Great article about education from the NY Times

[Anonymous]

correction, its not it's (for the grammar police)

[Anonymous]

here's a good article about the state of the math wars: basic skills versus "whole math"

Much of the current debate, however, has centered on the way in which mathematics is being taught in many classrooms in this country. On one side of the conflict are the traditionalists who claim that students should learn math by memorizing and practicing basic facts and skills. On the other side are proponents of what is often called "whole math," who deride the old "kill and drill" methods of education, claiming that children learn best when they discover, understand, and integrate knowledge through independent exploration.

http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr071.shtml

[Anonymous]

LOL. I have 5th graders who draw rows and rows of circles! Must be Everyday Math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliminate grade levels and benchmarks, and you've probably solved most of the problems facing education today.

However, this is not feasible, as taxpayers want to see accountability. And as we all know, people love to categorize in any way possible - by race, gender, socio-economics, and even age!

If you eliminate benchmarks, plenty of kids would never be taught anything at all!

Benchmarks per grade level - when they're not fluid - don' work for all students. Some can master the content just fine; others aren't developmentally ready.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you eliminate benchmarks, plenty of kids would never be taught anything at all!

Benchmarks per grade level - when they're not fluid - don' work for all students. Some can master the content just fine; others aren't developmentally ready.



See, that's the reason we need benchmarks. Otherwise, people think they can alter the standards because the kids are't ready for them.

Benchmarks are benchmarks for a reason. Kids have to master than at the appropriate grade level.

If they can't, then they need either intensive, effective and efficient extra instruction to bring them up to speed, or, if they have a learning disabilty or developmental delay, then they shoudl go through the appropriate process to identify them as a student with special needs; and they should get an IEP and appropriate special assistance and learning techniques to help them meet the same benchmarks as everyone else. It might even mean they need one on one tutoring, but unless the child is extremely disabled, these benchmarks should still be in place for them. If they are learning English as a Second Language, they shoudl have a few years to catch up but again, should be required to meet standard benchmarks as soon as possible.

But you don't change the benchmarks because "the kids can't handle it". They will NEVER catch up and you will be saddling them with low expectations all their lives long.

[Anonymous]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201001/school-yard-garden/2

This is a long article, about waste and someone who thinks they have a great idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you eliminate benchmarks, plenty of kids would never be taught anything at all!

Benchmarks per grade level - when they're not fluid - don' work for all students. Some can master the content just fine; others aren't developmentally ready.

See, that's the reason we need benchmarks. Otherwise, people think they can alter the standards because the kids are't ready for them.

Benchmarks are benchmarks for a reason. Kids have to master than at the appropriate grade level.

If they can't, then they need either intensive, effective and efficient extra instruction to bring them up to speed, or, if they have a learning disabilty or developmental delay, then they shoudl go through the appropriate process to identify them as a student with special needs; and they should get an IEP and appropriate special assistance and learning techniques to help them meet the same benchmarks as everyone else. It might even mean they need one on one tutoring, but unless the child is extremely disabled, these benchmarks should still be in place for them. If they are learning English as a Second Language, they shoudl have a few years to catch up but again, should be required to meet standard benchmarks as soon as possible.

But you don't change the benchmarks because "the kids can't handle it". They will NEVER catch up and you will be saddling them with low expectations all their lives long.

PP. are you an educator?

I've spent years working with benchmarks. Developmentally, many kids don't reach abstract thinking early on. So these benchmarks mean nothing. You don't suddenly hit 10th grade and - voila! - read Chopin's Awakening with the ability to make inferences regarding how the setting affects character.

It's not that simple.

I challenge my students, but if the brain hasn't YET (key word) developed to that level, many of these benchmarks mean nothing.

Can you understand that?

[Anonymous]

Memorization and understanding are not the same, but both are important for math (and history). They are not mutually exclusive either, so we should stop arguing as if they are. The sad fact is that children in the US need more math instruction from people who understand and can explain mathematical concepts--like the relationship between addition and multiplication, or multiplication and long division. Most elementary school math teachers have no idea WHY they are teaching addition beyond basic practical concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
PP. are you an educator?

Yes, I've worked with benchmarks for years. I work with children who were remedial students, so always behind the benchmarks in every way. We didn't lower the benchmarks for the students; we improved instruction so they could meet the benchmarks.

Developmentally, many kids don't reach abstract thinking early on. So these benchmarks mean nothing. You don't suddenly hit 10th grade and - voila! - read Chopin's Awakening with the ability to make inferences regarding how the setting affects character.

If the benchmark is not appropriate for students of that age and grade, then that issue should be addressed. The benchmark should be a minimum expectation.

I can't see why a 10th grade student should be expected to make inferences regarding setting and character, however. Many fifth graders can do that. It seems like a fine benchmark for tenth grade students.

What some tenth grade students might not have, and what they will need need in order to understand (and make inferences about) the book The Awakening, is decent background knowledge: some familiarity with the way of life of women in Louisiana and New Orleans at the turn of the century, social mores and expectations of them, knowledge of vocabulary terms, and so on. I wouldn't expect your average fifth grader to have this knowledge.

But if you are finding your 10th grade students are having difficulty reading and making inferences when reading this book, it probably isn't that they lack the capacity to think abstractly.

I suggest you spend more time with them developing background knowledge of the time and place of the novel you are reading. Even more importantly, work with the school district to be sure your students, ALL students -- are getting this important content instruction and vocabulary from a very young age -- in elementary school. Too many elementary school teachers sell their children short, thinking they can't learn all this stuff.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I meant to type:

I can't see why a 10th grade student shouldn't be expected to make inferences regarding setting and character, however. Many fifth graders can do that. It seems like a fine benchmark for tenth grade students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I challenge my students, but if the brain hasn't YET (key word) developed to that level, many of these benchmarks mean nothing.

Can you understand that?

No -- at the high school level, I cannot understand a teacher believing her students are not capable of making inferences. I can't understand a high school teacher believing her students (not identified as special needs) are incapable of handling the curriculum because their brain hasn't developed yet.

I can see her thinking her students lack the skills, or are poorly prepared. I can see her saying she doesn't have time to provide the necessary remediation. But if she is saying there's no possible hope for these 120th grade students to EVER master the 10th grade curriculum... brain's just not developmentally ready for the task, yet.... that seems very very wrong to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I challenge my students, but if the brain hasn't YET (key word) developed to that level, many of these benchmarks mean nothing.

Can you understand that?

No -- at the high school level, I cannot understand a teacher believing her students are not capable of making inferences. I can't understand a high school teacher believing her students (not identified as special needs) are incapable of handling the curriculum because their brain hasn't developed yet.

I can see her thinking her students lack the skills, or are poorly prepared. I can see her saying she doesn't have time to provide the necessary remediation. But if she is saying there's no possible hope for these 120th grade students to EVER master the 10th grade curriculum... brain's just not developmentally ready for the task, yet.... that seems very very wrong to me.

You're both wrong.

The benchmarks are fine as a guide, but it's silly for us to expect all students to progress at the same time.

Students don't have a problem making inferences. They just make inferences that don't make any sense because they lack the vocabulary and background knowledge. You need both to make appropriate inferences. You need vocabulary and background knowledge to determine the meaning of an unknown word using context clues. If you don't know most of the words in a paragraph, you're not going to be able to do it, no matter how many times a teacher tries to teach you the "skill" of using context clues. Same for making judgements or determining author's purpose, or main idea, etc. We spend too much time and effort trying to teach reading strategies, when what we really need to do is teach more content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You're both wrong.

The benchmarks are fine as a guide, but it's silly for us to expect all students to progress at the same time.

Students don't have a problem making inferences. They just make inferences that don't make any sense because they lack the vocabulary and background knowledge. You need both to make appropriate inferences. You need vocabulary and background knowledge to determine the meaning of an unknown word using context clues. If you don't know most of the words in a paragraph, you're not going to be able to do it, no matter how many times a teacher tries to teach you the "skill" of using context clues. Same for making judgements or determining author's purpose, or main idea, etc. We spend too much time and effort trying to teach reading strategies, when what we really need to do is teach more content.

I agree with you 100%. I don't expect students to all be able to progress at the same rate and always be on the same page, with the same instruction.

The more students are behind the benchmarks, the more intensive the help should be given to assist them to achieve the same standards as the other students. In elementary school, this means effective, appropriate remedial instruction, given as early as possible, in small groups, individually if needed; in after school intensive tutoring sessions; in focused, effective summer school sessions; and in making use of every second of the day to get kids the content instruction and vocabulary that they need.

If kids are still far behind by the time they reach high school, then the remediation will be a lot harder and take much longer, unfortunately. But even so -- you don't lower the benchmarks for the students. You should change instruction or provide it in a more intense way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're both wrong.

The benchmarks are fine as a guide, but it's silly for us to expect all students to progress at the same time.

Students don't have a problem making inferences. They just make inferences that don't make any sense because they lack the vocabulary and background knowledge. You need both to make appropriate inferences. You need vocabulary and background knowledge to determine the meaning of an unknown word using context clues. If you don't know most of the words in a paragraph, you're not going to be able to do it, no matter how many times a teacher tries to teach you the "skill" of using context clues. Same for making judgements or determining author's purpose, or main idea, etc. We spend too much time and effort trying to teach reading strategies, when what we really need to do is teach more content.

I agree with you 100%. I don't expect students to all be able to progress at the same rate and always be on the same page, with the same instruction.

The more students are behind the benchmarks, the more intensive the help should be given to assist them to achieve the same standards as the other students. In elementary school, this means effective, appropriate remedial instruction, given as early as possible, in small groups, individually if needed; in after school intensive tutoring sessions; in focused, effective summer school sessions; and in making use of every second of the day to get kids the content instruction and vocabulary that they need.

If kids are still far behind by the time they reach high school, then the remediation will be a lot harder and take much longer, unfortunately. But even so -- you don't lower the benchmarks for the students. You should change instruction or provide it in a more intense way.

This is nonsense. Especially in math. Last year my school had a student who was at least 2 years behind in math. But we kept this student in the grade level math class. All year we forced this student to sit through lessons that were impossible for the student to do because the student didn't have the requisite skills and knowledge, not due to any developmental delay, but because this student missed that instruction in previous years. No amount of remediation that we provided worked. However, a private afterschool-program that this student attended determined the appropriate level of instruction and provided it. DCPS failed to provide what this student needed because we were using benchmarks that weren't appropriate for this student.

In reading and other subjects, no amount of remediation is going to make up for huge gaps in vocabulary and background knowledge. We have to start in kindergarten to build up this knowledge gradually. Intensity won't fix this problem. In these cases, the benchmarks are unrealistic and counterproductive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is nonsense. Especially in math. Last year my school had a student who was at least 2 years behind in math. But we kept this student in the grade level math class. All year we forced this student to sit through lessons that were impossible for the student to do because the student didn't have the requisite skills and knowledge, not due to any developmental delay, but because this student missed that instruction in previous years. No amount of remediation that we provided worked. However, a private afterschool-program that this student attended determined the appropriate level of instruction and provided it. DCPS failed to provide what this student needed because we were using benchmarks that weren't appropriate for this student.

You are proving my point. The child had nothing wrong with his brain. He was perfectly capable of learnig the material and achieving the benchmark. This is evidenced by the fact that when he attended a private tutoring program, he made the gains and achieved the benchmark.

You say that "No amount of remediation that we provided worked". Exactly. That just shows that they remediation you were providing wasn't the right kind and it wasn't effective for that student!

Now imagine if you and the school were allowed to change the benchmarks based on what you thought was appropriate for each student. That student would have been held to a lower benchmark. He would have achieved it, and no outside assistance would have been sought for him! You as a school would never have been forced to admit that your attempts at remediation weren't working. You might not have tried to bbring him up to speed in the first place, if he were meeting benchmarks at a lower expectation.