Pearson went down for an hour during SOL's today

[Anonymous]

Creative teachers can take the information and add more tools to their teaching toolbox. I am proSOL. I understand testing all too much and understand that school systems don't like them as they truly highlight some deficits in the system.

This makes no sense. What are the "tools" that would be added? So the student misses a question about mammals having hair or the sequencing of enzymes or the equation of a line based on a graph. Will the SOLs help to tell the teacher which "tools" to add? What do you mean by the word "tools"?

And what if the test question was poorly worded or not presented in the way that the teacher presented the information and that is what really screwed the kid (not that the kid had not been exposed to the material)? The tests might be highlighting something that is not very important, yet they are being treated as such.

[Anonymous]

Stop blaming SOLs. SOLs highlight what wasn't mastered. I'm amazed, not in a pleasant way, that' my kids' teachers do not review tests. They return the tests with no review. Like I said before, SOLs are a great way to weed out lazy teachers, to help teachers add more tools to their teaching toolbox, [/b[b]]and to highlight kids who didn't master the concepts. In respect to the latter, it is sometimes because the teacher didn't teach. A big part of teaching is taking the time to review, which doesn't always, or usually, happen. For all you haters, please stop implying that I don't understand. I think it is you who doesn't wish to accept accountability.

Some people really hope the teacher does NOT spend time reviewing for the tests. If the material has been studied, there should not have to be huge amounts of time spent on test review. If you can review for a test for a few days and get a kid to pass (who would not otherwise have passed), there is something wrong with the test. If "mastering important concepts" can be done in a few days, they were not important concepts. This is why some teachers do not spend time on review . . . if the kid failed it the first time, the chances of teaching them "quickly" are not good. Maybe a few test strategies can be taught that will put them over the line, but those kinds of things do not show "mastery". Using the test to "weed out lazy teachers" is ridiculous. How many teachers have been weeded out so far based on the SOLs? Please tell.

[Anonymous]

The student's effort is a huge part of the equation in the SOL pass rate. The teacher can deliver, but the student has to be the one who learns. Some students have major learning impediments that have to be considered.

[Anonymous]

Creative teachers can take the information and add more tools to their teaching toolbox. I am proSOL. I understand testing all too much and understand that school systems don't like them as they truly highlight some deficits in the system.

They highlight the SES of the community being tested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Stop blaming SOLs. SOLs highlight what wasn't mastered. I'm amazed, not in a pleasant way, that' my kids' teachers do not review tests. They return the tests with no review. Like I said before, SOLs are a great way to weed out lazy teachers, to help teachers add more tools to their teaching toolbox, [/b[b]]and to highlight kids who didn't master the concepts. In respect to the latter, it is sometimes because the teacher didn't teach. A big part of teaching is taking the time to review, which doesn't always, or usually, happen. For all you haters, please stop implying that I don't understand. I think it is you who doesn't wish to accept accountability.

Some people really hope the teacher does NOT spend time reviewing for the tests. If the material has been studied, there should not have to be huge amounts of time spent on test review. If you can review for a test for a few days and get a kid to pass (who would not otherwise have passed), there is something wrong with the test. If "mastering important concepts" can be done in a few days, they were not important concepts. This is why some teachers do not spend time on review . . . if the kid failed it the first time, the chances of teaching them "quickly" are not good. Maybe a few test strategies can be taught that will put them over the line, but those kinds of things do not show "mastery". Using the test to "weed out lazy teachers" is ridiculous. How many teachers have been weeded out so far based on the SOLs? Please tell.

This is the way I operate. If we take our time and build understanding throughout the year I don't need to spend time doing a lot of review before the tests. If the students can connect to the subject matter and we keep spiraling back as we move forward they end up doing fine on the SOL assessments.

I had a colleague who would go through the curriculum at a pace that would allow her to have at least 6 weeks for review. It drove me crazy, but I think she was always bothered because she felt like my class was too far "behind".

[Anonymous]

Oh god, the last thing elementary teachers need to be doing is spending more time reviewing. They already spend way too much time "circling back" and reviewing. Most kids are bored to tears by the amount of repetition in elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh god, the last thing elementary teachers need to be doing is spending more time reviewing. They already spend way too much time "circling back" and reviewing. Most kids are bored to tears by the amount of repetition in elementary school.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. By "spiraling back" (not circling back, but whatever), I mean you keep going back to what the kids already know, making connections to what they are learning. For example, in third grade the teacher will teach some basic civics, geography, and economics. She then starts a unit about ancient China. What was learned in the economics lessons isn't forgotten, but rather applied to the new lessons about China. After that unit is taught, it isn't simply set aside but rather carried into the next unit about ancient Egypt. She continues to apply the knowledge of civics, geography and economics while comparing and contrasting the two ancient cultures.

So, it's not drill and kill. It's not brainless review. It's taking what was already learned and applying it to later lessons. The students then better understand the material and it avoids having to bore them to tears with review later on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Oh god, the last thing elementary teachers need to be doing is spending more time reviewing. They already spend way too much time "circling back" and reviewing. Most kids are bored to tears by the amount of repetition in elementary school.


I think you misunderstood what I meant. By "spiraling back" (not circling back, but whatever), I mean you keep going back to what the kids already know, making connections to what they are learning. For example, in third grade the teacher will teach some basic civics, geography, and economics. She then starts a unit about ancient China. What was learned in the economics lessons isn't forgotten, but rather applied to the new lessons about China. After that unit is taught, it isn't simply set aside but rather carried into the next unit about ancient Egypt. She continues to apply the knowledge of civics, geography and economics while comparing and contrasting the two ancient cultures.

So, it's not drill and kill. It's not brainless review. It's taking what was already learned and applying it to later lessons. The students then better understand the material and it avoids having to bore them to tears with review later on.

I pulled up the 3rd grade Social Studies SOL released test from 2014. How does the teacher "spiral back and relate the following questions to Egypt?

Which river did Christopher Newport explore?

Which group of American Indians most often used this object for travel (picture of a canoe)?

Which calendar shows a time to remember the harvest shared between the colonists and the American Indians?

Who is believed to have sewn this flag (shows 13 star US flag)?

George Carver invented new ways to use ________________.

Jacques Cartier claimed land in the New World for _______________.

Where was Timbuktu located?

Americans who died in wars while serving their country are honored on _________________ day.

Thurgood Marshall helped people through his work as a ____________________.

Helen Keller is best known for helping people who _______________________.



Okay. I'll give you that there are other questions that are a bit broader, like "which example shows government protecting a person's property? (and the answer is a firefighter putting out a house fire). There are some questions like that. But there are plenty that are "drill and kill" type (enough where a teacher might do a review that involves drill).

If the test is just used to "weed out the lazy teachers", I don't think it's a good method of doing that. If it's to highlight the students who have learning problems, it's not necessary. There are many other more effective ways of determining that students are having difficulties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh god, the last thing elementary teachers need to be doing is spending more time reviewing. They already spend way too much time "circling back" and reviewing. Most kids are bored to tears by the amount of repetition in elementary school.


I think you misunderstood what I meant. By "spiraling back" (not circling back, but whatever), I mean you keep going back to what the kids already know, making connections to what they are learning. For example, in third grade the teacher will teach some basic civics, geography, and economics. She then starts a unit about ancient China. What was learned in the economics lessons isn't forgotten, but rather applied to the new lessons about China. After that unit is taught, it isn't simply set aside but rather carried into the next unit about ancient Egypt. She continues to apply the knowledge of civics, geography and economics while comparing and contrasting the two ancient cultures.

So, it's not drill and kill. It's not brainless review. It's taking what was already learned and applying it to later lessons. The students then better understand the material and it avoids having to bore them to tears with review later on.

I pulled up the 3rd grade Social Studies SOL released test from 2014. How does the teacher "spiral back and relate the following questions to Egypt?

Which river did Christopher Newport explore?

Which group of American Indians most often used this object for travel (picture of a canoe)?

Which calendar shows a time to remember the harvest shared between the colonists and the American Indians?

Who is believed to have sewn this flag (shows 13 star US flag)?

George Carver invented new ways to use ________________.

Jacques Cartier claimed land in the New World for _______________.

Where was Timbuktu located?

Americans who died in wars while serving their country are honored on _________________ day.

Thurgood Marshall helped people through his work as a ____________________.

Helen Keller is best known for helping people who _______________________.



Okay. I'll give you that there are other questions that are a bit broader, like "which example shows government protecting a person's property? (and the answer is a firefighter putting out a house fire). There are some questions like that. But there are plenty that are "drill and kill" type (enough where a teacher might do a review that involves drill).

If the test is just used to "weed out the lazy teachers", I don't think it's a good method of doing that. If it's to highlight the students who have learning problems, it's not necessary. There are many other more effective ways of determining that students are having difficulties.

The teacher of course won't relate all of those topics to ancient Egypt, but there are connections to be made to those examples. I was trying to give you an example of how not everything has to be review, review, review. I'm not sure what you want, so please explain and give me an example.

BTW, nowhere did I say I am in favor of the tests. I don't teach third grade currently, but I have in the past. I teach a different grade now and I can honestly say we spend no time cramming for the tests.

[Anonymous]

My child has had a "reading a clock" lesson every year since kindergarten! The child started school being able to tell time. We've also seen the same Rosa Parks and Anraham Lincoln worksheets 2years in a row. And water conservation, every year! Talk about it once and then move on!

[Anonymous]

ProSOL poster here. I need to clarify...when I say review tests, I don't mean SOLs. I am referring to general tests. The teachers NEVER review any tests with the kids. IE a test on fractions. The teacher only hands back the tests, s/he NEVER reviews the answers, so the kids don't LEARN from their mistakes.

"Tools" may be something new a teacher does. IE reviewing general tests, using sports to explain probability, using scavenger hunts to explain nature. "Tools" means adjusting your teaching style to teach to all learning styles; all 8 learning styles. Educate yourselves. It's all online.

Teachers should have to show sample lesson plans and for each learning style, thereby proving that they understand how children, in this case, learn. FCPS should have specialists that do this for each grade and subject. I don't know if they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Creative teachers can take the information and add more tools to their teaching toolbox. I am proSOL. I understand testing all too much and understand that school systems don't like them as they truly highlight some deficits in the system.

They highlight the SES of the community being tested.

Not always, although this is the typical thougjt. It highlights kids who didn't get due to: environment, teacher, LD, undiagnosed LD, or test anxiety. Or a combination of all. Why are folks so anti-accountability? I don't get it. Like I said before, I am accountable for my students, hence my creative approach to teaching. Teaching was upon a "part-time" job with benefits. Many a friend who taught has noted such. Today it is very much a full-time job with benefits. Like most FT jobs, working 8 hours/day is a thing of yesteryear, raises are no guarantee, and accountability is taken seriously. It's just teachers that are held accountable, all professional are today.

[Anonymous]

**its NOT just teachers, we are all accountable today in all jobs** sorry for the slip, perhaps Freudian.

[Anonymous]

Today it is very much a full-time job with benefits. Like most FT jobs, working 8 hours/day is a thing of yesteryear, raises are no guarantee, and accountability is taken seriously. It's just teachers that are held accountable, all professional are today.

The only problem is that teachers are "professionals," most with master's degrees, that make less than personal trainers, dental hygienists, flight attendants, and plumbers, few of whom routinely work more than 8 hours a day, I'm guessing.

[Anonymous]

Teachers should have to show sample lesson plans and for each learning style, thereby proving that they understand how children, in this case, learn. FCPS should have specialists that do this for each grade and subject. I don't know if they do.

Shouldn't teachers have learned how to do this in order to become certified in the state of Virginia? Why should we now have to hire other people (specialists) to do this? Isn't it cheaper to hire qualified people?