http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...16_tests23.html
http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1172314175/4


So, do you guys think that we as a country have put too much emphasis on standardized tests? I'm inclined to think so, but I'm willing to hear different opinions. I don't really know that many teachers that support standardized tests, but that does hit home for them because it changes how they teach.

I think we as a country have not put enough emphasis on motherfucking education. It's pathetic really.

Who needs a report to tell them that?

Yeah, really. Standardized tests are raping our education system, because they attempt to make standard that which must be intuitively designed for the individual: what we learn, and how we learn it. Neither of those two things are exactly the same for anyone. Schools generally tend to group students into two groups: the normal kids, and the special learning program kids. Neither is effective for either group, because there are levels above and inbetween those which get no attention. It's appalling.

We really need to stop lowering standards.
In my area there have been a few cases of picking out a few kids and moving them up, but when I say few, I mean they get quite general and pick quite a large group with some kids who dont really need to be in those classes.
It is really a mess.

I don't see how standardized testing is ruining America. Those things are made so a retard could do well. I don't think I ever got blow 80th percentile on any test throughout my entire life.

That's sort of the point. Kids don't do bad on them so no one knows what they need to improve on. Hell, I don't even think most people ever really look at those tests. I've pretty much been in the 2-5% in the Math sections since the first time I started taking those damn tests and they've still had the nerver to shove me in honors courses (when I only ever manage to push my grade up to a 70 by the end)

And what Gannon said is absolutely correct. In my highschool it's divided up this way: The kids with all track 1 and 2 classes (ie Honors and "Normal" classes) and the kids with track two and three classes (Track three classes wouldn't really be called special classes because not all of the kids their have learning disabilities, but some of them are just bad and unmotivated students)

The problem with the system my school (and probably most high schools) is that our initial tracking for Freshman year is based on our transcripts from 8th, which don't really mean jackshit since gradeschool was easy for everyone. So if you get put in a track you can't handle it's at your teachers discretion to leave you there for next year (And to this day I swear the only reason my Freshman Algebra teacher kept me in the track one for math (despite my barely passing grade) is because she didn't like me)

Exactly. Not to mention that the tests need to be tuned to the what kids know specifically, not what everyone knows. That's part of what makes them easy. They're made to be accessible to everyone. What needs to happen is for each test to be customized to many different levels of understanding, or gotten rid of entirely. The tests aren't important; what the students can actually do with their knowledge does.

Also, lots of students don't do well on standardized tests because they're lazy fucks and know they don't count for a grade.

I think it's intentional, to be perfectly honest. Dumb people make better consumers.

Now please excuse me, my tinfoil hat needs polishing.

I'm too damn afraid to admit it, myself.

Seriously, is it standard issue that once you dedicate yourself to jam band fandom you also have to jump on the conspiracy theory train too? Easy answers are nice and its also nice not having to think or do any research on any sort of complicated issue either, after all if something doesn't make sense or seems suspicious its obviously the powers that be manipulating things and pulling the wool over our eyes.

http://www.sntp.net/education/gatto.htm

And it's nice to just point out the apparent shortcomings of other people's opinions rather than have one of your own, like usual? The one has nothing to do with the other, but thanks for the critique.

Because state budget deficits are getting larger all over the US and politicians fear raising taxes because that would jeopordize their political futures so they are cutting social programs and education funding. They've been cutting back social programs and education funding for a long time now with the naturally rising cost of operating these programs and everything else under the sun. I really hope you were being sarcastic with your view of this issue.

No, I don't think it's actually that extreme. I do think there's too many people in government that think progress is when people spend more money, though, and it's reflected in a lot of their decisions.

I do think that Brent Black is right, though I hate to say it because it does sound conspiracy theory-ish. However, everything I've ever seen from the school system, being a third generation teacher myself, seems to indicate that the system was wrong from the word go, and that it's primary purpose is to be a state-funded daycare.

There's an anxiety that people feel when they're constantly being tested, and it comes from a fear of failure. Fact of the matter is, kids that don't measure up are punished and disgraced for not learning this and that at the same rate as everyone else.

The fact of the matter is, we as a culture have taken away our children's drive to learn because we don't trust them to do jack shit. It's a vicious cycle really, because most of us were taught as children that we couldn't be trusted, so the idea has become counter-intuitive.

The bare-bones of our system is the promotion of social efficiency. The real job of a teacher is to process a child for the workforce. An interesting point is raised by John Taylor Gatto in his book, The Underground History of American Education: "If I demanded you give up your television to an anonymous, itinerant repairman who needed work you’d think I was crazy; if I came with a policeman who forced you to pay that repairman even after he broke your set, you would be outraged. Why are you so docile when you give up your child to a government agent called a schoolteacher?"

That being said, pass the tin foil, Brent.

Thats fine but I dont see any evidence as to keeping someone "dumb" makes them a better consumer and I dont think it is a big secret that the US government wants a strong economy and to have one you have to consumers and people buying shit.

And on John Taylor Gatto, isnt he the guy that said public schooling leads to divorce? The guy is a bit of libertarian muck racker with an agenda.

It's not dumb in the ignorant sense. It's dumb in the "fucking idiot" sense. The fact that people consume without question is alarming, and it shouldn't happen. Humans aren't that unintelligent by nature. It's a cultural thing, something that's been ingrained in our minds. All signs point the perpetrator being schools.

I don't know if John Taylor Gatto ever said that. However, our culture is the source of our divorce rate, and the way we educate kids, though public (or, more accurately, compulsory; it's not just the public schools anymore, because private school imitate them) education, is the way we perpetuate our culture, so I can see how he'd make that connection, if only indirectly.

Consume what without question? Groceries, clothing, fuel, etc.?

If kids aren't learning is it due to "bad teachers, poor textbooks, incompetent administrators, evil politician, ill-trained parents, and bad children"? Isn't that rhetoric and not facts? Where are the statistics in all of that? That is all emotion.

What the fuck are you people talking about? Public education sucks, sure, but it's not dumbing down its pedigrees so that they can be mindless sheep and happy consumers. It has a tendency towards job preparation as opposed to learning for its own sake, but what do you expect?

Why wouldn't this hypothetical conspiratorial public education system train its users to be intelligent contributors to society so that they might produce more, make more, have more to spend, and help retard the eventual collapse of the united states as an economic superpower, instead? I mean, COME ON.

I'm putting the hat back on, for argument's sake.

Because it's two pronged. You don't need money to spend, only credit. What would those in power rather have? An intelligent, free thinking populace smart enough to spend within their means and not overextend themselves, or a populace that spends on credit and forces themselves into that cycle where they're buying practically solely on trust and use their income to pay off mostly interest? People smart enough to manage their finances properly retire earlier, rely less on interest bearing credit, and ultimately provide less to the establishment.

There's already enough business-heads to control things where they "matter," in terms of infrastructure, and thanks to the bigger-is-better cultural mentality in America, there always will be. The rest of us are just here to contribute and keep the ball rolling. It's not about gross national product, it doesn't matter how much this country actually produces, it's a matter of how much they spend.

The goal for politicians is to keep the money coming in and to keep the donations for themselves high. No one is better at providing tax revenue than those that spend recklessly, and no one is a higher contributor than big business.

Lemme ask you a question: have public schools always been brainwashing factories? When did they switch to that?

Yes




About the time they became public rather than private, specialized artisan schools.

I've got to say that I really do appreciate the thought you've put into this. However, I disagree completely. In my high school curriculum, we were required to learn about the dangers of credit card debt, and we had tests on looking over copies of real credit applications to determine which one had the best deal. We also learned (in 2nd year algebra, which was required to graduate) how to calculate simple and compound interest, along with Annuity and other such things. In no way were we trained to be mindless consumers during class. That's something we learned on our own, through 18 years of being bombarded by marketing and shallow social standards.

More personal responsibility lands on the everyday person. Compare our culture to...let's say Japan's. Our kids spend a shitload more time just fucking around in front of a screen. Their kids study their asses off for years, even going to school on some Saturdays.

America took its position as a superpower for granted, and we're just now getting off our asses now that we've realized our obesity, lethargy, and ignorance. So next time, don't blame the schools. Realize that they can only facilitate so much, and it comes down to personal motivation.

so in the late 19th century?

Lol capitalism is the anti-christ

How much do you remember? Just because you are 'taught' something does not mean you learn it.

I remember The Fed, history of the stock market, types of business (single proprietorship, franchise, etc.), the importance of GDP, how to read credit card applications, and that the US is not a free market, but really a mixed economy. There's even more than that. You can start a real discussion by not fucking questioning what I remember from school.