|
0 members (),
126
guests, and
31
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
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 389
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 389 |
[quote..just because an idea sounds good doesn't mean it ever will be good.
] [/quote]
If our government says it is a good idea, then it must be true! HeHe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 103
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 103 |
..just because an idea sounds good doesn't mean it ever will be good. If our government says it is a good idea, then it must be true! HeHe Thanks for the giggle!
Last edited by mizzoumommy; 06/26/09 10:09 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840 |
"A national test on various subjects administered at the same time is about the only way to compare educational outcomes. The AP and SAT subject tests are the ones that come close."
This would mean that standards, subjects would have to be taught *at the same time, etc. throughout the nation in all schools, IMO. Otherwise, you could have a group of students tested on a subject that they have only been taught for a semester and another that has had an entire year to focus on the same topic, depending on how the school interpreted the standard and implemented it in the classroom.
My point is that standards were developed by subject matter experts and then tests were created by them, then the core curriculum was developed by them. WITHOUT any input from non-subject-matter experts, ie the government. People use AP and SAT because they are good, reliable and accredited measures that people trust. If you accept AP as a good core system, then why do we need someone to develop any more standards?
We already have accreditation boards and professors who write textbooks. Again, without national standards.
The National standards debate is frivolous.
"You cannot drop the same curriculum into a Texas agricultural border town that you have on Long Island. That is why you must allow for local conditions. There will be an ag-vo-tech emphasis in that ag town with none of that at NY magnet school.
A national curriculum could leave some room for local/regional subjects and standards."
A national curriculum could leave some room for regional differences, perhaps with the stipulation that such courses can only be offered during certain parts of the year and only for specific grades. For example, in California, California history is only taught in third grade (if memory serves me correctly).
A third grader from the Rio Grande Valley is not equivalent to that from Long Island. And saying when stuff can be taught is tying the hands of the local school district.
"I think "testing" should be early and often to track how a student is doing with results going back into an individualized instruction set. A lot of online coursework does this with good results."
What type of "testing" do you envision and how would it be implemented? What do you mean by "often"?
Ideally, weekly. The test would not test stuff the child knows and just test the edges of their knowledge expansion and then this would feed into the curriculum for the next week.
Yes, there is never an excuse for a "failing" school, IMO. However, I wonder if testing - "early and often" is the solution. Wouldn't this perpetuate a system that "teaches to the test", a system which we are, currently, trying to move away from?
Unless parents support education, then no school will progress very far. I played on a top grade-school football team while growing up and many of the players were black. One wanted me to teach him to read - and it went very well - until his dad found out and berated his son, "you want to be better than your dad?!!" There is also the issue of discipline and learning risk-taking arising from single-parent homes especially for boys.
Ultimately, the issue is one of information and evaluating it. A national set of standards ignores the critical role of local administrators who are in a better place to observe and adjust to local variations in parents, the preparation of the students, and community priorities.
From a GT perspective, having national standards for GT education means nothing. Having a local set of administrators and teachers who have had GT inservice education and then having a few school systems with GT-track curriculums where methods and knowledge is built up is far preferable.
Standards do not get something DONE. Local people who are enthusiastic about what they are doing does. People are most enthusiastic where they set their goals and work towards them and their ideas are listened to. Having some grand poobah tell them what to do will just take the wind out of their sails.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 103
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 103 |
I hope you didn't think that I was *for having a CES or National/Common Curriculum. All of my posts have been illustrations as to why the whole thing is an idea that sounds good, but really isn't.
I agree with your posts, and have from the beginning, but wanted some clarity re: testing, etc. to confirm we are on the same page...and we are!
One last question, re: frivolous debate - do you mean that's it's frivolous for us (on this board) to be discussing it? Or silly that the government is doing so? I personally find it a complete waste of time and energy that our government (46 governors, et al.) are working on this. However, since they are, and since others are on board with the idea, including a few from this board, several people on various education geared discussion boards I am a member of, and people I know in person, I feel it's important to discuss and to see the various arguments and opinions from both sides of the issue. After all, people on this board from the USA will have to deal with the ramifications is CES manages to get off the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 830
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 830 |
The problem with not having national standards is how it negatively affects the nd or slow kids. For example, my GS9's mother kept custody of one of her children. That one just turned 7 this week, and finished 1st grade. In K, she attended at least 3 schools, each in a different state. I don't know who many schools she attended in 1st. Another woman I know has 2 children, 6 & 8. The 8 year old just finished 2nd grade, she attended a new school district for each grade, 2 different states. These kids are average, and they're being set up for failure.
Now, our gifted kids aren't bothered with holes or skips in their education, they figure it out quickly. But a ND kid that misses fractions in 2nd grade because she went to school in one state is at a huge disadvantage moving to another state for 3rd grade where they do have fractions in 2nd.
Austin, you've described an excellent, individualized education. But that won't work for kids that move from state to state unless they used the same curriculum. And I really don't like use of specific curriculum being dictated at a state or federal level.
But if the states all agree they will introduce cursive handwriting in 2nd grade, study of ancient civilizations & fractions in 3rd, etc., it will give a common goal. If a child knows the material, pass them, if a child needs to work through it another year, hold them back.
Last edited by OHGrandma; 06/26/09 05:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 103
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 103 |
Actually, I was considering *all children in my posts. My apologies if my mention of outliers led anyone to believe that I was focusing on only a subset of children. I do agree that the current system is problematic with some schools being far ahead in what they teach and others ridiculously behind. I don't believe that having CES will make a positive, significant difference. There already is a CES of sorts in place; it's called NCLB - children are supposed to be proficient in certain topics by a certain grade - and it's a failure. Austin, you've described an excellent, individualized education. But that won't work for kids that move from state to state unless they used the same curriculum. And I really don't like use of specific curriculum being dictated at a state or federal level.
But if the states all agree they will introduce cursive handwriting in 2nd grade, study of ancient civilizations & fractions in 3rd, etc., it will give a common goal. If a child knows the material, pass them, if a child needs to work through it another year, hold them back. I'm confused, are you saying that you don't like the idea of having a national/common curriculum, but would agree to it if it meant that all schools taught the same subjects during the same grade? That still wouldn't necessarily address gaps for transfer students, especially mid-year transfers, unless the curriculum dictated what would be taught, *when (to the date) and the teachers, etc. were not allowed to deviate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 830
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 830 |
Right, a standard would be for all the schools to agree to teach fractions beginning in 2nd, learn how to add/subtract them in 3rd, multiply/divide them in 3rd. I don't care what curriculum they use (although I prefer Singapore because there is minimal repetition).
A child that moves mid-year would have maybe a few months to catch up on gaps, not a whole year and some months. That's manageable for most kids.
I have not seen any standards set by NCLB, other than to say a school has to meet state standards or face losing local control.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 389
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 389 |
The problem with not having national standards is how it negatively affects the nd or slow kids. I respectfully disagree  . The only ones who stand to gain from national standards is the middle ground, which I will admit, is the majority. Slower kids will be have to be taught...and re-taught....and re-taught how to pass a specific test. In turn they will get bored and are more likely to tune out at school. Special Education parents are very unhappy with our Florida standards test, FCAT. Many of them advocate against it because it causes major stress on thier children. http://stopthefcat.com/Disadvantaged_Groups.htmlSlower children typically do not test well, even if they understand the concept. How many times do you have to fail to believe you are a failure? *Slower children NEED a slower pace and should be encouraged to do their personal best, not required to meet the national average. **And the inverse is true for the more advanced kids.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 830
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 830 |
The problem with not having national standards is how it negatively affects the nd or slow kids. I respectfully disagree . The only ones who stand to gain from national standards is the middle ground, which I will admit, is the majority. Slower kids will be have to be taught...and re-taught....and re-taught how to pass a specific test. In turn they will get bored and are more likely to tune out at school. Special Education parents are very unhappy with our Florida standards test, FCAT. Many of them advocate against it because it causes major stress on thier children. http://stopthefcat.com/Disadvantaged_Groups.htmlSlower children typically do not test well, even if they understand the concept. How many times do you have to fail to believe you are a failure? *Slower children NEED a slower pace and should be encouraged to do their personal best, not required to meet the national average. **And the inverse is true for the more advanced kids. The use of a double negative in my post made it confusing. I don't think you disagree with me. Removing the double negative would let it read "having a national standard would positively affect nd or slow children". My reasoning is, in this society many of the children who are(or should be) being held back to repeat material, or eventually dropping out due to failure, are failing due to switching schools often and missing out on key material. Having the same minimum goal at each school would result in the same principle material being taught no matter which school the child attended. It might even help gifted children accelerate by demonstrating they have learned the material set as the goal for a particular age group.
|
|
|
|
|
