Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, are you afraid to know how much your DCPS school sucks?
Is that the point of all this testing? Really?
Yes, really. It's a matrix people need to know about.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, are you afraid to know how much your DCPS school sucks?
Is that the point of all this testing? Really?
Anonymous wrote:What schools are focusing so hard on teaching to the test? My children’s schools do well as schools and my children do well individually. I am not aware of excessive or even special time being set aside for test prep. They teach the curriculum which includes math and reading comprehension. The worst that happens is the testing week.
Anonymous wrote:I don't mind the test, but there shoudln't be a need for test prep. Students just take the test whenever it comes up and the test prep is whatever they learned that year.
The time becomes more valuable in high school and shouldn't be wasted on test prep. In elementary school you have plenty of time to have classroom time and test time.
Anonymous wrote:OP, are you afraid to know how much your DCPS school sucks?
Anonymous wrote:The original links are about how other systems
are stopping them because they stink not because of how easy or hard they are. The main problem I have is the amount of time spend teaching to the test at the expense of spending that time on better ways to teach and a range of subjects. I don’t care that my kids can score a 5 on a stupid standardized test that they are trained like monkeys for and I do care that is happening at the expense of social studies, additional science, more creative and challenging language arts etc
Anonymous wrote:The "objective measure" we had in my day for ES and MS students was the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. We did no prep for this test, it could be taken in under two hours and was crafted and graded by a non-profit entity (the University of Iowa). No opt out movement developed around avoiding this test. The country could have stuck with a simple test of basic literacy and numeracy like that for the younger kids, along with the SAT, ACT, AP and International Baccalaureate exams for high school students.
High-stakes testing simply hasn't worked well to raise standards in our public schools. If you like to tout the merits of the high-performing school systems supported by economic competitor countries in Asia and Europe, then take a close look at what they do, rather than push testing as bandaid treatment. European countries tend to focus on alleviating child poverty in ways the US does not. Our competitors aren't afraid to academically track secondary school students, to ensure that the brightest and hardest working are appropriately challenged. They also aren't reluctant to accord teachers good training and high status professionally. Teacher pay doesn't tend to be better in other rich countries, but working conditions do. In Metro areas in China, the best teenage students are routinely invited to attend state-sponsored boarding schools for free. Etc. etc.
We aren't gaining much ground on ed reform in the global arena because we go about it the wrong way, the lazy, superficial, cheap, myopic way.
Anonymous wrote:The "objective measure" we had in my day for ES and MS students was the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. We did no prep for this test, it could be taken in under two hours and was crafted and graded by a non-profit entity (the University of Iowa). No opt out movement developed around avoiding this test. The country could have stuck with a simple test of basic literacy and numeracy like that for the younger kids, along with the SAT, ACT, AP and International Baccalaureate exams for high school students.
High-stakes testing simply hasn't worked well to raise standards in our public schools. If you like to tout the merits of the high-performing school systems supported by economic competitor countries in Asia and Europe, then take a close look at what they do, rather than push testing as bandaid treatment. European countries tend to focus on alleviating child poverty in ways the US does not. Our competitors aren't afraid to academically track secondary school students, to ensure that the brightest and hardest working are appropriately challenged. They also aren't reluctant to accord teachers good training and high status professionally. Teacher pay doesn't tend to be better in other rich countries, but working conditions do. In Metro areas in China, the best teenage students are routinely invited to attend state-sponsored boarding schools for free. Etc. etc.
We aren't gaining much ground on ed reform in the global arena because we go about it the wrong way, the lazy, superficial, cheap, myopic way.