PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I question that 90% statistic. And, it appears that it is not holding longitudinally.

Correct, the numbers drop to 82% of first-graders meeting or exceeding the grade-level benchmark of Text Level 13 in 2013, and more than 70% of second-graders meeting or exceeding the grade-level benchmark of Text Level M in 2013.

But ok, let's use 70% for K-2 (aka Early Childhood, please note the capital letters). If 70% of children can do it, it's not developmentally inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

How is "emergent reader" defined?

[Anonymous]

Here is John Oliver's piece on NCLB and testing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6lyURyVz7k&app=desktop

[Anonymous]

Once more: research.
Guess you missed this one:


http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/school-starting-age-the-evidence

A quote from the article:

"Studies have compared groups of children in New Zealand who started formal literacy lessons at ages 5 and 7. Their results show that the early introduction of formal learning approaches to literacy does not improve children’s reading development, and may be damaging. By the age of 11 there was no difference in reading ability level between the two groups, but the children who started at 5 developed less positive attitudes to reading, and showed poorer text comprehension than those children who had started later. In a separate study of reading achievement in 15 year olds across 55 countries, researchers showed that there was no significant association between reading achievement and school entry age. - See more at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/school-st...-evidence#sthash.hVYdNNAa.dpuf

[Anonymous]

Yes this is why in some Northern European countries they don't even teach much about letters and numbers until age 6 or so. Someone once told me that countries that start teaching literacy later have fewer problems with dyslexia because children's brains are more mature and ready to handle the complex tasks involved in reading (including auditory processing).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is "emergent reader" defined?

In MCPS, it's Text Level 4. You can find examples here: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/info/grading/EndOfYearReading-ParentGuide.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"Studies have compared groups of children in New Zealand who started formal literacy lessons at ages 5 and 7. Their results show that the early introduction of formal learning approaches to literacy does not improve children’s reading development, and may be damaging. By the age of 11 there was no difference in reading ability level between the two groups, but the children who started at 5 developed less positive attitudes to reading, and showed poorer text comprehension than those children who had started later. In a separate study of reading achievement in 15 year olds across 55 countries, researchers showed that there was no significant association between reading achievement and school entry age. - See more at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/school-st...-evidence#sthash.hVYdNNAa.dpuf

Could you link to the actual study in New Zealand, please? Not somebody's summary of a summary of the study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes this is why in some Northern European countries they don't even teach much about letters and numbers until age 6 or so. Someone once told me that countries that start teaching literacy later have fewer problems with dyslexia because children's brains are more mature and ready to handle the complex tasks involved in reading (including auditory processing).

Which Northern European countries? Could you please provide links to their pre-primary curricula?

[Anonymous]

Yes this is why in some Northern European countries they don't even teach much about letters and numbers until age 6 or so. Someone once told me that countries that start teaching literacy later have fewer problems with dyslexia because children's brains are more mature and ready to handle the complex tasks involved in reading (including auditory processing).
[Report Post]

Wait . . . these couldn't be the same countries that get all those higher test scores that are making us go crazy with these standards and high stakes tests . . . could they?

[Anonymous]

Has anyone looked at the international tests and normalized them for income level across these countries?

I would wager that the kids of certain income groups would score very close to each other regardless of country.

And, if they don't, it is probably because there are more social supports for the "poor" in those other countries (ahem, the "socialized countries" of Europe). This should make someone wake up and realize that the solution is not to change standards and test more. It's. not. working.

[Anonymous]

And, if you are comparing us to Asian countries, you have to remember that they teach to the test like crazy. Their whole success has depended on imitating and copying others in order to produce. They are not the ones who create. They copy and are very, very good at it. In fact, they are trying to be more like us . . . more creative.

Why we are trying to be more like them is beyond me. I would rather live in a country with lower test scores and a more productive economy that is based on creating. Who will create for us if we become like China?

Another interesting country is Germany. They do not have uber high test scores on the international tests, but look at the success of their economy! Who cares about the flipping tests? The measure of success is not the tests!

[Anonymous]

Dianne Ravitch is an incredible voice in education. This is a very insightful and supported view:

We will someday view this era as one in which the nation turned its back on its public schools, its children, and its educators. We will wonder why so many journalists and policymakers rejected the nation’s obligation to support public education as a social responsibility and accepted the unrealistic, unsustainable promises of entrepreneurs and billionaires. And we will, with sorrow and regret, think of this as an era when an obsession with testing and data obliterated any concept or definition of good education. Some perhaps may recall this as a time when the nation forgot that education has a greater purpose than preparing our children to compete in the global economy.

Secretary of Education Duncan should have fought vigorously against all these pernicious developments. He should have opposed the misuse of test scores. He should have opposed the galloping privatization of public education. He should have demanded the proper funding of public education, instead of tolerating deep budget cuts as “the new normal.” He should have spoken out against states that passed along the cost of higher education to students, putting it out of reach for many. But he has not. He should have upheld, in word and deed, the dignity of the teaching profession. Unfortunately he has not.

Even more unfortunately, it is hard to find any leader of either party who stands forthrightly today as a champion of students, teachers, public schools, and good education. This is a tragedy of our times.

From: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/mar/07/flunking-arne-duncan/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes this is why in some Northern European countries they don't even teach much about letters and numbers until age 6 or so. Someone once told me that countries that start teaching literacy later have fewer problems with dyslexia because children's brains are more mature and ready to handle the complex tasks involved in reading (including auditory processing).
[Report Post]

Wait . . . these couldn't be the same countries that get all those higher test scores that are making us go crazy with these standards and high stakes tests . . . could they?

Well, it's hard to know, since we don't know which countries the first PP is talking about, not to mention whether the facts support the first PP's assertion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Another interesting country is Germany. They do not have uber high test scores on the international tests, but look at the success of their economy! Who cares about the flipping tests? The measure of success is not the tests!

What is the measure of success?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Another interesting country is Germany. They do not have uber high test scores on the international tests, but look at the success of their economy! Who cares about the flipping tests? The measure of success is not the tests!


What is the measure of success?

It certainly depends on who you are and what your values are. Some people think it is test scores. Others might say it is the percentage of homeless people on the streets (far fewer in Germany). Others might say it is the national debt (none in Germany---in fact they have surplus). Some might say it is the number of students with college debt 10 years after college (none in many countries). Some might say it is the number of people able to sleep at night knowing they have health care covered. Some might say success means you have the ability to "bail out" others who need help. Some might say it is lots of things. I'm just saying that it is not the standardized tests. That is way too narrow of a definition of success. America does quite well at many things, but what do we do? Beat ourselves up over test scores that probably don't mean as much as other measures.