On Feb 11, 7:55 am, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:38:01 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:06:15 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:16:23 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:23:55 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:06?pm, John H.
The basis for even considering education in the discussion was a claim
that D's oppose "No Child Left Behind", and thaty they do so because
if the amount of education were increased across the country the
number of people supporting the D's would decrease.
Which, by the way, was a valid claim.
--
Then according to your theory, the states with the greatest numbers of
Republicans will be those states with the most successful and
comprehensive educational systems. By the same token, the states with
the smallest number of Republicans will be those states where the
Democrats have succeeded on destroying the education system and
thereby protecting their base.

Care to offer some examples? Half a dozen or so of each would be
sufficient to establish a trend, rather than an exception.

Education isn't a statewide function anywhere that I know of. It's a county
or city function normally.
Unbelievable.

And you used to teach? Who certified you - Wal-Mart?
Herring worked as a substitute teacher. The qualifications for a
substitute teacher in Alexandra, Virginia, where Herring lives, are minimal:

* at least 60 hours of college coursework
* evidence of a negative tuberculin test (or chest x-ray)
* a completed online application
* attend an orientation session (see below)
* criminal background check -- at the orientation session, you will
schedule an appointment to return for fingerprinting (the cost to the
applicant is $42)
Subs here in CT are required to have a four year degree, have to pass
a teaching methods course and the usual fingerprint checks, etc.

Teacher Aides have to have a two year degree Middle school and up
unless - at the Elementary level it's not required.
Virginia is part of the South

Did you get my note about your possibly "lunch-by"? This coming weekend
is fine, but I will be gone the weekend of the 23rd.

Well, so much for that.

However, all is not lost. Scott is bugging me to take a trip down
with him in the Spring - he wants to visit his daughter, I can visit
mine while down there and we can hook up for fishing for a day.

Shoot for the *real* spring, late April or sometime in May, when the
chances of a decent day are pretty high. I ordered some "stuff" for son
of Yo Ho that probably will be installed by the dealer in March-April.
It's the height of "rigging season," so he wants the boat for a week to
10 days after we remove the shrinkwrap.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since you got that Parker, you sure are neglecting your Zimmerman like
lobster boat......

"JimH" wrote in message
...


On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:57:04 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:52:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:16:23 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:23:55 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:06?pm, John H.

The basis for even considering education in the discussion was a
claim
that D's oppose "No Child Left Behind", and thaty they do so
because
if the amount of education were increased across the country the
number of people supporting the D's would decrease.

Which, by the way, was a valid claim.
--

Then according to your theory, the states with the greatest numbers of
Republicans will be those states with the most successful and
comprehensive educational systems. By the same token, the states with
the smallest number of Republicans will be those states where the
Democrats have succeeded on destroying the education system and
thereby protecting their base.

Care to offer some examples? Half a dozen or so of each would be
sufficient to establish a trend, rather than an exception.



Education isn't a statewide function anywhere that I know of. It's a
county
or city function normally.

Unbelievable.

And you used to teach? Who certified you - Wal-Mart?

JimH's argument methods...cut what you don't like and make comments about
the rest.


Go foch yourself John. What the hell do *I* have to do with this
discussion?

You really are an asshole.

Jim H- We really need to keep this cussin to a minimum. Cussing should be
reserved for those desperate moments when your brain freezes and you can't
think of anything else to say.

Jim wrote:

"JimH" wrote in message
...


On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:57:04 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:52:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:16:23 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:23:55 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:06?pm, John H.

The basis for even considering education in the discussion was
a claim
that D's oppose "No Child Left Behind", and thaty they do so
because
if the amount of education were increased across the country the
number of people supporting the D's would decrease.

Which, by the way, was a valid claim.
--

Then according to your theory, the states with the greatest
numbers of
Republicans will be those states with the most successful and
comprehensive educational systems. By the same token, the states
with
the smallest number of Republicans will be those states where the
Democrats have succeeded on destroying the education system and
thereby protecting their base.

Care to offer some examples? Half a dozen or so of each would be
sufficient to establish a trend, rather than an exception.



Education isn't a statewide function anywhere that I know of. It's
a county
or city function normally.

Unbelievable.

And you used to teach? Who certified you - Wal-Mart?

JimH's argument methods...cut what you don't like and make comments
about
the rest.


Go foch yourself John. What the hell do *I* have to do with this
discussion?

You really are an asshole.

Jim H- We really need to keep this cussin to a minimum. Cussing should
be reserved for those desperate moments when your brain freezes and you
can't think of anything else to say.

DAMN, now all we are going to get from Jim is profanity. His brain has
frostbite. He is already beginning to sound like a recording of Harry.

On Feb 11, 10:03*am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:06:02 -0500, John H.

wrote:
Yes, there are many 'tricks' to taking a multiple choice test, just as
there are many 'tricks' to the design of detractors and solutions to the
questions on the test. Students should have a general understanding of how
to take a multiple choice test, how to figure the odds, and when to guess
and not guess. Teaching that is *not* 'teaching THE test', but teaching
'test taking'.

You still aren't getting the idea.

It much more than teaching the mechanics.

For example, let's say I want to take the Private Pilot's Examination
without having to actually take a class.

All I have to do is go here.

http://www.faa.gov/education_researc...st_questions/m...

That is the question pool for the examination.

Same concept applies to the CT Mastery Test - all the questions that
can be potentially asked are there. *If you teach to the pool
questions, that is teaching the test.

There is no other way to describe it.

So, if they are teaching the pool, the kids are learning the pool,
thus, the kids are learning, the teachers have to teach them
something.. What's wrong with math, ss, science, etc, questions??

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:25:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:46:06 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:28:36 -0500, John H.
wrote:

If the tests are developed and administered properly, the teachers don't
know what's on the test anyway. They know what the standards of learning
are, and they try to ensure the students can meet the standards.
Unfortunately, you are out of touch. That may be how it used to work,
but not under the new NCLB "Standard".

The reason? They have to teach across a broad population from the
slowest to the brightest including those who can't/won't learn. They
have to up the high end as far as possible to raise the average to
acceptable levels for continued funding or the dreaded take over by
the State.
So, are you saying that the teachers in CT know what the test questions
will be and actually use those questions to design their curriculum?

Then your school system has big problems.

Why does it work in Virginia, but not in your school district? We've been
using the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) test for years and it meets
all the requirements of the NCLB.

Well, let's cut to the chase.

Who develops your Mastery Test or whatever they call it in Virginia?


This is hilarious, in a sad way, Tom. You've having a discussion with a
*failed* teacher, one who was unable to motivate his students, and who
simply gave up.

HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:25:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:46:06 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:28:36 -0500, John H.
wrote:

If the tests are developed and administered properly, the teachers
don't
know what's on the test anyway. They know what the standards of
learning
are, and they try to ensure the students can meet the standards.
Unfortunately, you are out of touch. That may be how it used to work,
but not under the new NCLB "Standard".

The reason? They have to teach across a broad population from the
slowest to the brightest including those who can't/won't learn. They
have to up the high end as far as possible to raise the average to
acceptable levels for continued funding or the dreaded take over by
the State.
So, are you saying that the teachers in CT know what the test questions
will be and actually use those questions to design their curriculum?

Then your school system has big problems.

Why does it work in Virginia, but not in your school district? We've
been
using the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) test for years and it
meets
all the requirements of the NCLB.

Well, let's cut to the chase.

Who develops your Mastery Test or whatever they call it in Virginia?


This is hilarious, in a sad way, Tom. You've having a discussion with a
*failed* teacher, one who was unable to motivate his students, and who
simply gave up.


Harry,
SWS has discussions with you all the time, and you have failed in life.

On Feb 11, 5:46�am, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:39:53 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
Using the challenged as an example of why NCLB doesn't work makes very
little sense. In states with a very strong teachers' union, NCLB doesn't
work. Why? Because the unions don't like their teachers having to meet
standards.

To say that standards shouldn't be used to judge the educational process
makes absolutely no sense. To say that children shouldn't be taught a
curriculum which enables them to meet the standards makes even less sense.
To say that children shouldn't be tested to ensure they meet the standards
makes the least sense of all.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One of the risks of rigidly enforced "national cirriculum standards"
is the potential for the federal government to manipulate too many of
the details of public education.

Did I say something about 'national curriculum standards'. There is always
the potential for the federal government to do as you say. You are simply
coming up with another excuse here. The establishment of minimal standards
for various subjects should not *have* to be a federal government job.
Sadly, too many states don't or didn't have standards.


Creating minimum federal standards for a variety of subjects at the
very least manadates that those subjects will be taught in the
classroom.

I'd be in favor of getting the FEDGOV completely out of the education
business. I can't think of anything in the Constitution that empowers
the FEDGOV to dictate to all the states regarding the content,
quality, or testing methods of state education systems. As it is now,
local taxpayers send hundreds of billions a year to Washington DC,
where
a huge portion is siphoned off to sustain a bloated bureaucracy before
a smaller portion of that money finds its way back to the local school
districts. Money sent to Wash DC doesn't mysteriously multiply, you
get back a lot less than you send. If getting the FEDGOV out of
education means that some state up in the Ozarks turns out kids with
less of an education than kids from California, New York, etc that's a
choice the parents and taxpayers made. As long as those students are
prepared to remain in the Ozarks, it's likely they would have enough
education to get by.

Not too mamy years ago, we were in a small town in Missouri. The town
was holding an annual celebration, and several grand antebellum homes
and mansions were open for public tours. In each of the homes,
a young woman of high school age was acting as "hostess"- dressed in a
costume consistent with high fashion in the 1860's or 1870's. We got
the impression that most of these girls were daughters of women who
belonged to the historical society, some of whom seem to very
sincerely hope that the "south will rise again". All of the young
women were white, most were blonde. Without knowing anything more
about the hostesses, I would not have been surprised to learn that
they enjoyed more than the average amount of whatevere privilege and
prosperity was available in that community.

Each of the girls read prepared remarks from note cards. Oh, my, gosh.
They typically stumbled over three-syllable words. Neither of my kids
would have been allowed out of 4th or 5th grade with similar reading
skills, yet these young women appeared to be of an age where they were
about to graduate from high school.

So, does the FEDGOV wade into this small town in Missouri and tell the
local people that they need to teach their kids to read at an adult
level before high school graduation----- (some justification for
that)------
or does the FEDGOV stick to the duties outlined in the Constitution
and
let the local school boards set standards for education and allow the
local taxpayers to fund it? (I'm more in favor of the second option).

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:42:18 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:29:59 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:20:49 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:33:34 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:25?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing

Talk to middle and high school teachers about NCLB and see what they
say about the system.

It's a total disaster. ?And in states that require mainstreaming of
those children who are developmentally, physically, mentally or
emotionally "challenged", it's almost impossible to achieve the
standards required by NCLB.


Both of my kids are teaching in the classroom. My son (HS Social
Studies) as a career and my daughter (MS Science) as a step toward
eventually becoming a school administrator.

The have been some positive aspects of the NCLB. For instance,
teachers must demonstrate a level of expertise in the subjec they
teach. The schools can't simply hire a guy because he's a great
football coach and then say, "Oh, yeah...and you'll be teaching two
periods of astronomy every morning so better read a chapter or two
ahead of the students in the text book. Oh, and next semester you'll
be teaching advanced trig, but don't worry about that- nobody will
understand the subject well enought to realize you have no facility
what-so-ever for math."

Well, I would think that's a slight exaggeration. In CT, MA, RI and
NY you have to be certified to teach both subject and grade level.
Maybe it's different out there in the Great Northwest, but it's been
that way here for at least 30 years and longer as Mrs. Wave will be
finishing her 38th year this June. As far as I know, the only thing
that the NCLB act did was formalize that practice nationally - I can't
speak to areas outside of NE.

But in general, the system is not so good. Far too many districts are
strictly "teaching to the test". My son has several classes of HS
freshmen who are spending the entire 9th grade simply studying to pas
the 10th grade NCLB test- it's that critical to the district that
nearly all the 10th graders pass so that the district will continue to
get federal school dollars.

That's about the size of it ok.

Horse****.

Not at all - it's a fact.

Ask the next question - do the teachers know the test questions?

What do you think they teach to?

If so, then the whole thing's been compromised anyway.

That's the point.

That's the point where *you* live. That's not the point where standards
are
established, used for curriculum design, taught, and tested. Here the
teachers have no idea of the test questions on the tests. In fact, the
testing room is proctored to ensure the teachers don't give help to the
kids taking the test.

What I see is a state which doesn't want to use standards (CT) being
compared to a state which uses them successfully.

I suppose it's another way to put down Bush - keep whining that NCLB won't
work.
--
John H

It is a standardized test. The questions are all going to come from a pool
of questions. A limited pool. So they test to the pool of questions. The
kids may learn a little extra, but it is not teaching the subject.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:58:53 -0800, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:29:59 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:20:49 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:33:34 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:25?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing

Talk to middle and high school teachers about NCLB and see what they
say about the system.

It's a total disaster. ?And in states that require mainstreaming of
those children who are developmentally, physically, mentally or
emotionally "challenged", it's almost impossible to achieve the
standards required by NCLB.


Both of my kids are teaching in the classroom. My son (HS Social
Studies) as a career and my daughter (MS Science) as a step toward
eventually becoming a school administrator.

The have been some positive aspects of the NCLB. For instance,
teachers must demonstrate a level of expertise in the subjec they
teach. The schools can't simply hire a guy because he's a great
football coach and then say, "Oh, yeah...and you'll be teaching two
periods of astronomy every morning so better read a chapter or two
ahead of the students in the text book. Oh, and next semester you'll
be teaching advanced trig, but don't worry about that- nobody will
understand the subject well enought to realize you have no facility
what-so-ever for math."

Well, I would think that's a slight exaggeration. In CT, MA, RI and
NY you have to be certified to teach both subject and grade level.
Maybe it's different out there in the Great Northwest, but it's been
that way here for at least 30 years and longer as Mrs. Wave will be
finishing her 38th year this June. As far as I know, the only thing
that the NCLB act did was formalize that practice nationally - I can't
speak to areas outside of NE.

But in general, the system is not so good. Far too many districts are
strictly "teaching to the test". My son has several classes of HS
freshmen who are spending the entire 9th grade simply studying to pas
the 10th grade NCLB test- it's that critical to the district that
nearly all the 10th graders pass so that the district will continue to
get federal school dollars.

That's about the size of it ok.

Horse****.

Not at all - it's a fact.

Ask the next question - do the teachers know the test questions?

What do you think they teach to?

If so, then the whole thing's been compromised anyway.

That's the point.

True. Have been complaints out here of the teaching to the test. No
cures,
they still teach to the test.


Easily fixed, if so desired. Don't let the teachers see the test.
--
John H

See my reply about a pool of questions.

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:03:38 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:06:02 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Yes, there are many 'tricks' to taking a multiple choice test, just as
there are many 'tricks' to the design of detractors and solutions to the
questions on the test. Students should have a general understanding of how
to take a multiple choice test, how to figure the odds, and when to guess
and not guess. Teaching that is *not* 'teaching THE test', but teaching
'test taking'.

You still aren't getting the idea.

It much more than teaching the mechanics.

For example, let's say I want to take the Private Pilot's Examination
without having to actually take a class.

All I have to do is go here.

http://www.faa.gov/education_researc.../media/pvt.pdf

That is the question pool for the examination.

Same concept applies to the CT Mastery Test - all the questions that
can be potentially asked are there. If you teach to the pool
questions, that is teaching the test.

There is no other way to describe it.

I just went to the CT State Department of Education website, found the
Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) - 4th Generation - Mathematics Handbook,
2006, went to the Grade 8 site and looked at what was there. There were
standards listed, and for each of the standards there were sample
questions. There was no complete listing, that I could find, of all the
possible questions for the 8th Grade Math exam. Perhaps you could show me.

I've not seen the standards for the airmen test you mention above. If the
standards state, "The testee will be able to answer 100% (or whatever) of a
random selection of questions from the bank of questions given," then the
process the FAA uses would be appropriate.

If I take a given standard, such as 'solving linear equations in one
variable' and generate a list of 200 problems from which the test will
select five, I've no problem with giving the kids all 200 and saying, "Have
at it."

This is basically the way math education has always been. Test problems are
variations of problems done for homework or in class.

I've never heard of a teacher that didn't 'teach to a test'. Many liberals,
and yourself, seem to think that's bad.
--
John H