On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:09:46 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

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??

Good, someone who gets it.
--
John H

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:20:37 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:09:46 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

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??

I'm having a sense of deja vue all over again with this discussion. I
know I've been through this with John before - not sure I want to do
this again.

It's not a question of "learning". We're talking about the Mastery
Test itself.

There is still a class curriculum that has to be taught to standard.

If the teachers are given *the test* to be administered and told to ensure
the students can answer the questions thereon, then the results would be
fraudulent.

If the teachers are given a pool of several hundred questions for each
standard and told that there will be five questions for each standard
similar to or the same as those in the large pool, then I've no problem
with it. (As long as the pool is sufficiently large to ensure the students
have mastered the standard by being able to solve all the problems.)


--
John H

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:13:45 GMT, 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?

The Standards of Learning Tests are developed by the state.
--
John H

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:17:23 -0500, 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.

Which is why I was one of two teachers in our district to recieve an
'Exemplary' performance appraisal.

Harry, I hate calling names, but you do qualify for the 'liar' title. Of
course, some will think your comment 'cool'.

We'll see what kind of response you get from the person to whom it was
addressed.
--
John H

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:03:45 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

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.

Which subjects, for which standards are mandated, are you thinking should
*not* be taught? Math? Science? History?


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

I agree, the FedGov should not have to be involved. If states had developed
their own standards and taught kids to meet them, then the involvement
wouldn't have been necessary.

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.

Not the FedGov's doing.

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.

That's your standard then? As long as they stay in the Ozarks, they
probably have enough to get by.

That is such a ridiculous statement that I won't even go any further with
you.


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

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:10:58 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"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.


Here, there is no 'pool' of questions given to teachers so the teachers can
teach from the 'pool'.

But, if there were a pool of a few hundred questions for each standard
given to the teachers, I'd have no problem with it.

Teachers have always taught to a test, unless there were no test given. To
think otherwise is ridiculous.
--
John H

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:11:25 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"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.


Easily fixed. Make the pool so big that the standards must be achieved by
learning all the problems, or don't give the teachers the pool.

Problem solved.
--
John H

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:53:22 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:55:38 -0500, John H.
wrote:

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

Yep - deja vue all over again.

Talk to you later.

LOL!
--
John H

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:55:22 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:09:13 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:13:45 GMT, 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?

The Standards of Learning Tests are developed by the state.

Not what I asked.

Who develops the actual test?

The questions are initially developed by ETS. They are then reviewed by a
committee of 15 educators in the VDOE. This group can adopt, modify, or
throw out questions. The questions are then field tested, and the results
returned to VDOE where the field test statistics are reviewed and the
questions reevaluated. Finally, they are adopted to become part of the
test.


--
John H

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:49:34 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
.. .

"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:


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.

Sometimes you just have to call them as they are. His is an asshole, plain
and simple.

But in a way you nailed it. JohnH was desperate and needed to bring me into
his discussion because he could no longer defend his points because his
brain froze and couldn't think of anything else to say.

From what I can see of his posts here......he needs to stop his infatuation
with me as I am mentioned in most of those posts and in threads I did not
even post to.

Maybe he is looking for a new boyfriend.


Poor Jimh.

You're correct about most things, naturally, but you're wrong about my
points.

I'm not the one who ran off the field.
--
John H