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 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!

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?

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.

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]

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).

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

Anonymous wrote:How is "emergent reader" defined?

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