Math and Reading Scores

It is not Reading in itself, but reading comprehension.

Yes. Reading and comprehension skills come with experience and schools are typically set up to provide more challenging material over time. This is especially true with younger students.

I guess that when students start school in September, each one is given a reading comprehension test.

Then one year later, students are given an equivalent test, and their scores are higher because they comprehend more.

I'm skeptical. I wonder precisely what the teacher did that caused the child to comprehend more.

Usually, students have vocabulary work, grammar work and reading assignments as well as book reports and writing assignments. You don't think that would help?

There are different strategies you can teach students to help in comprehension. I suspect that kids "learning" on line rather than in the classroom are not fully engaged and as a result are not learning these strategies.

Just imagine you need to read a passage. The passage is nothing you are interested and/or is full of technical facts. How do you most effectively retain and pull the most out of this; what most kids would consider dry and boring; in order to comprehend the passage? These techniques help in being a more active and efficient reader.

True - I would imagine these scores are considering other areas than simply reading; all the skills you need to be proficient as part of the English subject.

And if we were to simply address reading itself. Of course students learn to read better in each successive school year. Think in first grade you are reading very basic text and each year you move up to reading more and more complex text. Think when you were in grade school did you read Shakespeare? No, that is for higher grades. Even think between middle school and high school the literature you read becomes more complex. And even if you read say Scarlet Letter in middle school and then again in high school, what you study from the literature is much more deep and complex between the two levels of learning.

In the UK kids sit exams in Maths and English at the ages of 11 and 14. These exams are for internal use only and show a progress from one stage to another, there are grades.

A "typical" child should reach grade 4 at 11 and grade 5 at 14. Such a child should get a grade C in the public exams (GCSEs).

A grade C or better is needed for certain further exams or courses. Most clerical jobs require C or above.

The kids know this, but the problem they have is with progression.

When a kid enters year 10, (14-15) they start their GCSE's, and can drop certain subjects, (not English or Maths).

They know that a level 5 usually translates into a grade C at GCSE but they don't see it as progression, they see it as comparable and it's not.

Their first piece of work is marked at GCSE standards, and, as attainment usually dips over the Summer, kids who got a level 5 at Easter end up being given a grade E or worse.

They are all expecting a grade C, and get angry with their teacher thinking they've been marked down but a level 5 is the same as a grade E, not a C. They're expected to use the next two years getting up to that grade.

Yes, I suppose it would in some cases.

That said, I find that for many people I know or know of, their reading comprehension level is not proportional to their last grade completed.

I will offer two examples:

Donald J. Trump is an Ivy League graduate.

George W. Bush graduated from Harvard and Yale. Harvard at the graduate level.

That's because America is not a meritocracy, in both cases money secured their places. If their fathers had been regular blue collar workers they wouldn't have had a chance.

I think that is superior to the U.S. system.

Standardized tests on how each student is doing compared to others. It can also show if a particular teacher is less effective than others.

Might a poor student then be forced out of school at age 14?

[quote="the Washington Post](...)

The University of Pennsylvania is one of the eight private colleges and universities in the vaunted Ivy League, known for accepting unusually smart students, great test takers, legacies, and the sons and daughters of famous and/or very wealthy people.

How did Trump get into the University of Pennsylvania?

A 2011 Salon magazine article refers to a 2001 book called “The Trumps: Three Generations That Built an Empire,” by Gwenda Blair. It says that Trump’s grades at Fordham, a Jesuit school in New York, had been “respectable,” and that he was admitted to Penn after an interview with a “friendly” Wharton admissions officer who was an old classmate of Trump’s older brother.

The article also points out that Trump has happily allowed the media to report that he graduated first in his class from Wharton, including in New York Times stories in 1973 and 1976 about him. But the story goes on to say:

Writing in the New York Times magazine in 1984, William Geist reported that “the commencement program from 1968 does not list him as graduating with honors of any kind,” even though “just about every profile ever written about Mr. Trump states that he graduated first in his class at Wharton in 1968.” … In 1988, New York magazine reported that the idea that Trump had graduated first in his class was a “myth.” [emphasis by Salon]

The Wharton Alumni Magazine write-up says in part:

Trump took a successful real estate development business started by his father, Fred, and turned it into a multi-faceted company. Along the way, Trump’s style has produced doubters, but no one could deny his ability to brand his products, and to rise, phoenix-like, from everything from corporate travails to satire.

Satire is an understatement. I Googled the the words “buffoon” and “Trump” and got about 137,000 results in 0.34 seconds.[/quote]

Yes, that was the point I was making. You have provided detail.

No, poorly behaved kids are sent to special units, but not for academic reasons.

And we're talking a really tiny minority of kids, most go to school.

Funny you should mention the Scarlet Letter. When I read that at 14, it pretty much meant nothing to me, just a class assignment. I read it again as an adult and was just blown away. I actually called my old teacher and she said "yes, American literature is usually too advanced for middle school".

Funny I had a similar experience although I read it in middle school and then as a senior in high school. I got so much more out of it in high school and appreciated it so much more. And I had a very good English teacher in middle school. It is just that your level of understanding gets so much more advanced you appreciate the literature so much more.

Even Shakespeare - I had no idea what the heck they were talking about when I was younger and read it, whereas, I appreciate it so much more now.