Forums | MacLife

Chickenhawk wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Whatever. I'm not bothering to argue about studies and evidence to someone who doesn't believe the scientific method is reliable.

What, you mean not everything can be explained with an analogy to reptiles or some personal experience?

You want to argue about radiometric dating to someone who doesn't know alpha decay from beta decay, or the difference between potassium, plutonium, and polonium?

Nor do I want to argue teaching methods when I'd have to start from explaining the difference between teaching ESL and teaching Standard English grammar to a native speaker, the methods tried over the years, the studies and evidence, the reasoning behind the methods, the characteristics of African-American vernacular...

Chickenhawk wrote:

A curious thing to examine would be teaching methods in native english speaking countries, but the natives speak an improper patois, i.e. Caribbean islands such as Jamaica.

Or former colonies like the US or Australia?

And the queen (Elizabeth II) hardly speaks the queen's (Elizabeth I) English.

resedit wrote:

Excuse me if I don't think those studies are worth much.

So by your logic, the studies being referring to are "not worth much" because you can cite a couple of anecdotal experiences by which a language was learned without making use of such practices?

This sounds kind of like 'if you believe stem cells could lead to a solution then you must believe that solutions can only come from stem cells.'

That's "bollocks".

Ribtorus wrote:

That's "bollocks".

hmmmm....

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Must be a few U.S. citizens agree.

resedit wrote:

No more foreign than Ebonics - which is the lesson plan Oakland, CA was trying to use - getting back to my point, if teaching for the test results in these asinine lesson plans being scrapped - that's a good thing.

Do you know what "teaching to the test" means?

It point out that being forced to use the proper language results in the brain learning the proper language. Use ebonics in the classroom and they will have a much more difficult time learning the proper language.

The point is that teachers throwing away their lesson plans to teach for the test may very well be a good thing, because clearly the lesson plans they have are not working - hence the sad state of education in this country, where people get a diploma who are neither fit for college or a meaningful job.

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

It point out that being forced to use the proper language results in the brain learning the proper language. Use ebonics in the classroom and they will have a much more difficult time learning the proper language.

Learning a second language and learning the Standard Dialect of your native language are not the same process.

In China, do they not only use one dialect in the school system?
The kids use one dialect and learn that dialect in school, and then go home and use whatever dialect their family uses, no?

Um, OK - whatever.

The point still stands - the standardized tests gauge whether or not the education system is working, and if it is not working, then yes - lesson plans need to be thrown away.

resedit wrote:

Um, OK - whatever.

The point still stands - the standardized tests gauge whether or not the education system is working, and if it is not working, then yes - lesson plans need to be thrown away.

...because the system is "working" when the teachers are focusing only on a limited standardized test?

btw - during my stint in public education, the teachers always identified me as poor at math. I wasn't very fast at the mdas time sheets they would pass out.

Some UC Berkeley students came and did this math test for us that they were developing - and the teacher (who was well respected at the school) was flabbergasted that I came out on top. The test the Cal students developed didn't care about how fast you could fill out a page of times tables. It looked at conceptual thinking skills.

I still suck at speed when it comes to simple arithmetic.

Teachers are not necessarily very good judges of what their students are good at - especially public school teachers, and testing may reveal what the teachers themselves don't know.

That was the same teacher that sent me to the principles office for mis-behaving in class, and it turned out I was hallucinating - with a fever of 106 measured by the school nurse when I got to the office.

I had been in the classroom acting weird for half an hour in her class, and the teacher wasn't bright enough to figure out something was seriously wrong. 106F is extremely dangerous.

A lot of teachers do not belong in education, but it is difficult to fire them because of the teachers union.

Threat of lost federal funds may be exactly what is needed for the school districts to grow a pair and fire those who have no business in education.

Good teachers will not have a problem with their students showing marked improvement.

resedit wrote:

In schools where education is currently fine, they don't have to worry.
In schools where education is currently sub par, then if teaching for the test causes them to throw away their lesson plans, guess what - their techniques were not working anyway.

...so if a group of students performs poorly on a standardized test, it necessarily follows that it is the "lesson plans"--not teachers, class size, materials, funding--that is at issue?  It isn't the fact that some minority students perform worse on certain standardized tests?

Teaching simply to pass a standardized test is NEVER a solution.  Ever. 

Our education system is failing, and a large part of the failure is incompetent teachers.

Link?  I went to a great public high school.  Lots of good teachers, and it prepared me well for college.  Now take a school with half the funding and double the number of students.  How on earth could the quality of education be the same?

Sometimes, it really is an issue of money.  There are lots of extremely underfunded schools in this country. 

How would you gauge the competence of a teacher?

Observe them?  Do you know how many extremely important 'standardized tests' I've taken in my life, including post undergrad?  You don't need to be a genius to teach someone how to do well on a standardized test.  That is no gauge of competency.