Teaching to the test

To an extent there's truth to the statement that students are taught to the test. This has been the case since the first school and classroom opened. After all the idea is to teach the student and teach them well enough that they will pass the exam.

Further, there are plenty of students who know something, plenty who know quite a bit. It will vary from student to student and hi get upon variables such as the educator, the overall intelligence and diligence of the student, as well as the student's interest in the topics discussed.

To say these people know nothing is wrong. To take it further it can be perceived as a lie.

Regarding the topics/subjects which you believe a ninth grader should know, clearly this will be different from one student to another. Again, it will hinge (in part), on the teacher, the student level of intelligence and diligence (as well as a number of other variables).

As to your attack of the parents being at fault for not having taught these things to their children, I wonder what the purpose would be of anybody attending school if they already knew these things. Correct me if I am wrong (I'm not); but, isn't it the responsibility and the goal of the educator to bring these morsels of knowledge to the students?

Lastly, no, not all parents or guardians possess knowledge on these items. Some were not born in the country where their child is attending school, for some, English is not their first language and in some cases, the parent or guardian is still learning the language along with providing a home, food, caring, clothing and other things, it is not unreasonable to expect their child to be given these lessons from the teacher.

I do wish I was taught logic earlier; I didn't have the class until I was nineteen. I got an A+, which will surprise many at a2k. But, in my early school environment, how to argue well was not a key interest at the time. I can see it being useful to teach in ninth grade.

Also, in my early schools, much was rote learning. I'm still glad for some of it - my geography classes, for example. Those, in fourth and fifth grade, were a big part of my interest in the whole world and were part of my wish to read and travel later on.

I see a logical problem in your answer.

Things college freshmen do not know that are/were/should be part of the middle school curricula.

Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation
The Enlightenment
Syllogism
The Greek City State

For several years, I have been asking college freshman what an editorial is. I have asked between 40 and 80 students each semester. To date, only one has known.

I think you likely have a good point here. It's easy to accuse any effort to measure the achievements of students in actually learning as requiring teachers to "teach to the test." So what! Coaches teach their athletes to win games too. Learning and education do indeed require students to assimilate contextual information and also to understand explicit principles and rules as in science and mathematics. To a very large degree knowledge and understanding in these areas can indeed be measured, even though every student is liable to have a bad day or merely bad luck in an individual event. Without any such measurements and feedback, very little in life works very well , and education is no exception. Tests are necessary nd some teaching to the test likely does no harm. Indeed it is better than no teaching at all.

I recall a Jesuit opening the class year by reminding us in his words that "learning is an active verb"; that "he could teach very well and we could learn nothing and conversely he couyld teach badly and we could still learn a great deal. The real action was in motivating us to make the effort to learn and actually getting us to do it.

If this is the kind of thing you think students should be learning you should be alarmed about teaching to the test. The test doesn't cover this type of thing so the kids aren't being taught it.

What people are totally missing is that if teachers were teaching to the test, students would know somethings. They do nothing. As for what I think students would know, we were taught what a syllogism is in 8th grade. We knew what an editorial is. We were given two and one-half years of geography -- beginning with Michigan geography in 3rd grade and ending with world geography in 5th which prepared us for both history and science. No geography is taught.

History teaching has been reduced to a joke.

What I am saying is if the tests measure anything and if teachers teach to the test, the logical conclusion is that they would know something.

The tests and the curricula are designed to dumb down America.

Here is part of the mechanism how:

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/19/the_1_percent_plays_us_for_suckers_there_is_no_meritocracy_and_theyve_strangled_the_american_dream/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

I think the logical conclusion is that the tests don't measure anything.

My kid will be entering high school next year. He's had one semester of geography and that consisted of learning state capitols.

Geography isn't on the test. History isn't on the test. Anything that stinks of Humanities isn't on the test. If it isn't on the test it isn't taught. You can't blame the kids for not knowing something they were never taught.

First, I did not say parents should teach their children. They should both talk to their children and they should keep track of what is going on in the schools.

It is no secret that if babies are not spoken to by their parents, they will not be ready for school. Babies are not preloaded with vocabularies. Parents have to give them the words they will need. Many studies show if a child lags in vocabulary by 18 months, that child might never catch up.

Second, special education is often abused by parents who want their kids in that track. There are several reasons why. Some see it as tutoring while others see it as a way to keep the child from doing unnecessary work in school.

I am sorry to see you excuse parents from their personal responsibility toward their children.

For years, teachers have complained that children come to school not knowing colors and not knowing nursery rhymes. Nursery rhymes develop the memory.

When my daughter -- now 37 -- was in elementary school, her school returned to having the children memorize the times table, then part of what were called "math facts."

If children are to think critically, they need a background to draw upon.

Then you should be alarmed. History, we are told, is not about dates but trends, revolutions, change. Martin Luther changed the world. This country would not be what it is and the Constitution would have been a different document without Martin Luther and the Enlightenment.

Today, NPR's Morning Edition contained a piece in which two police officials reflected on racism. One took the historical view. In ten years, no cop will be able to draw on historical information to address a problem.

You were fine until your last sentence. But the kids have no curiosity. One community college class told me that they don't understand how you can write more than two pages about anything.

plaioldme...

So many items to which I want to respond; and yet, I sense that it would be nearly pointless to do so with you. From your past topics (many of them), it becomes evident that you have very little regard towards and of your students. Truly a pity.

No, I was not entirely excusing parents of their responsibilities. If you read my words you'll note that I attempted to explain that not all adults were given an education full enough to instruct their children as fully as you'd like.

What comes through often from your posts, (at least to me), is an unrealistic expectation of students to come to class swimming in complete knowledge of the subject.

Must go...will add more later..

The kid's don't have any curiosity because school drums it out of them. Bubble test don't encourage creative thought or care about historical context. It isn't taught because it isn't on the test.

You are completely wrong about my attitude toward my students who are abused by grade inflation and more.

I do not think it is unrealistic to expect high school graduates to read on the college level. Or, even on the 10th grade level. Two weeks ago, I found a conservative web site, dedicated to criticizing education that showed a gradual reduction of college text books from the college level to the current 8th grade reading level.

I hate that text book companies, parents and teachers are doing this to the kids.

I have some sincere and serious doubts about you.

That is true. So, answer this question: Why are the tests so inadequate?

I remember several years ago, when it was revealed that the first of the state wide tests were not composed by teachers or other authorities on the subject being tested but by recent college graduates who were given, for example, history texts and were told to compose tests, and I reported that information here. Many on the right tried to thrash me about it.

Then, Massachusetts pulled some of the state's top teachers out of their classrooms for two years to create meaningful tests.

Just think of the man hours squandered on that.

There are several issues in this thread to which I would like to respond.

First of all is the idea that things are getting worse. They aren't.

Students today are just like students of earlier times. You can find people from the time of Shakespeare complaining about how dull students are, and you can find the same complaints being made in every decade since.

The problems faced in our education system are the same as always. The biggest change to our education system is universal education. We now give more education to a greater percentage of our society than ever before. Before the dullest, laziest students could be dropped (or passed through if the parents paid enough). Now we feel the obligation to educate everyone. Of course this goal has its challenges.

For some reason, educators always feel they need to be in a state of panic... and yet our society keeps on humming along with all of the innovators, thinkers and doers it needs.

... and let me ask the obvious question, who decides what kids need to know?

Why do my kids need to know anything about the Greek city-state, the enlightenment, Martin Luther or second wave feminism? I don't think any of these things are useful members of modern society. You don't need this knowledge for 99.9% of professions, nor are they required to be a good citizen.

In my education (high school in the 80's) we covered the Enlightenment, Martin Luther (the 16th century church reformer, not the far more relevant civil rights leader) and the Greek City State. Because we covered these things... we didn't learn anything about the Vietnam war (something that had a profound impact in the world we were living in) or the civil rights movement.

If something is relevant to you, then you will learn it and retain it. If something doesn't have meaning in your life, you will forget it as soon as the test is over. This is a feature of the brain... why waste good neurons on something that doesn't add any value to you.