Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   If you think standardized testing is bad, wait until you see what happens when a parent opts her kid out of the test   (slate.com ) divider line 295
    More: Scary, University of Denver, parents, standardized test, online school, report cards, school library  
•       •       •

21852 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Mar 2014 at 1:11 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



295 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-10 03:35:39 PM  
Long story short: Nothing actually happened.

The end.
 
2014-03-10 03:38:04 PM  

namegoeshere: So she opted he kids out for no reason other than she felt like it, and what happened was... nothing? A couple of phone calls and emails? Some AWing on Mom's part?

Jeeze, Overreactionmitter, from the headline I was expecting CPS involvement or an educational neglect charge at least.


I seriously thought the cops were going to show up or something and all that happened was nothing.

More power to her if she doesnt want her kids to take the test but it would have been nice if her reasoning was a little more than I dont wanna.
 
2014-03-10 03:43:03 PM  

jst3p: TNel: teenytinycornteeth: Don't forget teaching the test my friend! Here are the ESSENTIAL STRATEGIES to use in the classroom when preparing for standardized testing. Practice Tests, Reading about the test, learning how to pick the best multiple choice answer. You really think it's just an hour and half? And all of this test prep is not learning about the material ON the test, but how to manage the format and the questions.

So tack on a day if you want per test it's still 2% of the time in school.

I think that the people that don't want the tests are afraid that their kid won't do as well as they think they should.

In 4th grade my daughter had the highest English CSAP score in the school. It was kind if funny, we were moving the following year and her school called hoping that it was a mistake.

I don't dislike them because I am afraid my kids wont do well, they both excel in school.

I dislike them because of the environment they create. You clearly don't understand the impact "teaching to the test" has. It changes the entire dynamic of the entire school year. I don't get too worked up about it because we provide a home environment that is stimulating and we focus on what we believe their school is short on. But I do think it is a toxic system and if you think that it only changes 2% of their time in school I think you underestimate the overall impact it has.


There is also a flip-side to the overall scoring on standardized testing: Grant eligibility. Higher scores remove elements of eligibility for certain alternate sources of funding. Low scores combined with adequate or better teacher ratings indicate to the state that 'there must be some problem there that maybe money or additional technology might fix.' So, a low-scoring school might qualify for a crate of laptops or iPads for the math, English, reading, or whatever departments compliments of some specific grant funding, where higher scores would eliminate eligibility. They may also provide additional funds to be applied to educator salaries if it appears that there's a need to hire 'better teachers' and use increased pay as an enticement.
 
2014-03-10 03:45:06 PM  

Slypork: basically a glorified version of Trivial Pursuit.


it's called trampolinING, you're wrong!  ;P
img.fark.net
/technically correct is best correct, i know...
img.fark.net
//b-b-b-buttslashies... :(
///always come in... three's company too...
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-10 03:46:57 PM  

jylcat: Long story short

TOO LATE:
img.fark.net

Nothing actually happened.

The end.

 
2014-03-10 03:47:55 PM  
The worst thing about these dumb tests is that schools no longer have any incentive to challenge gifted kids, since they're not the ones bringing down the averages.
 
2014-03-10 03:50:13 PM  

cynicalminion: teenytinycornteeth: teenytinycornteeth: TNel: teenytinycornteeth: You should have worked harder on reading comprehension. I'll say it again. KIDS TAKE INDIVIDUAL TESTS IN THEIR CLASSROOMS AS WELL AS BEING GRADED ON WEEKLY ASSIGNMENTS. This is how we know how they are doing. Or do you now ONLY believe in standardized results? I should also mention that I am not against ALL standardized testing. Like I said, as long as colleges require SAT or PSAT scores, they'll have to exist, but when a seven year old is subjected to computerized standardized tests more than three or four times a year, it takes away from other valuable things she could be learning and it does nothing to benefit the student.

I look at the tests as Finals.  You get a printout grade of what they know up to that point along with the weekly tests they normally take.  I don't see any issue.  State testing starts at 3rd grade here, which would make the students atleast 9.  So the hour and half long test 4 times a year so 6 hours of testing out of 1000 hours of being in school is too much?

Don't forget teaching the test my friend! Here are the ESSENTIAL STRATEGIES to use in the classroom when preparing for standardized testing.  Practice Tests, Reading about the test, learning how to pick the best multiple choice answer.  You really think it's just an hour and half?  And all of this test prep is not learning about the material ON the test, but how to manage the format and the questions.


Testing in Kindgergarten - Chicago Reader

Another good read with the following interesting facts:

"When all is said and done, kindergarteners will have spent up to 60 days of class time-or a third of the school year-taking various standardized tests"

"This year CPS has added a new test to the array already faced by grammar school students: the REACH. It comes on top of the TRC, the MAP, the EXPLORE, the ISAT, and DIBELS. Two of these are teacher accountability tests. Two are diagnostic. And the others are a combinatio ...


Wait.  You're accusing ME of moving the goalposts?  My argument throughout this thread has been against standardized testing overtaking school, starting with the statement that i have a seven year old.  I also said that I had no problem with PSAT or SATs, I have said from the beginning that it's a disturbing trend of teaching to the test, and TNel said that all of this is fine for a third grader.  I never mentioned junior high or high school.  I'm talking about the trend towards public school doing nothing but training kids for standardized testing...which they do...STARTING IN KINDERGARTEN.
 
2014-03-10 03:51:17 PM  

eeyore102: The worst thing about these dumb tests is that schools no longer have any incentive to challenge gifted kids, since they're not the ones bringing down the averages.


Not only incentive but time/money. In our school district the gifted kids and the remedial kids were catered to from the same budget, at the school my kids were in there were so many that were behind the curve they didn't have the resources to do anything extra with those ahead of it. It was one of the main factors in getting my kids to a different school.
 
2014-03-10 03:52:24 PM  
The real problem is not that the school funding is tied to it.  I mean, sure that is what is driving the principals and other administration to make sure kids do it.

The real reason is WHY school funding is tied to it.  Supposedly it is to make sure all the kids participate and try their best.  The real reason has to be College Board and the entire testing industry.  They have dropped fat wads of cash all over DC and the State Houses. They don't get paid for a missing student, so the elected officials make sure public money will go to private 'non-profit' orgs.  My state now requires all high school students to take the ACT at least twice.  Its 'free' of course to the students, but its not free for the school system.  ACT is making fat cash on all the K-12 products it now offers.  I imagine College Board and other testing organizations are doing quite well too.
 
2014-03-10 03:52:26 PM  

eeyore102: The worst thing about these dumb tests is that schools no longer have any incentive to challenge gifted kids, since they're not the ones bringing down the averages.


If a student is truely gifted they don't need any incentive to learn new things.  Gifted programs are garbage and are only for parents to think they are special by having a kid in the program that does jack for the student.
 
2014-03-10 03:54:05 PM  

ransack.: jst3p: we're just here for one academic year while I'm a visiting professor at the University of Denver. My daughters, ages 13 and 14, are strong students.

What kind of crappy parent bounces their kids in and out of a school for a year at this age?

My thoughts exactly.
Finish your doctorate in five years, you selfish biatch. Your life is about your KIDS right now.


But it's perfectly okay for military families, right?
 
2014-03-10 03:55:09 PM  
i1.livememe.com

If this is all you see to worry about in the world, you're not looking very hard.
 
2014-03-10 03:55:10 PM  

Alphakronik: I wonder who mommy will try to sue when her precious snowflakes find out that the "opting out" is on their permanent school records and follows them to college, limiting their options?


Yes. Because there must be serious life long ramifications for failing to comply with an optional program.
 
2014-03-10 03:55:15 PM  
I love standardized testing.  It made me what I am today.
 
2014-03-10 03:55:19 PM  

teenytinycornteeth: I also said that I had no problem with PSAT or SATs, I have said from the beginning that it's a disturbing trend of teaching to the test, and TNel said that all of this is fine for a third grader.


I said in my State testing doesn't happen until 3rd grade.
 
2014-03-10 03:57:58 PM  
When the guards teachers say "optional" they mean "mandatory".
 
2014-03-10 03:58:07 PM  

TNel: eeyore102: The worst thing about these dumb tests is that schools no longer have any incentive to challenge gifted kids, since they're not the ones bringing down the averages.

If a student is truely gifted they don't need any incentive to learn new things.  Gifted programs are garbage and are only for parents to think they are special by having a kid in the program that does jack for the student.


"Gifted" is used too casually here. My daughter isn't "gifted" but she is in sixth grade and almost through the 8th grade math module here:

www.aleks.com

I don't even think she is incredibly bright, I just think that the bar is too low. Her school happens to have a GT focus and she is in  Pre-AP classes but there are plenty of kids who are above average and it isn't a waste to challenge them.
 
2014-03-10 03:59:01 PM  

letrole: Good teachers like standardised tests.
This is because their teaching efforts can be quantified and evaluated.

Bad teachers don't like standardised tests.
This is because their teaching efforts can be quantified and evaluated.


Even though this is a trolly post to get responses, I am going to bite with an honest question. In most schools, students are divided pretty randomly into classes so the whole spectrum (below proficient, approaching proficient, proficient and advanced) would expect to be represented in a classroom and the results of the tests might (erroneously) lead to the conclusion that the teacher was somehow responsible.

In some schools, children are grouped in a method called "cluster grouping" which puts all the identified gifted students into one classroom rather then spreading them out among all four/five classes in a given grade. The students are then assigned to a teacher with specialized training in gifted education. In this schoolwide method, the teacher with the gifted cluster group is going to have a higher percentage of students testing advanced on the state mandated standardized tests. Most likely the children in that class would score proficient or advanced without any teacher intervention, so in a school method like that, you really would not be able to tie test scores to any sort of teacher evaluation.
 
2014-03-10 03:59:35 PM  

TNel: eeyore102: The worst thing about these dumb tests is that schools no longer have any incentive to challenge gifted kids, since they're not the ones bringing down the averages.

If a student is truely gifted they don't need any incentive to learn new things.  Gifted programs are garbage and are only for parents to think they are special by having a kid in the program that does jack for the student.


Depends on the program. Would you rather have the smart kids sitting bored at the back of the class, cutting up because it's the only way they can get any attention or entertainment? It's true that truly gifted kids tend to seek out opportunities to learn, but it's going to be hard for them to find opportunities in the classroom if the resources aren't there.
 
2014-03-10 04:00:44 PM  

melopene: ransack.: jst3p: we're just here for one academic year while I'm a visiting professor at the University of Denver. My daughters, ages 13 and 14, are strong students.

What kind of crappy parent bounces their kids in and out of a school for a year at this age?

My thoughts exactly.
Finish your doctorate in five years, you selfish biatch. Your life is about your KIDS right now.

But it's perfectly okay for military families, right?


Less than ideal but that is part of the sacrifice they and their families make. And I appreciate them.

It is way different than "I am going to move my kids in and out of a school for one year so I can take a temp teaching gig."
 
2014-03-10 04:02:42 PM  

iheartscotch: iheartscotch: triplenickel03: jst3p: we're just here for one academic year while I'm a visiting professor at the University of Denver. My daughters, ages 13 and 14, are strong students.

What kind of crappy parent bounces their kids in and out of a school for a year at this age?

The same kind that bouces their kid in and out of school about 7 times a year-alternating between home schooling and traditional schooling while they gallivant around the country on archaeological digs. I witnessed it.  But then again it was Texas, where anything goes.  Christ all mighty, either take them out and home school or leave them in. Not frigging both when you don't feel like home schooling this week.

Was your dog's name Indian?

Dammmmmmm auto-correct!

Was your dog's name Indiana!


Nope.  Lucas.
 
2014-03-10 04:04:18 PM  

jst3p: Albinoman: jst3p: we're just here for one academic year while I'm a visiting professor at the University of Denver. My daughters, ages 13 and 14, are strong students.

What kind of crappy parent bounces their kids in and out of a school for a year at this age?

I went to 10 different schools from K-12. You definitely learn to make friends more quickly and you get to see a lot more variety of people and classes. It's not really that bad.

I never went to the same school two years in a row until High School. I disagree, it sucked.


Same here, due to being an Army brat... It made for no excuse for poor geography grades, but it ensured I never bothered to make any friends, because I was just going to move in a year or so, so the librarian at the school typically became my best friend...

And speaking on topic, I find standardized tests to be a complete joke. They were talking about using the tests to also judge teacher's performance and pay off the results, but that went out the window when the test results came back on the FCAT results after the kids were asked to write about some Australian or Antarctic animal that most of them had barely heard of for the 1st graders 2 years ago... They're still trying to implement it...

And also it's funny that teachers are the first ones to feel the heat when these tests are used, since the admin at the school as well as the school board come down on them hard to get 100% participation, despite the only ones who lose money if the results suck are the schools themselves, yet the admin and board are exempt from losing their perks... And yet they seem shocked when teachers gripe about having to use their own money to buy supplies that the schools should have plenty of, yet the still have to beg each parent to supply them with a certain amount each year...
 
2014-03-10 04:04:25 PM  

So, the moral of the story is "she's an idiot."

No, seriously. She opted her kid out of the testing before she bothered to research the possible results of her actions? She "stood on her principles", only to discover that not only does her "principled", short-sighted decision have little impact on what she wanted to accomplish, she also succeeded in screwing not just her two kids, but potentially all the other kids as well, and then had the gall to be surprised by this "revelation."

And she's a lawyer? Sheesh. Here's a thought - research first, and then act. Don't make huge, short-sighted assumptions based on incomplete information, only to be surprised by the consequences of your actions later.
 
2014-03-10 04:05:41 PM  

trippdogg: [i1.livememe.com image 750x570]

If this is all you see to worry about in the world, you're not looking very hard.


Anybody who doesn't want their children to be indoctrinated to be a drone. Maybe standardized testing is okay. The problem is that under Common Core parents have no say in testing or curriculum anymore. In fact as a member of Clark County Parent School Association I can tell you they don't solicit ANY input from parents anymore, all they talk about is school fundraisers.
 
2014-03-10 04:06:32 PM  

trippdogg: [i1.livememe.com image 750x570]

If this is all you see to worry about in the world, you're not looking very hard.


The whole point of this article is to provide anti-education fuel. That's it. "LOOK! STANDARDIZED TESTING IS LINKED TO MONEY! THEY'RE EXPLOITING OUR KIDS! THE STATE IS FORCING US TO TAKE A TEST! WHARGARRBLLLLLL!"

The article is meant to be inflammatory, but not actually provide useful information other than "if you're in Colorado, standardized testing is the law."
 
2014-03-10 04:07:29 PM  

TNel: teenytinycornteeth: I also said that I had no problem with PSAT or SATs, I have said from the beginning that it's a disturbing trend of teaching to the test, and TNel said that all of this is fine for a third grader.

I said in my State testing doesn't happen until 3rd grade.


Which is still younger than 13 or 14, so accusing me of moving the goalposts is disingenuous.
 
2014-03-10 04:07:45 PM  
TFA: we currently live in Boulder, one of the most liberal, individualistic towns in America

Your assumption that those two naturally go together was your first mistake.

scotchlandia:
Government says "this is optional."
Some citizen says "okay, then no."
Government: "WTF? I told you this is optional, now comply."
Citizen "No thanks, not my thing."
Government "Okay, we were kidding about the optional part. Your children are 'truant, they will have consequences.'"
Citizen "Wait just a damn minute."
People on Fark: "Snarky 'snowflake' comments, why doesn't this legal professor just shut up and do what she is told? It's not like her children are really her children. What is she trying to prove by questioning that optional program that farks you over when you opt out? Everybody should just be the same and never question authority!"


and img.fark.net
 
2014-03-10 04:07:53 PM  

FormlessOne: So, the moral of the story is "she's an idiot."No, seriously. She opted her kid out of the testing before she bothered to research the possible results of her actions? She "stood on her principles", only to discover that not only does her "principled", short-sighted decision have little impact on what she wanted to accomplish, she also succeeded in screwing not just her two kids, but potentially all the other kids as well, and then had the gall to be surprised by this "revelation."

And she's a lawyer? Sheesh. Here's a thought - research first, and then act. Don't make huge, short-sighted assumptions based on incomplete information, only to be surprised by the consequences of your actions later.


Because she believed it to be optional, which means by definition : you don't have to do it. Since when do we need a legal opinion to opt out of optional activities?
 
2014-03-10 04:10:27 PM  
Yesterday: opting out of vaccines.
Today: opting out of standardized tests.
Tomorrow: opting out of work!

Oh, the humanity!
 
2014-03-10 04:12:06 PM  
 
2014-03-10 04:12:59 PM  

eeyore102: Depends on the program. Would you rather have the smart kids sitting bored at the back of the class, cutting up because it's the only way they can get any attention or entertainment? It's true that truly gifted kids tend to seek out opportunities to learn, but it's going to be hard for them to find opportunities in the classroom if the resources aren't there.


I've seen the gifted program at our school and it's a free for all and I know the teacher that was teaching it for years and I wouldn't want my Pre-Schooler in that class.

Most MS and HS are in blocks unlike Elementary so if a kid is better in Alg they move up a step.  Once they get past what the school has they send them to the local college.

teenytinycornteeth: Which is still younger than 13 or 14, so accusing me of moving the goalposts is disingenuous.


I didn't say it but a 5 year old is a HUGE gap from a 9 year old in schooling.
 
2014-03-10 04:14:15 PM  
I also want to agree completely with what jst3p said about how tying funding to test scores encourages folks to game the system.

If you want to see a good example of a system that depends too heavily on the outcome of standardized tests, take a look at China.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-levy/what-i-learned-from-china _b _872126.html

Some of the problems they've had:
- Rich students do better because their parents pay for test prep.
- Ability to perform well on a standardized test does not measure students' ability to innovate and think critically -- two things you want to encourage if you want to build a generation of job creators.
- Cheating is rampant, making the test outcomes suspect anyway.
 
2014-03-10 04:15:23 PM  

scotchlandia: FormlessOne: So, the moral of the story is "she's an idiot."No, seriously. She opted her kid out of the testing before she bothered to research the possible results of her actions? She "stood on her principles", only to discover that not only does her "principled", short-sighted decision have little impact on what she wanted to accomplish, she also succeeded in screwing not just her two kids, but potentially all the other kids as well, and then had the gall to be surprised by this "revelation."

And she's a lawyer? Sheesh. Here's a thought - research first, and then act. Don't make huge, short-sighted assumptions based on incomplete information, only to be surprised by the consequences of your actions later.

Because she believed it to be optional, which means by definition : you don't have to do it. Since when do we need a legal opinion to opt out of optional activities?


This would be my sort of response as well. Again, I think the parent is largely off puttig if not outright wrong, but if a form has a box that says "Check here if you do not wish your child to undergoe standardized testing" option, and you check it, that's sort of the end of the story. Maybe educators should have some leeway to make the case for convincing you that participating in testing is in your childs best interest, but at the end of the day, if you give parents that option, you sort of have to respect it.

Again, the mother seems more self interested and basing her decisions on, at best, faulty logic, but I do think we overemphasize standardized testing in this country and don't know that I entirely disagree with her, even if she's being incredibly brash.
 
2014-03-10 04:16:37 PM  

error 303: Again, the mother seems more self interested and basing her decisions on, at best, faulty logic


There is a reason she teaches law, those who can't do and all...
 
2014-03-10 04:16:56 PM  

eeyore102: e worst thing about these dumb tests is that schools no longer have any incentive to challenge gifted kids, since they're not the ones bringing down the averages.


As previously posted, in some states, schools receive money based on the number of AP classes that they offer. The AP track is fed by students coming up from middle school. In progressive districts, the elementary feeder schools will have advanced programs for students to prepare for the middle school pre-AP program, which prepares for High School AP. If the district is well coordinated, all feeder schools are working together from elementary to middle to high school to ensure the advanced students are getting what they need.

I do think that putting too much emphasis on the once a year state testing is a mistake and that too much pressure is put on the students and teachers for this one measure, but good schools/districts have not sacrificed the "extras" in favor of helping the middle. If you live in a district putting so much emphasis on the testing that it has removed art, music, PE, technology "specials" and does not provide enough for your gifted student, then move or open enroll in another district/school if you have that policy where you live.

Overall, I think state testing in elementary school should be removed in favor of smaller assessments like SRI for reading growth indicators, but I am in favor of state testing for high school graduation. If you cannot pass a basic readiness test coming at of high school, you shouldn't get a diploma. Maybe that would fix at least a part of the large problem we have in the country with the number of students graduating from high school and needing remedial studies classes in college.

Next year, Colorado will be part of the PARCC assessment (as will 16 other states). PARCC will then be used not only as a state standardized test but as the basis of admission for colleges in many of the participating states. Colorado students will not have to take the ACT/SAT if they want to go to a Colorado school; their PARCC test score will determine their admission eligibility instead. At least students in these states will only have to prepare for one type of standardized test that will serve multiple purposes.
 
2014-03-10 04:18:57 PM  

error 303: scotchlandia: FormlessOne: So, the moral of the story is "she's an idiot."No, seriously. She opted her kid out of the testing before she bothered to research the possible results of her actions? She "stood on her principles", only to discover that not only does her "principled", short-sighted decision have little impact on what she wanted to accomplish, she also succeeded in screwing not just her two kids, but potentially all the other kids as well, and then had the gall to be surprised by this "revelation."

And she's a lawyer? Sheesh. Here's a thought - research first, and then act. Don't make huge, short-sighted assumptions based on incomplete information, only to be surprised by the consequences of your actions later.

Because she believed it to be optional, which means by definition : you don't have to do it. Since when do we need a legal opinion to opt out of optional activities?

This would be my sort of response as well. Again, I think the parent is largely off puttig if not outright wrong, but if a form has a box that says "Check here if you do not wish your child to undergoe standardized testing" option, and you check it, that's sort of the end of the story. Maybe educators should have some leeway to make the case for convincing you that participating in testing is in your childs best interest, but at the end of the day, if you give parents that option, you sort of have to respect it.

Again, the mother seems more self interested and basing her decisions on, at best, faulty logic, but I do think we overemphasize standardized testing in this country and don't know that I entirely disagree with her, even if she's being incredibly brash.


I should clarify, I mean that her reasoning and the way she's handled this may be outright wrong, not neccessarily her decision to keep her kids out of standardized testing.
 
2014-03-10 04:19:11 PM  

jfbnr24: Overall, I think state testing in elementary school should be removed in favor of smaller assessments like SRI for reading growth indicators, but I am in favor of state testing for high school graduation. If you cannot pass a basic readiness test coming at of high school, you shouldn't get a diploma.


This! Especially considering the fact that my kid takes those smaller assessments already!
 
2014-03-10 04:21:11 PM  

Alphakronik: I wonder who mommy will try to sue when her precious snowflakes find out that the "opting out" is on their permanent school records and follows them to college, limiting their options?


Have you even been to college? As long as you can find money and aren't a total screwup they'll take you.
 
2014-03-10 04:21:20 PM  
/csb
When I was in college we had to take some stupid test like this too.  I was enrolled in night classes that were designed for working adults, 3 hours once a week for 6 weeks then on to the next course, basically designed to run us through as quickly as possible with a degree in hand.  Anyway 1st couple times we had to take these tests it was stated that they do not count towards grade & no work was ever assigned after taking it.  So I would use this as my only day to miss.  Soon it changed to you must be here the night of the test in order to get points for attending.  The made it weighted enough that you didnt want to miss it.  So I went with "C" the whole way down and left 15 minutes into the 3 hour long class.  Got a call from the dean & person in charge of the adult education class wanting to meet with me, so next day I meet them and they really wanted me to retake the test.  I asked "Does it count towards my overall grade?"  "Well, no but it means alot to the school that you score highly on it."  "I have better things to do with my time than take a test that doesnt matter for my grade.  I'm here to get a piece of paper.  I left early to go to my son's baseball game, that is more important to me than the test."  It was a private "christian" based university that loved to preach on family being super important and that most of us were doing this to better our family.  The look on their face when they had to decide if they wanted to tell me that them getting more funding vs me watching my 8 year old play ball was priceless.  Took 2 other people coming to me on separate occasions before I took it again.  Still did a crappy job on it, I wasnt going to rack my brain trying to figure anything out just educated guess & move on.  Now that I think about it I should have dropped the harassment on them, they coulda paid me for my degree.
/end csb
 
2014-03-10 04:21:25 PM  
All of you complaining about this would you be willing to pay more in taxes so these parents don't have to subject their kids to standardized testing?
 
2014-03-10 04:21:53 PM  

TNel: eeyore102: Depends on the program. Would you rather have the smart kids sitting bored at the back of the class, cutting up because it's the only way they can get any attention or entertainment? It's true that truly gifted kids tend to seek out opportunities to learn, but it's going to be hard for them to find opportunities in the classroom if the resources aren't there.

I've seen the gifted program at our school and it's a free for all and I know the teacher that was teaching it for years and I wouldn't want my Pre-Schooler in that class.

Most MS and HS are in blocks unlike Elementary so if a kid is better in Alg they move up a step.  Once they get past what the school has they send them to the local college.


I attended a gifted and talented school in the 80s. Most of the kids there were from the better side of town, unlike me. I still wound up testing out of some of the reading material and had to go to an entirely separate class for math because I was so far ahead of the rest of my class.

Still, though, I learned a few valuable things there. I learned how to write a research paper (big emphasis on that). I started learning some basic computer literacy and got an introduction to programming. There was an entire segment dedicated to speed reading for comprehension -- I eventually maxed that out, but it took some time. I got a lot of opportunities there that I really could not have gotten from my neighborhood school in the barrio.
 
2014-03-10 04:23:51 PM  
Lol. Would be ok because it is the most liberal. Wow, that is comedy at its best.

Doesn't she know liberal translates to controlling everything and making sure people fit in line or get abolished.

Next test - how to identify and turn in your parents for yelling to loudly.
 
2014-03-10 04:24:47 PM  

jfbnr24: letrole: Good teachers like standardised tests.
This is because their teaching efforts can be quantified and evaluated.

Bad teachers don't like standardised tests.
This is because their teaching efforts can be quantified and evaluated.

Even though this is a trolly post to get responses, I am going to bite with an honest question. In most schools, students are divided pretty randomly into classes so the whole spectrum (below proficient, approaching proficient, proficient and advanced) would expect to be represented in a classroom and the results of the tests might (erroneously) lead to the conclusion that the teacher was somehow responsible.

In some schools, children are grouped in a method called "cluster grouping" which puts all the identified gifted students into one classroom rather then spreading them out among all four/five classes in a given grade. The students are then assigned to a teacher with specialized training in gifted education. In this schoolwide method, the teacher with the gifted cluster group is going to have a higher percentage of students testing advanced on the state mandated standardized tests. Most likely the children in that class would score proficient or advanced without any teacher intervention, so in a school method like that, you really would not be able to tie test scores to any sort of teacher evaluation.


ALSO:
In some schools that do the cluster teaching method, they have the highest averaging students placed in with the lowest achieving students, so that they "average out", and supposedly so the highest on the curve can help provide a good example to the lowest on the curve. However, it doesn't work out this way, as the teacher will move more slowly in the curriculum to make sure the lowest students get it, and the highest students end up getting bored.
This may or may not lead them to disrupt the classroom, because they aren't getting anything out of it, and as aren't allowed to read ahead or ask more in depth questions, there's nothing better for them to do.
 
2014-03-10 04:25:16 PM  

badhatharry: It prepares them for the common core math on the SAT.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/31/a-rid ic ulous-common-core-test-for-first-graders/



http://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/">http://whatiscommoncore.word press.com/

Common Core, huh?
US Code § 1232a  General Educational Provisions Act: "No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system..."
 
2014-03-10 04:25:45 PM  

trippdogg: [i1.livememe.com image 750x570]

If this is all you see to worry about in the world, you're not looking very hard.


People have opinions about [major domestic political issue]?  Can't they see that the world is full of terrible shiat? (Yes they can)
 
2014-03-10 04:27:25 PM  
There are no white lies.  There are just lies.  This article is a case in point:

"my middle-schooler had to go to school for first period, then come home, then go back to school three hours later. For several days."

Followed by:

"We're on our second day of opting out of TCAPs as I write this..."

So I definitely believe this woman to be an academic, but she's either totally full of b.s., has no concept of time, is incredibly stupid, or all three. I'm sure that, as an academic, she's used to writing pages of pointless drivel that nobody ever seems to read and thought she could circulate the same thoughtless kelp to everyone else to be equally ignored...

Or maybe she's totally full of crap and went to law school with Lionel Hutz.... Either way, the article is all lies, and if her kids are anxious, it's probably due to their mother's insistence on "difference" that is the cause, not standardized testing.
 
2014-03-10 04:27:54 PM  
So according to the Fark consensus:

1. Standardized tests are useless.
2. Kids should go through them anyway because they are also useful.

Well, which is it Fark?
 
2014-03-10 04:30:46 PM  

TNel: eeyore102: Depends on the program. Would you rather have the smart kids sitting bored at the back of the class, cutting up because it's the only way they can get any attention or entertainment? It's true that truly gifted kids tend to seek out opportunities to learn, but it's going to be hard for them to find opportunities in the classroom if the resources aren't there.

I've seen the gifted program at our school and it's a free for all and I know the teacher that was teaching it for years and I wouldn't want my Pre-Schooler in that class.

Most MS and HS are in blocks unlike Elementary so if a kid is better in Alg they move up a step.  Once they get past what the school has they send them to the local college.

teenytinycornteeth: Which is still younger than 13 or 14, so accusing me of moving the goalposts is disingenuous.

I didn't say it but a 5 year old is a HUGE gap from a 9 year old in schooling.


I hardly believe that as they progress the testing slows down.  if anything they increase.  One of the articles I read about Chicago school testing said they were so proud that they reduced the number of standardized tests from 25 to 10.  10 tests a year, and like I already established, it's much more than an hour and a half out of the kids day.  If it's a third of the kids year in kindergarten, I doubt it goes down to 2%, like your suggestion, in third grade.
 
2014-03-10 04:32:39 PM  

mikemil828: So according to the Fark consensus:

1. Standardized tests are useless.
2. Kids should go through them anyway because they are also useful.

Well, which is it Fark?


Standardized tests are getting out of hand but this woman is not the right person to make the argument because she applies the academic rigor of toddler playing with its own feces.
 
2014-03-10 04:32:55 PM  

TNel: All of you complaining about this would you be willing to pay more in taxes so these parents don't have to subject their kids to standardized testing?


So you think there is a correlation between the tax rate and participation rate?
 
Displayed 50 of 295 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report