries, who is being tested?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,641 Likes: 3 |
NPR interviews Chester Finn, co-author of the op-ed cited in the original post: How The U.S. Is Neglecting Its Smartest KidsAUGUST 24, 2015 by ANYA KAMENETZ Chester E. Finn Jr. has three very bright granddaughters. He thinks they "have considerable academic potential and are not always being challenged by their schools." Finn is not just a proud grandpa; he's a long-established expert on education policy with the Fordham Institute and Hoover Institution.
So it's not surprising that his grandkids got him wondering about — and researching — a big question: How well is the U.S. educating its top performers?
His answer: not very. "High achievers are being neglected in all sort of ways by schools that had no incentive to push them farther up."
His research became a book, with co-author Brandon Wright, out next month from Harvard Education Press. It's titled Failing Our Brightest Kids: The Global Challenge of Educating High-Ability Students. It contains an analysis of the U.S. issue, plus case studies on gifted education from a dozen countries around the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
I'm curious whether the students in Hong Kong who were tested were already top performing students, or at least average or above, because the low-level kids were filtered out and tracked to non-academic career pathways. In the US, the scores reflect all the kids, even the ones who come from low SES and have low cognitive ability. So in Hong Kong, and similar high-performing countries, who is being tested? Another factor is there's a culture of hyperventilating over test scores in Hong Kong, like in much of SE Asia. A 98% is not to be celebrated, it's a family crisis.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 38
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 38 |
Look at China as a whole. Seventy-five percent are illiterate. Since the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, economic policies have changed to favor the wealthy few. One of these policies has been the privatization of schools. Today the Chinese government contributes the equivalent of 1 cent per year, per child to their education. The young people toil away in factories without basic rights and basic benefits, that we take for granted, to pay for the education of one relative. The hope is that one relative can pull the entire family out of poverty with an education. The exams are so important. If the child does not receive the highest marks, he cannot go on to college and that entire family investment is wasted. It's definitely high-stakes testing. Unfortunately, the rural poor do not have access to the best schools and tutoring programs necessary to pass these exams, so the odds are not good for them.
Last edited by NGR; 08/25/15 11:46 AM. Reason: Poor word choice, "fail"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 206
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 206 |
Look at China as a whole. Seventy-five percent are illiterate. Since the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, economic policies have changed to favor the wealthy few. One of these policies has been the privatization of schools. Today the Chinese government contributes the equivalent of 1 cent per year, per child to their education. The young people toil away in factories without basic rights and basic benefits, that we take for granted, to pay for the education of one relative. The hope is that one relative can pull the entire family out of poverty with an education. The exams are so important. If the child does not receive the highest marks, he cannot go on to college and that entire family investment is wasted. It's definitely high-stakes testing. Unfortunately, the rural poor do not have access to the best schools and tutoring programs necessary to pass these exams, so the odds are not good for them. China has lots of problems. And some of what you said may even be true. But let us get our facts right, please. According to UNICEF, China's literacy rate is 95%. http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/china_statistics.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 38
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 38 |
You are right. That was a stupid comment. 75% live in rural areas. Literacy is defined as about a 4th grade education. It still not accurate to compare higher PISA scores in Hong Kong to the USA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
It's worth noting that Hong Kong is a slightly different animal from mainland China, as it was an independent British protectorate until 1997, and high property prices have prevented a significant influx of mainlanders from permanently relocating there. Mainlanders now swarm the island for work, shopping, and general tourism, but then they mostly go home.
Also, there's no "rural" in Hong Kong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
I wouldn't want education funds to be used for teaching intelligent design, for example. Too late. Private school scholarships paid for by public funds do eaxactly that, and more.
|
|
|
|
|
