On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:01:42 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

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.

We read some of the great works of literature... poetry, and heard
stories from teachers about the war they'd been in. There was some
memorization, but the things that left the greatest impression were in
the "soft" areas of literature, music, and the arts.

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:01:42 -0400,
wrote:

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.

We read some of the great works of literature... poetry, and heard
stories from teachers about the war they'd been in. There was some
memorization, but the things that left the greatest impression were in
the "soft" areas of literature, music, and the arts.

Likewise.

"John H" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:14:17 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

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.

Amen.


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.

Amen.


Reply:
No they won't. They may get the best teachers. Is merit raise on
improvement on standardized tests, not who scores the highest. The poor
schools teachers will have a better chance of improving scores and getting
big raises. Top schools will not see a lot of improvement.

Harryk wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:16:00 -0700, wrote:

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

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:22:01 -0700, 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.

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.

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.

Then there are all the other pressures we've placed on teachers in the
last 50 years. These days, teachers are expected to socialize kids,
teach them manners, not hurt their feelings, wipe their noses, and
deal with substance abuse and a plethora of other issues that should
be the responsibility of the parents of the kids.

My father had two rules in the household that had to be obeyed:
respect your mother at all times and don't ever talk back to your
teachers or misbehave in school. I wonder how many kids have those
rules impressed upon them these days.

We weren't angels in school, but the sort of mischief we got into was
pretty innocent compared to what I see these days. Our sole security
officer at the high school wasn't worried about kids with guns or
knives or kids on serious drugs. His biggest issue was the kids who
left the campus and school property at lunchtime to run down to the
nearby Italian deli and get a lunch more to their liking than what was
being served in the cafeteria. It didn't help his cause when he chased
us back to school and then lingered to order and pickup a cold cut sub
at the deli.

I recall one time some kid brought a knife to school. He was
permanently expelled.

"My father"....

Too bad you didn't learn enough from him so you own children wouldn't
disown you.

Harryk wrote:
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.





Narcissism overload again?

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

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

Contrary to what you might want to believe, the purpose of a liberal
arts education is not to churn out political liberals.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:31:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

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

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

Contrary to what you might want to believe, the purpose of a liberal
arts education is not to churn out political liberals.

Contrary to what you might want to believe, you don't seem to know a
thing about a liberal education.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:24:03 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:31:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

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

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

Contrary to what you might want to believe, the purpose of a liberal
arts education is not to churn out political liberals.

Contrary to what you might want to believe, you don't seem to know a
thing about a liberal education.

What a parrot you are. Would you like a cracker?

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:24:03 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:31:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

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

Of course, you understand that critical thinking requires a broad
liberal arts education...
Contrary to what you might want to believe, the purpose of a liberal
arts education is not to churn out political liberals.
Contrary to what you might want to believe, you don't seem to know a
thing about a liberal education.

What a parrot you are. Would you like a cracker?



Were you a cracker before you moved to Florida, w'hine?

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

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:24:03 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:31:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

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

Of course, you understand that critical thinking requires a broad
liberal arts education...
Contrary to what you might want to believe, the purpose of a liberal
arts education is not to churn out political liberals.
Contrary to what you might want to believe, you don't seem to know a
thing about a liberal education.

What a parrot you are. Would you like a cracker?



Were you a cracker before you moved to Florida, w'hine?

Racist.