On 3/18/2011 2:39 PM, Harryk wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:06:53 -0400,
wrote:

I saw that show and it is significant that these were "at risk" kids.
I believe it will take time to turn them around.

I do believe that teachers should be paid by their performance and not
just time in grade, particularly since you can't really get rid of a
bad teacher.


One problem is that "performance" is too closely linked to the results
of "standardized testing," and all those tests really test is whether
the kids memorized those parts of their lessons that appear on the
tests. The test results do not tell you if the kids are learning
anything significant or, just as important, how to think.


You better get used to standardized tests. That is the way the world
judges people. You can do much of anything these days without passing
a test.

If the test is well written, "memorizing the answer" is actually
learning the material since no 2 kids will get exactly the same test.
We are moving to computer generated testing where there is a huge pool
of questions and they randomize the tests.

The tests do nothing or little to show whether a kid can think.
Regurgitating canned information is not thinking.

What a small mind you have. Problems can be presented on tests that
require thinking to arrive at a correct answer.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:37:49 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:19:45 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:27:15 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:23:32 -0400, wrote:


He is right about merit pay for teachers too so that is 2 things in a
couple months. If a politician gets one big thing right a month I will
be happy with them.

What does he say about merit pay? Seems like a good idea to me.


http://www2.jcfloridan.com/news/2011...ion-merit-pay-
bill-mixed-ar-1594330/

"Fifty percent of a teacher's evaluation will depend on how much
progress their students have made on the Florida Comprehensive
Assessment Test or other exams over a three-year period."

What this means is good teachers at low-income student schools
will get screwed on pay.
So the low-income student schools will end up with the poorest teachers.
Real smart.


I just saw a tivo of 60 minutes...$125K for charter school teachers.
Apparently, it hasn't made a difference in kids' performance, at least
not so far.

Success of students to achieve their potential depends mostly on their
parents.
Initially charter schools get good performance because guess what?
Involved parents are required to get kids in charter schools.
Most have a waiting list for admission.
Who is most responsible for getting the kids on the list?
Involved parents. That's what gets successful education for kids.
This whole deal about charter schools is pretty much misguided except
it can allow some kids to get into a better environment for learning.
That's good.
Doesn't help those whose parents don't get them into a charter school.
And way too many won't make that effort.
It mostly comes down to parents, not teachers or schools.





So much bull****... A good teacher can teach your kids in that 6 hours a
day, not count on the parents to do the work for the other 18... I am
sick and tired of folks trying to blame the Parents while they are at
work all day and the teachers have the kids right there a captive
audience.

That is not really true. Good parents will help kids with homework and
create a better learning experience at home.
If a kid lives in a crack house with a bunch of drop outs and
criminals, he is far more likely to be a crackhead, criminal, drop
out.

More likely I give you that, but a good teacher could reach out and let
that kid get the most out of that 6 hours a day they have him or her...
I just don't think this should be on the parents. If the schools spent
more time teaching the basics instead of some of the crap they do, the
kids could come out and learn.

Now you're not talking 'teacher', you're talking 'school board' - the folks that
develop the curriculum.

Make the kids write, with pencil and
paper, make them read, right there in class, out loud, like we did when
we were kids, we learned. Or at least a lot of us did... I saw a news
story on the text of one chapter taught in the NYC school system. It was
a whole chapter on police brutality and corruption. Yeah, have a lesson
on it, but a whole chapter, a whole month of the short school year?

Again, you're talking curriculum, not what the teacher does.

That
is a waste and does nothing but create a divide between these kids and
law and order. It certainly doesn't do anything to prepare them to come
out to "normal" society outside of the ghetto or in collage that's for
sure... Teach the kids, don't indoctrinate them and we will be just
fine...

You just need to figure out who you're putting down. Obviously, you should be
writing to your local school board and attending some of their meetings.

Why, my school system isn't at risk.. The teachers here are happy and
well paid, and they really do teach the kids. I am talking about the
failing schools particularly in the inner cities..

What do you expect when you've got a bunch of liberals and unions running the
system?

Their goal is to spend six hours a day showing fifth-graders how to put rubbers
on cucumbers.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:35:46 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:06:53 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

I saw that show and it is significant that these were "at risk" kids.
I believe it will take time to turn them around.

I do believe that teachers should be paid by their performance and not
just time in grade, particularly since you can't really get rid of a
bad teacher.



One problem is that "performance" is too closely linked to the results
of "standardized testing," and all those tests really test is whether
the kids memorized those parts of their lessons that appear on the
tests. The test results do not tell you if the kids are learning
anything significant or, just as important, how to think.


You better get used to standardized tests. That is the way the world
judges people. You can do much of anything these days without passing
a test.

If the test is well written, "memorizing the answer" is actually
learning the material since no 2 kids will get exactly the same test.
We are moving to computer generated testing where there is a huge pool
of questions and they randomize the tests.

How nice to see someone who understands 'standardized testing'.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:56:22 -0400, Ernie wrote:

On 3/18/2011 2:39 PM, Harryk wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:06:53 -0400,
wrote:

I saw that show and it is significant that these were "at risk" kids.
I believe it will take time to turn them around.

I do believe that teachers should be paid by their performance and not
just time in grade, particularly since you can't really get rid of a
bad teacher.


One problem is that "performance" is too closely linked to the results
of "standardized testing," and all those tests really test is whether
the kids memorized those parts of their lessons that appear on the
tests. The test results do not tell you if the kids are learning
anything significant or, just as important, how to think.


You better get used to standardized tests. That is the way the world
judges people. You can do much of anything these days without passing
a test.

If the test is well written, "memorizing the answer" is actually
learning the material since no 2 kids will get exactly the same test.
We are moving to computer generated testing where there is a huge pool
of questions and they randomize the tests.

The tests do nothing or little to show whether a kid can think.
Regurgitating canned information is not thinking.

What a small mind you have. Problems can be presented on tests that
require thinking to arrive at a correct answer.

You must remember that Harry scored 1600 on his SAT, and he did so without
thinking.

Now, you should take back what you said about his mind.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:06:53 -0400,
wrote:

I saw that show and it is significant that these were "at risk" kids.
I believe it will take time to turn them around.

I do believe that teachers should be paid by their performance and not
just time in grade, particularly since you can't really get rid of a
bad teacher.


One problem is that "performance" is too closely linked to the results
of "standardized testing," and all those tests really test is whether
the kids memorized those parts of their lessons that appear on the
tests. The test results do not tell you if the kids are learning
anything significant or, just as important, how to think.


You better get used to standardized tests. That is the way the world
judges people. You can do much of anything these days without passing
a test.

If the test is well written, "memorizing the answer" is actually
learning the material since no 2 kids will get exactly the same test.
We are moving to computer generated testing where there is a huge pool
of questions and they randomize the tests.

The tests do nothing or little to show whether a kid can think.
Regurgitating canned information is not thinking.

Then why did you tell us that your mom made you take "practice tests" at
home?

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:35:46 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:06:53 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

I saw that show and it is significant that these were "at risk" kids.
I believe it will take time to turn them around.

I do believe that teachers should be paid by their performance and not
just time in grade, particularly since you can't really get rid of a
bad teacher.



One problem is that "performance" is too closely linked to the results
of "standardized testing," and all those tests really test is whether
the kids memorized those parts of their lessons that appear on the
tests. The test results do not tell you if the kids are learning
anything significant or, just as important, how to think.


You better get used to standardized tests. That is the way the world
judges people. You can do much of anything these days without passing
a test.

If the test is well written, "memorizing the answer" is actually
learning the material since no 2 kids will get exactly the same test.
We are moving to computer generated testing where there is a huge pool
of questions and they randomize the tests.

Learning how to think critically is the most important type of
education. If that can be demonstrated in a standardized test, then
I'm all for it. I don't think it can very easily.

Of course, you understand that critical thinking requires a broad
liberal arts education...

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:22:52 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:39:39 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:06:53 -0400,
wrote:

I saw that show and it is significant that these were "at risk" kids.
I believe it will take time to turn them around.

I do believe that teachers should be paid by their performance and not
just time in grade, particularly since you can't really get rid of a
bad teacher.


One problem is that "performance" is too closely linked to the results
of "standardized testing," and all those tests really test is whether
the kids memorized those parts of their lessons that appear on the
tests. The test results do not tell you if the kids are learning
anything significant or, just as important, how to think.


You better get used to standardized tests. That is the way the world
judges people. You can do much of anything these days without passing
a test.

If the test is well written, "memorizing the answer" is actually
learning the material since no 2 kids will get exactly the same test.
We are moving to computer generated testing where there is a huge pool
of questions and they randomize the tests.

The tests do nothing or little to show whether a kid can think.
Regurgitating canned information is not thinking.

Nobody has ever convinced me the public school system ever helped kids
"think".
They simply indoctrinate using a system of vertical integration where
there is very little opportunity for any new thoughts. The people in
the administration assure the people coming up think exactly like they
do and that perpetuates itself as they continue moving up through a
very narrow pipe.

K12 is mostly memorizing anyway.

Totally disagree... A well-rounded education K-12 does exactly that.
It teaches and inspires kids to go further.

On 3/18/2011 3:12 PM, John H wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:56:22 -0400, wrote:

On 3/18/2011 2:39 PM, Harryk wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:06:53 -0400,
wrote:

I saw that show and it is significant that these were "at risk" kids.
I believe it will take time to turn them around.

I do believe that teachers should be paid by their performance and not
just time in grade, particularly since you can't really get rid of a
bad teacher.


One problem is that "performance" is too closely linked to the results
of "standardized testing," and all those tests really test is whether
the kids memorized those parts of their lessons that appear on the
tests. The test results do not tell you if the kids are learning
anything significant or, just as important, how to think.


You better get used to standardized tests. That is the way the world
judges people. You can do much of anything these days without passing
a test.

If the test is well written, "memorizing the answer" is actually
learning the material since no 2 kids will get exactly the same test.
We are moving to computer generated testing where there is a huge pool
of questions and they randomize the tests.

The tests do nothing or little to show whether a kid can think.
Regurgitating canned information is not thinking.

What a small mind you have. Problems can be presented on tests that
require thinking to arrive at a correct answer.

You must remember that Harry scored 1600 on his SAT, and he did so without
thinking.

Now, you should take back what you said about his mind.

What mind? Oh, you must be talking about the cesspool atop his shoulders.

wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:18:38 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:35:46 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:06:53 -0400,
wrote:

I saw that show and it is significant that these were "at risk" kids.
I believe it will take time to turn them around.

I do believe that teachers should be paid by their performance and not
just time in grade, particularly since you can't really get rid of a
bad teacher.


One problem is that "performance" is too closely linked to the results
of "standardized testing," and all those tests really test is whether
the kids memorized those parts of their lessons that appear on the
tests. The test results do not tell you if the kids are learning
anything significant or, just as important, how to think.

You better get used to standardized tests. That is the way the world
judges people. You can do much of anything these days without passing
a test.

If the test is well written, "memorizing the answer" is actually
learning the material since no 2 kids will get exactly the same test.
We are moving to computer generated testing where there is a huge pool
of questions and they randomize the tests.
Learning how to think critically is the most important type of
education. If that can be demonstrated in a standardized test, then
I'm all for it. I don't think it can very easily.

Of course, you understand that critical thinking requires a broad
liberal arts education...


Most K-12 is still learning basic concepts and memorizing things. You
don't "think" about why 6x12=72, or what the formula for the area of a
circle is, you just remember it.

Maybe in your school system it was that way. It sure as hell was not
that way when I was in K-12. Sure, we learned the basics and there was
memorization, but there was a lot more in terms of teaching us how to
think.

I don't know why, but my favorite math course in high school was the
year of geometry, followed by calculus. I didn't like the two years of
algebra all that much, though I did OK in it.

I still remember some of every class in high school:

Four years of English
Four years of math: algebra, geometry, algebra II and calculus
Four years of science: biology, chemistry, physics and physics II
Four years of foreign languages: four years of Latin
Four years of history: ancient, medieval, european and U.S.

And for my electives: two years of music/chorus and two years of Russian.

I remember many of my teachers, too. Most of them were absolutely
first-rate, and three of them had doctorates. My third year history
teacher had a doctorate, and he later became principal teacher. The
teacher I best remember, though, taught English. She not only pushed me
into writing, she sneaked some of her students into a local jazz club
several times a year where her really famous musician husband performed.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:35:22 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:18:38 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:35:46 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:06:53 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

I saw that show and it is significant that these were "at risk" kids.
I believe it will take time to turn them around.

I do believe that teachers should be paid by their performance and not
just time in grade, particularly since you can't really get rid of a
bad teacher.



One problem is that "performance" is too closely linked to the results
of "standardized testing," and all those tests really test is whether
the kids memorized those parts of their lessons that appear on the
tests. The test results do not tell you if the kids are learning
anything significant or, just as important, how to think.


You better get used to standardized tests. That is the way the world
judges people. You can do much of anything these days without passing
a test.

If the test is well written, "memorizing the answer" is actually
learning the material since no 2 kids will get exactly the same test.
We are moving to computer generated testing where there is a huge pool
of questions and they randomize the tests.

Learning how to think critically is the most important type of
education. If that can be demonstrated in a standardized test, then
I'm all for it. I don't think it can very easily.

Of course, you understand that critical thinking requires a broad
liberal arts education...


Most K-12 is still learning basic concepts and memorizing things. You
don't "think" about why 6x12=72, or what the formula for the area of a
circle is, you just remember it.

It's about learning basics and it's about learning how to function in
society. The latter isn't something you can memorize and it's learned
early or not at all.