Bush's testing plan.
rush...@my-deja.com
fail to measure up to national standards under Bush's new testing plan?
I predict that this plan will bring the issue of race and IQ
differences to the fore. If you were a math teacher and to be
evaluated by a yearly test given to your students where would you want
to be assigned? Chinatown? Harlem?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
alan truelove
>fail to measure up to national standards under Bush's new testing plan?
Well, there is a precursor in Bush's own State where as Gov. he
pushed testing--
Hispanics fail High School exit testst at an alarming rate (& have to
go back in the Summer etc)
But the Houston Chronicle (the only newspaper) gives the answer:
It must be that the Hispanics are not working hard enough. They said
"surely no one would be stupid enough to think that thr Hispanics have
some kind of genetic deficit ..."
So now you know.
[uk.org.mensa added to ng's]
Eby
I would fight the test if it was ethnocentric which many are.
Paul J. Gans
The major problem with this sort of testing is that it
means that every teacher in the country will have to
spend a major part of the school year teaching to the
test. Since the tests will be in English and Mathematics,
a *lot* of other material will go down the drain.
This is a well-known problem with universal standardized
tests. We have them in New York State. And that's what
happens here.
It is a stupid, counterproductive idea that *superficially*
looks as if it is a Good Thing. It isn't.
It will be worse if the teacher's job depends on it.
----- Paul J. Gans
Mary
Educators and local and state education systems have been
investigating these ideas for at least the 30 years that I have been
an educator.
Obviously to get the best gain score, you would want very average
middle class kids. These are the kids in which we are most likely to
see 1 years growth in 1 year.
If you have smart kids, they may already top out the test and show no
gains -- even when they do gain. The bottom students grow at the
slowest rate, and would not be expected to gain one year in one year.
So how do you measure "progress"? Is it progress when a child who has
only gained 3 months per year suddenly gains 6 months? Of course it
is.
But what measurements does this President propose? I haven't seen
that part of the proposal. However, it is amazing how those who don't
haven't a clue at all are doomed to repeat the repeated failures of
local and state education systems ----- inability to accurately
measure if "learning" occurred.
Mary
sarah clark
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
> In talk.origins Eby <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
> > <rush...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:94tpe0
$8ft$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> Will teachers in all black schools lose their jobs if there
students
> >> fail to measure up to national standards under Bush's new testing
plan?
> >> I predict that this plan will bring the issue of race and IQ
> >> differences to the fore. If you were a math teacher and to be
> >> evaluated by a yearly test given to your students where would you
want
> >> to be assigned? Chinatown? Harlem?
> >>
>
> > I would fight the test if it was ethnocentric which many are.
>
> The major problem with this sort of testing is that it
> means that every teacher in the country will have to
> spend a major part of the school year teaching to the
> test. Since the tests will be in English and Mathematics,
> a *lot* of other material will go down the drain.
>
> This is a well-known problem with universal standardized
> tests. We have them in New York State. And that's what
> happens here.
in texas, the taas test is emphasize over all other measurements
of educational success. the strategy that the adminstrators
have taken in response, per linda mc neil of rice university,
includes practice sheets ad infinitum, and then holding
back the children in ninth grade, so that they don't fail the
test in tenth grade; in subsequent years those children tend
to drop out. clearly, test scores go up in such a scenario.
since the dropout rate is not a measure of the failure of the
school, the school is hailed as a success story.
so much for universal testing.
>
> It is a stupid, counterproductive idea that *superficially*
> looks as if it is a Good Thing. It isn't.
>
> It will be worse if the teacher's job depends on it.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans
>
>
--
sarah clark
the road goes on forever,
and the party never ends
---robert earl keen
alan truelove
discussed..]
>I would fight the [Math etc tests which demonstrate poor black performance] test
Again, invest the $60 in Jensen's "Aptitude Testing" --
He says you're wrong--
There has been no rebuttal in 15-20 years..
Now who are we going to believe, 100% of refereed and peer-reviewed
studies, or you ?
Blacks do badly on such tests because of their massive IQ deficit,
which is 80% genetically caused.. (or more).
It is true that the Educational Assessment bodies in both the US and
the UK have their heads stuck in sand .. (see my recent posts citing
asshole assessments of black failure in NYC, and in London boroughs,
i.e. blaming the schools and teachers...]
A strong back is a terrible thing to waste.
Alan J Truelove, PhD(Statistics, UCLA), MA(Cambridge)
Eby
news:3a74bfc4...@news.earthlink.net...
> [in this thread, the unfair penalizing of teachers who teach blacks is
> discussed..]
> >I would fight the [Math etc tests which demonstrate poor black
performance] test
> >if it was ethnocentric which many are.
> --
> Again, invest the $60 in Jensen's "Aptitude Testing" --
> He says you're wrong--
> There has been no rebuttal in 15-20 years..
There has been many rebuttals of most of his articles. Maybe no recent ones
but why rebute something that has already been rebuted. Since then the only
thing I've seen come out that supports his hypothesis is the bell curve.
This of course has also been rebutted.
> Now who are we going to believe, 100% of refereed and peer-reviewed
> studies, or you ?
The peer-reviewed studies (which show he is wrong).
Read some of the following:
"Race and IQ" by Montagu (Expanded in 1999)
It has a few chapters talking about Jensen's findings and points to many
sources that rebutted them.
> Blacks do badly on such tests because of their massive IQ deficit,
> which is 80% genetically caused.. (or more).
It has been shown in experiments with other species (and looks to be in
humans) probably within the 0 to .2 correlation range (nowhere close to
Jensen's .8).
> It is true that the Educational Assessment bodies in both the US and
> the UK have their heads stuck in sand .. (see my recent posts citing
> asshole assessments of black failure in NYC, and in London boroughs,
> i.e. blaming the schools and teachers...]
>
I agree that blaming the school and the teachers is a bit oversimplifying
it. There are many factors playing a role in achievement and IQ test
performance. Read up on social reproduction and some sociology of education.
Bobby D. Bryant
> The major problem with this sort of testing is that it
> means that every teacher in the country will have to
> spend a major part of the school year teaching to the
> test. Since the tests will be in English and Mathematics,
> a *lot* of other material will go down the drain.
Yes, I know school teachers in Texas that rage against the idea of spending 12
years teaching a child to pass a standardized exam.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> in texas, the taas test is emphasize over all other measurements
> of educational success. the strategy that the adminstrators
> have taken in response, per linda mc neil of rice university,
> includes practice sheets ad infinitum ...
Another popular stategy is for school districts to falsify their reports
of the tests' outcome. There was a big flap over one such incident here
in Central Texas about a year ago. One wonders how much more of it goes
on that doesn't get found out.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> But what measurements does this President propose? I haven't seen
> that part of the proposal. However, it is amazing how those who don't
> haven't a clue at all are doomed to repeat the repeated failures of
> local and state education systems ----- inability to accurately
> measure if "learning" occurred.
Of course, the underlying question that needs to be asked is, do the people
proposing these plans really want kids to be educated? Clearly, lots of
people in the USA would be happier if the public schools taught children
bible stories and turned them out with just enough "education" to make good
factory drones, willing to work a wages similar to what could be obtained
by moving the factory to a third world country. Yet they still need a
testing scheme that lets them "prove" to the voting public that they are
doing a good job of educating the public's brood. You can expect to see
all kinds of ridiculous measurements proposed during the upcoming war on
education.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> You can expect to see
> all kinds of ridiculous measurements proposed during the upcoming war on
> education.
"War on Education" -- I like that. I suppose context called for me to say
"war over education", but sometimes you just slip into prolepsis despite
yourself, and prophesy without meaning to.
Yes, I think we're amid a War on Education, and that it will intensify for the
next two to four years. It probably won't *ever* be over.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Richard Harter
<ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>The major problem with this sort of testing is that it
>means that every teacher in the country will have to
>spend a major part of the school year teaching to the
>test. Since the tests will be in English and Mathematics,
>a *lot* of other material will go down the drain.
Well, we certainly don't want students to be competent in English and
Mathematics.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
Economists are people who work with numbers
but don't have the personality to be accountants.
Henry Barwood
Testing is a politicians way of "curing" a problem. It does not address
the basic needs of schools, nor does it address the issue of how best to
teach students. By setting "standards" they assure the Bubbas that their
children will receive a certificate of education, not an education. The
name of the game is creating a cheap workforce, not educating the
populace. After all if they were actually better educated, they might
not vote for Joe Stupid come election time.
Barwood
ZenIsWhen
>On 28 Jan 2001 13:04:31 -0500, "Paul J. Gans"
><ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>The major problem with this sort of testing is that it
>>means that every teacher in the country will have to
>>spend a major part of the school year teaching to the
>>test. Since the tests will be in English and Mathematics,
>>a *lot* of other material will go down the drain.
>
>Well, we certainly don't want students to be competent in English and
>Mathematics.
>
And, exactly how does practicing to take a known test equate to understanding
English and Math?
Rodjk #613
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Mary wrote:
>
> > But what measurements does this President propose? I haven't seen
> > that part of the proposal. However, it is amazing how those who
don't
> > haven't a clue at all are doomed to repeat the repeated failures of
> > local and state education systems ----- inability to accurately
> > measure if "learning" occurred.
>
> Of course, the underlying question that needs to be asked is, do the
people
> proposing these plans really want kids to be educated?
I thought the question was:
"Is our children learning?"
:-)
Rodjk#613
>Clearly, lots of
> people in the USA would be happier if the public schools taught
children
> bible stories and turned them out with just enough "education" to
make good
> factory drones, willing to work a wages similar to what could be
obtained
> by moving the factory to a third world country. Yet they still need a
> testing scheme that lets them "prove" to the voting public that they
are
> doing a good job of educating the public's brood. You can expect to
see
> all kinds of ridiculous measurements proposed during the upcoming war
on
> education.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
>
Paul J. Gans
You have a PhD in statistics? You think that there has been
no rebuttal to Jensen's work?
What planet are you from? Is the weather good there?
---- Paul J. Gans
Alan Morgan
And clearly the only two choices are genetic defects and laziness.
Alan
Alan Morgan
I agree that testing doesn't fix anything, but I find it hard to argue
against the basic idea of a standardized test. If we want to know if
a school is doing well we have to measure it against some sort of objective
standard. Obviously standardized tests shouldn't be the only standard
and there are good tests and bad tests and depending on how they are
administered they may do more harm than good, but I think they have to
play some role in evaluating a school and its students.
Alan
Paul J. Gans
We've been over this before. The experiment has already been
done. All we have to do is look at countries who are ahead of
us in education. What do they do?
Well, they tend to have smaller class sizes and have national
curricula, not local choice. That's for starters. They also
provide students with a number of perks, like free admission
to museums.
So there are three things we must *never* do.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
Well, we can do a creationist calculation. A simplified
version would be this: only one in one thousand gets
caught, so there must be a thousand school districts were
that was true.
Don't ask me where the one in one thousand comes from, just
be glad that I didn't say that such cheating is impossible.
If I had, we'd have 1 in 10^150 gets caught and there ain't
that many school districts in Texas.... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> On 28 Jan 2001 13:04:31 -0500, "Paul J. Gans"
> <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>The major problem with this sort of testing is that it
>>means that every teacher in the country will have to
>>spend a major part of the school year teaching to the
>>test. Since the tests will be in English and Mathematics,
>>a *lot* of other material will go down the drain.
> Well, we certainly don't want students to be competent in English and
> Mathematics.
This method does not make them competent in English and
Mathematics. What it does is teaches them to take
standardized tests in English and Mathematics, an entirely
different thing.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> Alan
I understand the feeling behind what you have written, but I
think we have to learn to live with some hard truths. There is
NO WAY to measure "learning". Everything we propose measures
something other than what we think we mean by learning.
I have no quarrel with testing students. I do it myself.
But we already know how best to teach. Sadly, we find it
expensive and contrary to some of our closely held convictions.
For example we want parential control. And yet what do those
parents know about what should or should not be in a curriculum?
Most hate math and are scared of science. They want their children
to read, but they do NOT want them to read anything that might
shake their children's faith in what parents believe.
And we expect nationwide to find hundreds of thousands of excellently
qualified teachers willing to work for very little money -- money
we often would not work for. And we put them in lousy physical
facilities, overcrowd their classrooms, give them no supplies,
equipment, or modern books, and then complain that they are not
doing their jobs.
Check your community. Who gets paid more: sanitation department
workers or teachers? (No, I'm not bashing sanitation department
workers. They are worth what they earn and likely more. But
teachers are worth that too, and likely more.)
We in the US believe in free enterprise. Students see where the
money goes and draw their own conclusions.
National testing will not deal with any of this.
----- Paul J. Gans
Henry Barwood
"Paul J. Gans" wrote:
> I understand the feeling behind what you have written, but I
> think we have to learn to live with some hard truths. There is
> NO WAY to measure "learning". Everything we propose measures
> something other than what we think we mean by learning.
Well said, I couldn't agree more!
Henry Barwood
The big problem with these politically motivated "standard" tests is
that they do not measure real knowledge, nor do they accurately predict
success in either life or learning. Most of them test "minimum
competence" in the basic subjects and are exceptionally biased and
ethnocentric. We as a nation like to put the stamp of approval on
everything and "everybody loves a winner". Quick, how many
superachievers in science or industry were really exceptional students?
Fact is that those who excel often are boxed in by an educational system
that values conformity rather than curiosity.
I speak from experience in this. I was a square peg in K-12 and barely
graduated High School. After struggling in college for several years, I
finally reached a point where my curiosity matched the subject matter.
In just a few years I turned my "grades" around and eventually went on
to earn a doctorate in clay mineralogy. School was a horror to me
because of the way it was taught and because I did not perform well on
"standardized" tests. I succeeded, but many did not and still do not.
Bush's plan is a nightmare and only continues a long National obsession
with conservatism that will cost us as a nation for many years to come.
Yes, this is my opinion!
Barwood
WickedDyno
Too much education also hurts the economy -- it leads to bad (i.e.
informed) consumers.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
John Gilmer
>
> Testing is a politicians way of "curing" a problem. It does not address
> the basic needs of schools, nor does it address the issue of how best to
> teach students. By setting "standards" they assure the Bubbas that their
> children will receive a certificate of education, not an education. The
> name of the game is creating a cheap workforce, not educating the
> populace. After all if they were actually better educated, they might
> not vote for Joe Stupid come election time.
It is fun to note that the "smartest" voting group (the jews) and the
"dumbest" (the "innercity" blacks) voted the same way this last election!
SomeBlokeCalledRapunzelSyndrome
> [uk.org.mensa added to ng's]
WHY?????
You appear to be discussing something to do with the colonials.
We don't give a shit.
Fuck off.
Henry Barwood
I would say your post reinforces the concept that the dumbest voters
voted for Bush.
Barwood
Mike Owen
Gosh, it sounds almost as if public schools could do with a dose of,
oh what's it called? Competition?
Geoff Sheffield
This seems to me to be one of the major issues with regard to
education, along with the diminished social status of teachers.
But solving this problem will involve more than just raising
salaries. Do you think that increasing salaries will attract
and keep more qualified people, or will we just end up with the
same group of people we have now at a greater cost? There
has to be a way to effectively evaluate job performance, and
reward people based on performance and not seniority.
And we need to change attitudes toward teaching. I'm sure
that some of your colleagues are more interested in teaching
than research. If they were given the same salary, would
they be interested in teaching high school, or would they
rather teach at NYU?
> And we put them in lousy physical
> facilities, overcrowd their classrooms, give them no supplies,
> equipment, or modern books, and then complain that they are not
> doing their jobs.
>
> Check your community. Who gets paid more: sanitation department
> workers or teachers? (No, I'm not bashing sanitation department
> workers. They are worth what they earn and likely more. But
> teachers are worth that too, and likely more.)
>
> We in the US believe in free enterprise. Students see where the
> money goes and draw their own conclusions.
>
> National testing will not deal with any of this.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans
>
>
--
Geoff Sheffield
WickedDyno
<m_o...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
It sounds more like public schools could do with, oh, say, enough money
to actually educate the children they're supposed to educate.
Alan Morgan
>think we have to learn to live with some hard truths. There is
>NO WAY to measure "learning". Everything we propose measures
>something other than what we think we mean by learning.
That doesn't mean that it can't be a good approximation. Take
IQ tests, for example. IQ tests obviously don't measure intelligence,
they measure your ability to take IQ tests. You know this and I know
this (I'm not sure if Marilyn vos Savant does, but that's a different
matter). Yet I find that most of the people that I consider "intelligent"
also have high IQ scores. There are exceptions of course (Richard
Feynman, who supposedly had an IQ of 130, but claimed that it was
all for physics. Heck, he might even have been right).
An imperfect tool is better than no tool at all, although if you
believe that the tool is better than it actually is you could
be in real trouble (and I admit that this could well happen with
standardized testing and we should make every effort to ensure that
it doesn't).
>I have no quarrel with testing students. I do it myself.
>But we already know how best to teach. Sadly, we find it
>expensive and contrary to some of our closely held convictions.
>
>For example we want parential control. And yet what do those
>parents know about what should or should not be in a curriculum?
>Most hate math and are scared of science. They want their children
>to read, but they do NOT want them to read anything that might
>shake their children's faith in what parents believe.
I suspect that this is a minority view actually (I hope it is. I
normally associate that attitude with the religious right). A bigger
problem, IMHO, is that most parents simply don't care. They aren't
interested in what, or if, their kids are learning. They don't really,
in their very heart of hearts, think that education is important.
>And we expect nationwide to find hundreds of thousands of excellently
>qualified teachers willing to work for very little money -- money
>we often would not work for. And we put them in lousy physical
>facilities, overcrowd their classrooms, give them no supplies,
>equipment, or modern books, and then complain that they are not
>doing their jobs.
No argument here.
>Check your community. Who gets paid more: sanitation department
>workers or teachers? (No, I'm not bashing sanitation department
>workers. They are worth what they earn and likely more. But
>teachers are worth that too, and likely more.)
Sigh. Yeah. So where does this money come from? In general, I
think, it has to come from the Feds because local communities vary
too much in their ability to provide funds (and I don't want to
through this open to private industry. This is too important to
leave up to the profit motive). The Feds, not surprisingly, want
to make sure that the bone-heads in charge of the local school
districts don't mismanage the money and that the money goes to
teachers and supplies rather than the bureaucracy. How do they
ensure this? Even if you keep the Feds out of it and have the
states pool all the money from the various communities, they
will still want the same assurance (and although it is a little
easier, since they are closer to the problem, it's not trivial).
I don't see that you get away with the need for testing.
>We in the US believe in free enterprise. Students see where the
>money goes and draw their own conclusions.
>
>National testing will not deal with any of this.
National testing isn't supposed to and I would argue strenuously against
someone who believed that national testing was a solution to any
of the problems we face. National testing is an imperfect tool that
gives us some indication as to whether or not we are succeeding.
Some people have mentioned that we should look at other countries to
see what they do and use them as an example of how to improve our
school system. Great idea. How do we know that these other countries
are doing well? Their student are better educated. How do we know their
students are better educated? Probably from test results.
Alan
Henry Barwood
Mike Owen wrote:
> Gosh, it sounds almost as if public schools could do with a dose of,
> oh what's it called? Competition?
So, may I conclude you would prefer to have your children taught by the
low bidder?
Barwood
David Jensen
"Alan Morgan" <amo...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:9575cd$bjp$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
> National testing isn't supposed to and I would argue strenuously against
> someone who believed that national testing was a solution to any
> of the problems we face. National testing is an imperfect tool that
> gives us some indication as to whether or not we are succeeding.
The only thing that national testing can do is test the teachers, schools
and districts. Standardized tests are great for comparing the results of
different approaches, but it would be very foolish to let the future of a
child depend on the results of one standardized test. Uh-h-h-h, any bets
whether ETS takes over the project?
> Some people have mentioned that we should look at other countries to
> see what they do and use them as an example of how to improve our
> school system. Great idea. How do we know that these other countries
> are doing well? Their student are better educated. How do we know their
> students are better educated? Probably from test results.
Oddly we manage to run colleges that are world class.