Are standardized tests really so terrible? - Page 5

[Greaseball]

My brother reported a conversation he had recently with an aquaintence. My brother mentioned a book he'd been reading and the aquaintence said, "I haven't read a book since 10th grade." Tenth grade?! What the sam hell was he doing in 11th and 12th grades?

Many teachers are using videos as teaching aids now, instead of texts. Maybe this teaches kids they can learn better by watching a video. And if the parents don't read at home...don't children learn to read best when they see everyone around them reading?

[donimomof3]

reading in school

Originally posted by Greaseball
Many teachers are using videos as teaching aids now, instead of texts. Maybe this teaches kids they can learn better by watching a video. And if the parents don't read at home...don't children learn to read best when they see everyone around them reading?

I'm sure this man was assigned books to read in 11th and 12th, but I know from experience that just because we assign books doesn't mean the kids will read them. My class was supposed to read a book about Pearl Harbor the past 5 weeks called "A Boy at War." Every day I assigned the kids one chapter (the chapters were only about 5 pages), ,and I gave them 45 minutes to read them (I have some really slow readers because they are easily distracteed). Each child was supposed to complete a book project of their choice on the book for last Monday night's open house. TWO boys in my class did not do projects because they didn't read the book. They looked like the were reading daily. They said they were reading, but they weren't. One of the mom's called me on Monday asking for more time for her son - "well, no m'am, he can't have more time, Open House is tonight." She said that he son said I had not given them enough time to read in class and I wouldn't let them take the books home.

Mom pitched a fit with the principal, and so I have been told to give these two an alternate assignment! They had 990 minutes to read a 105 page book written on a 4th grade reading level. I teach 5th grade, and both these boys read above a 5th grade level. They didn't read or do the projects because they chose not to. What ever happened to consequences? My 3rd grade daughter read the book in two afternoons for fun, while I graded papers after school!

I give these kids 45 minutes of free reading time every single day, yet the boy whose mom complained hasn't completed a single book all year. He hasn't taken a single AR test (even though they are required to get 15 AR points with an 80% + average every six weeks. He hasn't even taken an AR test on any of the books I have read aloud to the class (I have read to them - Little House on the Prairie, Just Ella, On the Banks of Plum Creek, By the Shores of Silver Lake, The Devil's Arithmetic, and A Wrinkle in Time (all are AR except Devil's Arithmetic).

In addition to Self-selected reading/free reading, we have 1 hour reading instruction each day, where I teach skills, and then they are to apply these skills to a short reading (no more than two pages) and answer questions based on the skill we are working on (i.e. sequencing, main idea, fact/opinion, etc.). This boy whose mom complained has not passed a reading skills sheet all year either. WHY? Because he will not read the passage. Yet according to the STAR test, he reads on a 6.7 grade level (I teach 5th). He choses not to read, and mom knows all she has to do is call the principal and I will be forced to let him get away with it. ARGH! I guarantee you he will not read anything in High School, and he will not touch a book as an adult. Mom has conditioned him to believe that reading isn't important.

[donimomof3]

facilitator v. teacher

Originally posted by Greaseball

Of course, children require guidance. That's why, if I end up homeschooling, I'll see my role as that of a guide rather than that of a teacher. Being a teacher means that I have all the information and I dole it out in small doses at certain times. (I know not all teachers are like that, though.) Being a guide means that I will show my children how to best access the information they are looking for, which at times may be found in more of a school-like setting and at times may be found somewhere completely different.

Can we really be so sure that children won't naturally gravitate to what they need to know? How do we know they won't? How do we even know what they need to know? Do you personally know a child who never learned to read, count, walk or talk because he was left to learn it on his own?

I consider my style of teaching to be that of facilitator or guide rather than one who holds all the knowledge. The way I like to teach is to allow children to explore their interests, and to guide them through the required curriculum.

Unfortunately, what we see a lot of now in the schools are kids who do not want to learn ANYTHING. Education is not valued in their homes. These kids are content playing their Game Boys and PS2's, and watching tv and scary videos. Many of these kids lack any motivation what so ever. I have a kid in my class that won't do ANYTHING without his mother threatening to spank him and put him on restriction. Every six weeks, it ends up with her coming to the school, throwing a fit, screaming at him, ,taking his Play station and Yugio cards away, and him completing a HUGE makeup packet in one week, so that he won't get straight F's. I contact her weekly about his apathy, but she always waits until the last week of the term to get back in touch with me. (Wonder where he learned his procrastination from).

Every year, I give my kids a "Family History" project to teach them that history is meaningful and fun. Their assignment is to interview their family members for family stories. They can trace their tree if they like, or they can just record entertaining family stories. They are to complete a scrap book ( i supply all the basic supplies). They have the option to present to class if they like. Every year this has been a HUGE success. This year though, I had 4 kids who did not do the project at all, even though they had a month to complete it. One kid said, "This is dumb!" I even shared my family book I have written with the kids, and read aloud some of the funny stories (I am my family's historian). I made arrangements with the local historical society to be open two different Saturdays (which I showed up to work at the historical society), so that the kids could look up information there. Only a handful of students used that resource.

A little later in the year, I required all my students compete in the Social Studies Fair. They got to choose their own topics - any topic in social studies that interested them. Even though it was required and we worked on the projects in class for a month, 8 kids in my class did not complete the assignment. Three of my students got 1st place ribbons at the county fair, but later I learned that one student's mother had totally done his project start to finish - and so he was disqualified (He actually told the judge when asked why he chose his topic that his mom did the project).

I use to believe that children left to their own devices would learn, but it totally depends on the attitude of the parents and the climate of the home. Many of my students parents do not value education at all. These kids do not value learning, and do not want to learn. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what kind of teacher you are, you cannot make a person learn if they choose not to.

[Artisan]

Originally posted by daylily
OK, I admit, that's part of why I think schools are failing, but my main reason for saying that schools are failing is because they are handing high school diplomas to kids who are barely literate. Colleges have had to provide remedial reading & writing classes for poorly prepared students. In this country we now rely heavily on foreign born people for demanding jobs in the sciences and mathmatics. It's downright emabarrassing the way Americans are losing their ability to compete intellectually around the world.

A friend of mine teaches English at the University of Virginia. I asked him if his first year students were well prepared for college work and he said that many are not.

My brother reported a conversation he had recently with an aquaintence. My brother mentioned a book he'd been reading and the aquaintence said, "I haven't read a book since 10th grade." Tenth grade?! What the sam hell was he doing in 11th and 12th grades?

You are absolutely, 100% right. There are tons of kids who can't read well, can't write well, can't even sit still well, graduating from high school.

However, I can also assure you that this is not the fault of the school or the teacher. When you have an 11th grader who can't read, it's not because no one ever taught them to do it. It's not because every single teacher they had was crappy and cared nothing about them and didn't try to help them out. They can't read for a ton of reasons, most of them outside of school. Reasons like:
1. Home situation. Parents don't /can't read to their kids, don't have money for books, have to work three jobs, etc. Parents who don't care. Parents who don't speak English.

2. Abuse. Maslow's hierarchy of needs clearly demonstrates that it's very hard to focus on higher order thinking skills when you're worried about basic necessities, like will my dad beat me up today, is there enough food to eat, are the other kids going to laugh at these shoes with holes in them.

3. Socio economic status. Can the parents afford to have them tested for learning disabilities if necessary.

4. Parent willingness. Are they capable of advocating for extra help, are they willing to let their child get extra help. There is a huge parent movement right now to not "allow" their child to be labeled with a learning disability/behavioral disorder and thus, their kids are truly not capable of passing school under normal circumstances. I had one student two years ago that was so sad. He was in 10th grade, but had TWO high school credits. (Both in gym, the only classes he had passed.) He was obviously in need of help, and his parents refused to allow him to get help.

5. Student willingness. I worked in a school for students who had been expelled from the public school system -- they had chronic truancy and delinquency problems. You cannot work on a students' reading skills when they are so hostile to teachers that they shove desks at you, call you an ugly whore, or put their head down and refuse to sit up. (And yes, I've dealt with all this and more.) You can assign rigorous schoolwork and reading until you're blue in the face, and there will still be a large number of kids who don't do it.

6. Lack of consequences for inappropriate behavior. Read the administration thread if you want proof that teachers have very little ability to maintain true order in their classrooms if something goes seriously awry. They are not often backed by their administrations anymore. Why? Parent complaints. People don't want their kid sent home.

7. System-wide issues, such as social promotion and grade inflation. Driven by politicians who see the way to end these practice by administering more tests. Also driven by parents and parent lawsuits. School systems fear lawsuits and will do extraordinary things to make people happy. When people sue because their child was kicked off the football team, the district must defend that lawsuit at taxpayers' expense.

8. Lack of funding to put in place all of the unfunded mandates handed down by a certain someone's administration. Schools that have mold and asbestos and leaking roofs -- they need to be repaired, but there's often no money.


There are a ton more, but I have to go teach a class!

[Greaseball]

Unfortunately, what we see a lot of now in the schools are kids who do not want to learn ANYTHING. Education is not valued in their homes.

Yes, sometimes the parents are to blame. (Although if education isn't valued in the home, it might not be because of anything morally wrong with the parent - it could be due to circumstances beyond the parent's control, such as a single mother who has to work 14 hours a day to afford anything and whose idea of valuing education is to scream "Do your homework!")

Can a child really succeed in public school if he is not also "homeschooled" to some extent? There is more to "being involved in your kids' school" than helping with homework, meeting with teachers, and enforcing consequences for bad grades. Guerilla Learning has some great ideas on what parents can do at home to further their child's education in school. It was a great book, but kind of sad that it wouldn't already be common knowledge to parents. Do we really have to tell parents that sometimes reading library books is a more valuable use of time than getting a head start on homework? It's common sense to me.

[daylily]

You raise a lot of valid points, Sharonal. And doninmomof3, I don't know what I would do if I had to deal with parents like that.

I went over and read that "your administration" thread. What is this world coming to?

[Artisan]

Originally posted by Greaseball
Yes, sometimes the parents are to blame. (Although if education isn't valued in the home, it might not be because of anything morally wrong with the parent - it could be due to circumstances beyond the parent's control, such as a single mother who has to work 14 hours a day to afford anything and whose idea of valuing education is to scream "Do your homework!")

Can a child really succeed in public school if he is not also "homeschooled" to some extent? There is more to "being involved in your kids' school" than helping with homework, meeting with teachers, and enforcing consequences for bad grades. Guerilla Learning has some great ideas on what parents can do at home to further their child's education in school. It was a great book, but kind of sad that it wouldn't already be common knowledge to parents. Do we really have to tell parents that sometimes reading library books is a more valuable use of time than getting a head start on homework? It's common sense to me.

Well, when parents can't help their kids in school because of extraordinary circumstances, it's certainly understandable. But yet, they are still responsible for themselves and their children. Just as if a young boy grows up watching his dad beat up his mom. He grows up believing that's the right thing to do, and while his thinking is understandable, he is still accountable for his actions. We don't transfer the blame to an outside source because the person has extraordinary circumstances.

I don't think it's possible for a child to be successful in school without also being "homeschooled", as you say. And unfortunately, yes, you really do need to tell people things like that. Look at most politicians: they believe our schools are failing our students, because it's easy to place the blame on them. You can't very well say to voters, "Well, y'all are just screwup parents who never read to your kids." The schools are a scapegoat.

[Greaseball]

Another thing about high schoolers graduating without being able to read...

Students do not have the authority to decide that they are to receive a high school diploma. Therefore, some teacher or administrator is the one deciding that these illiterate students should get the diploma. It's not only the student's fault.

Another thing, why does it take so long to notice that a child can't read? Why wasn't it noticed earlier, maybe in 3rd grade? How does one pass 2nd grade without being able to read? Why do we suddenly notice it in high school? I think both parents and teachers should notice if the child can't read, and then find out what they can do about it.

It's also another way that shows it's possible to get passing test scores without really knowing the material.

[daylily]

Another thing, why does it take so long to notice that a child can't read? Why wasn't it noticed earlier, maybe in 3rd grade?

I'm sure it is noticed, but the child is promoted to the next grade anyway. The infamous "social promotion."

In our district, kids are held back--usually in kindergarten--and yet some still slip through the cracks and end up as very poor readers. I know there's a child in dd's second grade class who reads at a kindergarten level. And one of the second grade teachers vented at a parent/teacher/school board forum that she has a class full of below-grade readers that she must get up to grade level by the end of the year.

Edited to add that the principal at the Upper Elementary (grades 5 & 6) told me that "if kids can't read well by fifth grade, there's not much you can do for them." At first, I didn't react very strongly to that statement, but as I think about it more, I realize what an outrageous thing it is to say. What, has no one ever learned to read after the age of 10? If the principal of a school has given up on kids who don't read well, then he sends the message to his teachers that it's not worth making an effort for these kids.

[Greaseball]

That's what I was told about long division - "You haven't learned it by now; we've done all we can and there's nothing more we can do." I was able to learn it in 11th grade, and still pass every year of math until then without knowing it.

Don't schools provide tutoring to kids who are struggling, or is that only for those with documented disabilities?

[Artisan]

No, schools don't provide tutors. It's a funding issue. (Maybe because we're spending millions every year on tests! )Kids with documented disabilities don't get tutors, either. They get accommodations, most of which are up to the teacher to make for the student. Depending on the state, they may also get time in a resource room with a special ed teacher. Unless their disability is severe enough to warrant a self-contained program, that is.

Examples of accommodations to help students with learning disabilities:
-- Extended time on tests/assignments
-- Modification of materials
-- Change in text
-- Having tests read to them
-- Multiple repetitions of directions
-- Being able to dictate answers to an adult
-- Being able to use calculators on math problems
-- Being able to use a word processor instead of hand writing something
-- Assisted note taking (having another student do this)
-- Small group setting for tests
-- Alternative test format (having only five problems/questions per page, say.)
-- Reduction in number/length of assignments
-- Preferential seating
-- Etc.

In some schools (those with a lack of funding), it is up to an individual classroom teacher to make all of these accommodations for a student. She must find time to sit with one student and read them the test in a small group setting, etc. All of these accommodations are fine, it's just that the gov't isn't willing to provide money to help schools make these accommodations. And when a teacher has 150 students (one year I had 180), it is very hard to make all of these for every child with documented need. I have had one class with nine students who all had many accommodations and who all needed preferential seating. Unfortunately, I don't have that many front row seats.

Here is what has happened with the standardization of American education and the focus on student test scores. People figure the high-achieving students will do well regardless of what happens (stupid, I know). (There is no money for gifted education.) So you have Herculean efforts to bring up the bottom third of students to passing level, and you have the ignoring of gifted and more average students. You have the bottom end of the curve being brought up, but you also have the top end of the curve being brought down. We are creating schools where each and every student -- yours included -- will be entitled to a mediocre education.

[Artisan]

Originally posted by daylily
I'm sure it is noticed, but the child is promoted to the next grade anyway. The infamous "social promotion."

In our district, kids are held back--usually in kindergarten--and yet some still slip through the cracks and end up as very poor readers. I know there's a child in dd's second grade class who reads at a kindergarten level. And one of the second grade teachers vented at a parent/teacher/school board forum that she has a class full of below-grade readers that she must get up to grade level by the end of the year.

Edited to add that the principal at the Upper Elementary (grades 5 & 6) told me that "if kids can't read well by fifth grade, there's not much you can do for them." At first, I didn't react very strongly to that statement, but as I think about it more, I realize what an outrageous thing it is to say. What, has no one ever learned to read after the age of 10? If the principal of a school has given up on kids who don't read well, then he sends the message to his teachers that it's not worth making an effort for these kids.

I think the principal was speaking statistically. It's true that if you don't catch a child by a certain age, statistically speaking they are far less likely to be successful in school. Just as if a baby doesn't develop a healthy attachment to an adult within a certain time frame, it becomes very difficult to do so in the future.

There are probably few fourth grade teachers who think, "Oh, that Johnny's just not worth helping. Forget him." But teachers and schools don't have the tools they need to give kids real help.

Have you been following the social promotion issue in NYC? Apparently, something like 3,000 third graders didn't pass the reading test. Michael Bloomberg said, "Fine. The kids will stay back a year so they can relearn the info."

There's been a HUGE public outcry. HUGE. Parents are up in arms. The schoolboard is up in arms. I heard an interview with the schoolboard president decrying this move, saying that all the evidence shows that retaining students actually leads to them dropping out of school in the future, doesn't bring up test scores, etc.

And again, is it the fault of the hundreds of third grade teachers?

[Greaseball]

I went to middle school with a boy who was in 6th grade, but was supposed to be in 8th. Then after 6th grade he was just moved over to the high school. He was considered "too old" to be at the middle school. He did not do well in high school and ended up becoming the classic dropout who worked at McDonald's.

It shouldn't be necessary to flunk a grade in the first place. I'm sure academic struggles are not suddenly uncovered at the end of the year; the child probably has a hard time all year. Why is it acceptable that the child will just have no one to help him if he can't get the material in the traditional classroom setting? Why is extra help seen as a frill that schools just can't afford right now? If the school said "We can't afford to do background checks anymore" or "We can't afford chairs; students have to bring their own which they can lug to every class" the public would be outraged. I think extra help should be seen as a basic necessity.

[Artisan]

I agree that extra help should be seen as a necessity. However, I have worked in a middle class school that had no hot water, no soap, no toilet paper, and no textbooks. So tutors are seen as optional because the public's perception is that the teachers should be doing their job.

Also keep in mind that if I get a 10th grader who reads incredibly poorly, there is little that I can personally do to rectify that. As one teacher, I cannot singlehandedly make up for the years of reading instruction that he missed. The same is true of every other teacher.