Teachers Unions - Outdated?

Yes?

I've addressed it more than once. I think you just don't like my answer.

That's not true--you've spoken of algebra and other forms of mathematics, which don't constitute arcane cultural knowledge. Tell me, for example, how knowing the story of Magna Carta provides students with learning skills? Any answer which i suspect you can cobble together would have it's learning skills component embedded in the process of learning about Magna Carta, and therefore, no answer at all. When you can explain how the possession of arcane cultural knowledge serves to advance learning skills, you will have answered the question.

In my post #4376272, i asked:



This is your entire response, In your post #4376302:



Now, algebra and the scientific method, plot, imagery and vocubulary building don't constitute arcane cultural knowledge. When the "Pilgrim Fathers" landed at Plymouth Rock, who wrote To a Fieldmouse, what the succession to the Presidency is--these are examples of arcane cultural knowledge. Children don't need to learn these things (although i'm not saying it's a bad thing to learn them), they need to learn how to find these things out if they ever have occasion to use the knowledge.

And by the way, you've only addressed that once, and i've just quoted the post in which you did so.

You didn't answer my question of why you assume this wasn't being done before NCLB.



Ronald Reagan promised to abolish the Federal department of education, but failed to do so, blaming a Democratically controlled Congress. That promise was a plank in the Republican platform. Pappy Bush, however, did nothing to attempt to implement it. The Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, but, even though Bob Dole again promised in his 1996 run for President to abolish the Deparrtmet of Education, a Republican controlled Congress made no move to do so. It seems they must have had their uses for it, despite the bluster.

The George Bush came along, and we got NCLB. The budget of the department of education expanded by about 70% in the first two years of that program, but precious little of that money seems to have made it to the local level, certainly nothing like Bush promised. Beginning in 2006 Bush requested less funds than had been in the projected budget at the time the bill was proposed (money bills can only originate in the House, so the President has to ask for the money--but that was a Republican controlled House). Programs to fund technology enhancement in schools have been cut at the Federal level, meaning state or local school boards have to find the money themselves.

Your comments about "social engineering" and the like are ipse dixit pronouncements on your part, and reek of right-wing propaganda. They do explain, however, why the allegedly libertarian, small-government Republican Party has been so eager to interfere in state and local control of education.

Your last comment is ironic, given that states have shifted student populations (even resorting to bussing as noted by other members above) to attempt to affect test scores, and, as the definitions of standards are left to the states, even lowered their standards to attempt to assure that all students meet the standards. The State of Missouri openly acknowledged that they had lowered their accomplishment standards in order to assure that more students met testing goals of NCLB.

Carter created the department of education in 1979, splitting Health, Education and Welfare into the department of education and the department of health and human services (which of course required Congress to act, since only Congress has the power to create or eliminate cabinet-level departments). Thereafter, Reagan and the Republican Party consistently promised to get rid of the department. They haven't done so. From 1994 to 2008, the Congress was contolled by the Republican Party, who could have deep-sixed the department, given that only Congress has the power to create or eliminate cabinet-level departments. They not only didn't do so, they cooperated with Bush in the formulation and legal implementation of NCLB.

So, O'George, you have yet to address the ideological question of why conservatives, and the Republican Party in particular, who claim to be small government ideologically, have supported this program, and are interferring in state and local control of schools.

By the way, O'George, ealier . . .



First, how do you know that, or why do you assume that. Second, accountability to whom--the tax payers who fund the schools directly and who elect the local school boards? Or do you mean accountability to the Federal government.

If you mean the former, rather than the latter, once again, how do you know that?

I think I was pretty clear in inferring I meant accountability to the people who finance the public schools through their taxes and who are presumably served by them. The AFT's (American Federation of Teachers) persistent opposition to objective measurement of the performance of teachers and schools through testing and the establishment of any form of performance or merit based advancement or compensation for teachers well known and widely documented.

The issue was rather well illustrated in the recent Mayoral election in Washington DC in which, with rather massive help and financing from the AFT, a mayor who, together with an enlightened manager of the school district, has brought the first significant improvement in the performance of the public school system there in many years using performance measures and management, was defeated in the election. The AFT, of course, piously asserts that it supports the improvements in the schools in a district notorious for the highest percapita cost per pupil, and chronically lowest performance in the nation.

A few years ago, after the head of the Washington Local AFT Union was caught having embezzeled several millions of dollars from the union, the AFT national union President responded to a a Congressional inquiry asking why it had not audited the financial records of this local for ten years when its charter affirms that such audits will be done annually with the statement, "There is no binding legal requirement for such audits to be done."

I would say that accountability in any form is not one of their priorities.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. While I wish there wasn't one racial group that did most of the teaching, standard setting, grading and creating the SAT, hiring, legal paperwork, doctoring, lawyering, business running and what not; I think it's a good idea to say to kids - this is what you need to know to have an equal footing in this country. This is the information deemed important by the society you live in. And, here is a measurement of how you're doing in that regard. Has anyone taken a college prep test in a different country? It would be interesting to see what's different culturally in different tests...

It's definitely not the only thing students are doing, but I still don't see why all the sturm and drang over these reviews. You also said earlier that reviewing standardized tests is about rote learning - and that is an error.

I've been teaching electrical for about 2.5 years now (my student's ages range from 20 to over 50) and and I'm not certain I can tell the difference between "understanding" and the mimicry of "understanding".

For that matter the classic Turing Test might well suggest the difference is of no pragmatic consequence. Further an agreed upon definition of "understanding" in the context given has not been forthcoming. Also consider that the most basic of philosophic requirements: "define your terms".

Consider that the method by which "understanding" is most often measured at my technical institution is the written exam, and if you have an excellent memory, a good command of the English language, are very facile with one of the more advanced nonprogrammable hand-held calculator, know algebra, trigonometry, basic physics and a smattering of calculus, you may do rather well on exams.

But what does that really prove? Understanding? Mimicry of understanding?
What is the nature of understanding anyway? In any case I would argue that knowledge is not the same as understanding, and the ability to perform well on written exams is not understanding either.

Such an annoyance when you type something in quickly, only to read it again later noticing typos. It's one of the things I absolutely hate about the new A2K site. No reasonable edit time.

Test taking is a skill in and of itself - especially with multiple choice tests, which is what these standardized tests most often are. You have four answer options. You can almost always eliminate two right off the bat. Of the other two, one is the correct answer and one looks at least somewhat logically feasible. It's a matter of applying skills at that point for problem solving and simple elimination.
Well that works for math, but not so well for language arts. You can have two different spellings presented of the same word, but there IS no process for determining which one is right and which one isn't - you have to know that.

We've just changed to something called functional skills exams in the setting I'm teaching in. These are adult learners who are working toward their Level I and II numeracy and literacy - the equivalent of GED level or tenth grade skills in the United States and GCSE level here in Britain.

The men used to come in, having been assessed, would be placed in the appropriate class and then want to take practice tests to bolster their confidence toward taking the actual exam. If they took enough practice exams - they could pretty much memorize the answers.
There was a student in the last highschool in which I taught who got a perfect score on his SAT-1600. I asked him how he did it. He said, 'Every Saturday for two years I've spent four hours doing SAT practice questions.'

Okay, do they learn anything from doing this? Sure they do. I don't think anyone can deny that. If you can read the question and read the answer and you didn't know the answer before - you will know it now. You've learned something. It's like me using my crossword dictionary to complete a crossword puzzle. My dad called it cheating - I called it learning. I could not use the dictionary and leave it blank, or I could use the dictionary and learn something.

The question is how valuable is it if they don't know or 'understand' how to apply it?

That's why I'm so happy that in the venue in which I work, we've switched to the functional skills method of exam.

Instead of having a maths problem that reads (for Level 1):
Regulations state that each child must have 2.5 sqare metres of floor space in a nursery. One room has 36 square metres of floor space. What is the maximum number of children that this room can be used for:
a) 12
b)14
c)15
d)18

They give them a page with diagrams and blank work space with scenarios like these:
Sam is going to tile his bathroom. He plans to make a border using white and coloured square tiles. Each tile is the same size, but some tiles must be cut in order to make the border.
They give the dimensions of the tile and a diagram of the suggested border design. Then they ask these questions:
1) What is the height of Sam's border?
2)How many tiles are needed to make the part of the border shown above?

Sam decides to tile the wall above his bath like this: (shows diagram) The wall is 2m long. He wants 5 rows of tiles above the bath. Sam finds these instructions:
a) Mark the middle of the wall with a vertical line
b) stick horizontal rows of tiles on either side of the line
c)cut the tiles at the end to fit

How many of each type of tile will Sam need to buy?
Sam thinks he can fit a complete row of tiles without cutting any of them. Is Sam correct? Explain how you reached your answer.

Sam wants to make a different symmetrical pattern using both types of tile for his border. Use this diagram to create a pattern for Sam. Explain how many of each type of tile your pattern uses.

And instead of 50 multiple choice questions - there are three. You get no credit if you don't show your work - even if you get the correct answer. You get credit for showing your work and more credit for doing the work correctly and coming up with the wrong final answer than if you just come up with the correct answer, but showed that you didn't know how to work it out correctly.

The new literacy test asks that you write. It might say, 'Use the word monitor in a sentence correctly' when in the past it would have something like:
The word 'monitor' in line 11 (of a pre written text) means:
a) control
b} oversee
c) supervise
d)check

Of course these functional skills tests will take much longer to grade. Maybe they're not practical - but I do think they will give a more accurate measurement of what someone has learned and understands.
And I know that I teach in a way that I'm more comfortable with. You start from the very beginning, having broken the skill down into separate conceptual parts and you build skill on skill.
You don't say to yourself - he has to have algebra to do this - I'll just make sure he knows how to plug the numbers of the formula in for the letters- and he'll come up with right answer on this specific problem.
Which is what teachers are often forced to do when time is of the essence and scores are on the line.

The problem I have with NCLB is not the basic premise or intent.
And it's not that it has made teachers and schools accountable.

It's that it has turned individual children with distinct and individual learning styles into commodoties.
Got a kid in your class whose a good test taker? YEAH - let's keep THAT one.
Got someone who isn't?
That kid is now a 'PROBLEM' for you and your school.
I think that's a despicable way for a teacher to be forced to look at a student.

And that's what NCLB does.

There've been standardized tests as long as I've been in school myself. They can offer good information about a particular student. But when those tests are used as a weapon against a school - it hurts the students moreso than anyone else.

You're still dodging the question. Why do you assume that these school districts weren't accoutable before? Why do you want them to be accountable to the Federal government? (You know, the Federal government now mandates the standardized testing, but the states are free to set the standards, with no incentive other than to dumb down the standards so that more students pass.)



Argumentum ad populum--if this is true, you should have no problem linking sound evidence of such opposition. And that would mean opposition to all oversight, from state, county and municipal oversight, not just opposition to this idiot-child NCLB program.

Embezzlement and autiting are legal matters which are not addressed by NCLB. While certainly within the scope of the topic of this thread, such matters are non-sequiturs to the questions i have been asking you . . . and which you have been dodging.

So what, conditioned response is not understanding. I would argue that conditioned response is not the same as understanding, and the ability to perform well on written exams is not evidence of understanding per se, only evidence of conditioned response within the context of test taking.

In fact your entire post provided no evidence that your methodologies do more than test memory and conditioned response. The Turing Test argument easily usurps your claims.

Yeah - I thought that's what I said. So much for understanding.

I didn't know I was disagreeing with you, but since you see it that way - whatever- you're the one who's been teaching for a whole 2.5 years.

how is going over plot, imagery or teaching to the SAT in any way ïnformation you need?

what happened to teaching people how to learn rather than how to memorize?

You wish to argue that the length of my electrical teachings per se is a function of your claims? If so you provide zero evidence to support such speciousness and would appear to rely on the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

As to your assertion that "I thought that's what I said" (sic) quote exactly what (presumably) equates to said claim.

Further explain why your post contains the logical fallacy of an ad hominem as per "So much for understanding" and the logical fallacy of the straw man as per "I didn't know I was disagreeing with you, but since you see it that way ".

I'm not dodging your question Setanta. I have not offered any opinion about the effectivenes (or lack of it) of the NCLB act. I have noted that most Federal intervention in public education, even that involving desirable basic goals, has brought about or contributed to some generally bad side effects, a principal one being the misuse of it by other actors in the game for their own purposes. I have also noted that public education is generally too influenced by organized groups like the NEA, the AFT, textbook publishers and a floating coalition of educational bureaucrats and professional academics, who have together created quasi monopolies and resisted local control, particularly including public remedies that don't involve more money for themselves or that restrict their power. I regard NCLB as yet another well-intended but weakly effective intervention being misused and redirected by those same organizations.

The only comments I offered were with regard to testing of the academic performance of students and using these results to measure the effectiveness of students, teachers and schools.

We have all experienced testing in its various forms in our own educations and as students were all subject to various rankings based on the results. We have all experienced the imperfections of various kinds of tests, but at the same time have probably both seen their rough, long term accuracy in these rankings and experienced their practical necessity in motivating performance. Given the near universality of their beneficial application to students, why shouldn't these results also be applied to the teachers and schools that increasingly fail their students?

Let's use the right verb here, O'George--you have opined to that effect, you haven't demonstrated anything.



And i regard it as an inept and disastrous attempt on the part of Republicans to take control of an education system which they despise because it doesn't teach what they want people to believe. And i further regard your position here as an attempt to further this conservative world view through ipse dixit pronouncements. That one member of AFT, for example, is venal and larcenous is not evidence that the entire organization is corrupt--one swallow does not a summer make. Have there never been venal and larcenous Republicans? Have there never been venal and larcenous consultants? Have there never been venal and larcenous naval flag officers? I think you get my point.

It would be wonderful if NCLB actually had the effect of informing us of the effectiveness of students, teachers and schools. So far, i've not seen anyone provide evidence that that is the case. And, of course, i would ask why you assume that this had not been done in the past at the level of the local and state school boards. What evidence do you have that teachers and schools increasingly fail their students. Your having said it doesn't make it so.

Now you are "dodging" the point and question I raised about objective feedback for our schools and teachers.

Not at all. You have not established that this program provides that (you have ignored the point about the State of Missouri lowering it's standards to assure that more students comply with NCLB testing goals), and you haven't established that there was no objective feedback before the program began. Unless and until you do that, there's no good reason for me to respond to your unsupported, inferential allegations.