cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (01/19/89)
In article <efs.558soC1010kfWhQ@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: > In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: ..................... > If unions and public schools are to blame, then how come kids in other > countries seem to be smarter? The US isn't the only nation with public > schools and teachers' unions. The United States is one of the few countries where the scholars have no say in the school system. About 50 years ago, the schools of education came up with the idea that keeping children with their age group was more important than having them learn. Furthermore, it was more important that different graders give the same grade. It also became unpopular to admit that different people could have widely differing abilities. This effectively precluded having standards. Since there were no standards, promotion and tenure became based on seniority and degrees/credits alone. The schools could not admit that they were bringing in and retaining teachers who did not, and even could not, understand what they were teaching. This system and attitude were introduced by the American schools of education, and have not spread to the rest of the world. ...................... > Why blame teachers and unions > for a system which allows kids to leave school without sitting some > standard national or state-wide exams? If every local school district gets > to set its own curriculum and rules, then of course some kids are going > to be short-changed. No school or teacher wants to seem incompetent, and > hance they'll "grade on a curve", so to speak. Centralize the curriculum, > exams, grading, and so on, and then see who's good and bad. One problem of doing this is that things get too rigid. We need experimenta- tion; we should not be so arrogant as to assume we know how to teach a given subject. As for standardizing exams and grading, that is where some of the problem lies. How are you going to do this without "objective" exams? Students have been marked wrong for using the equation "y = x + 2" instead of "y = 2 + x". I do not even want to give any hints as to the possible answers. Objective tests MAY be OK for manipulations, but not for understanding. And we have the situation NOW that in many subjects, a substantial majority of the teachers are incompetent in their knowledge of the subject. This is not going to be corrected in the next 5 years no matter what we do. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) (01/19/89)
In article <1101@l.cc.purdue.edu>, cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > In article <efs.558soC1010kfWhQ@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: > > > > Why blame teachers and unions > > for a system which allows kids to leave school without sitting some > > standard national or state-wide exams? . . . . > > . . . .Centralize the curriculum, > > exams, grading, and so on, and then see who's good and bad. > > One problem of doing this is that things get too rigid. We need experimenta- > tion; we should not be so arrogant as to assume we know how to teach a given > subject. I think we need to differentiate between WHAT to teach and HOW to teach. Without a centralized curriculum, we're expecting teachers to define the range of material to be covered, as well as knowing the material itself - and how to put it across. No wonder there's so much variation among what high school graduates know (or don't know). > As for standardizing exams and grading, that is where some of the problem lies. > How are you going to do this without "objective" exams? Students have been > marked wrong for using the equation "y = x + 2" instead of "y = 2 + x". I > do not even want to give any hints as to the possible answers. Objective tests > MAY be OK for manipulations, but not for understanding. I guess I don't understand the term "objective" here. Obviously we're not talking about idiotic blacken-the-boxes quizzes like the SAT. In other educational systems, a person might have to pass a set of national closed- book exams in several subjects in order to be considered for college. Such exams can involve various essays, literary translations and reviews, and other written discussions, as well as answers to factual questions. Many countries also require oral exams in languages. Naturally, the grading for national exams of this type is done manually (according to some set of guidelines). Since the grading and cross- checking is done by teachers of the given subject, usually during the summer break, it may be assumed that they're somewhat familiar with the (standard) curriculum material being examined. It goes without saying that the students are identified only by a number in all of this process, and that appropriate recount and appeal mechanisms are provided. > And we have the situation NOW that in many subjects, a substantial majority of > the teachers are incompetent in their knowledge of the subject. I don't see how this statement can be made, in the absence of some standard definition of the material which the "subject" is supposed to cover. If however, the statement IS true, surely the curriculum definition phase comes before the "catch-up-the-teachers" phase. - John Murray, Amdahl Corp. (My own opinions, etc.)
gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) (01/20/89)
In article <f0Q203decK1010MGm9Q@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: >In other >educational systems, a person might have to pass a set of national closed- >book exams in several subjects in order to be considered for college. Such >exams can involve various essays, literary translations and reviews, and >other written discussions, as well as answers to factual questions. Many >countries also require oral exams in languages. The New York State Board of Regents has exams of this sort. Every student is required to pass an exam at the end of a course or a course sequence. Passing of all of these exams is required for your high school diploma. When I was in high school, the exams were in earth science (geology and meteorology combined), physics, chemistry, biology, 3 years of math, english, American history, and foreign languages. Some of the exams were totally multiple choice, while others also required filling in of blanks and essay questions. These exams were only a partial solution to the problems of standardized education in New York State. It had been discovered that people were getting into New York State colleges with less than twelfth grade reading levels. Also, some of the exams can be passed without good knowledge of the subject. (If you were good at manipulating equations, you could pass the physics exam without knowing too much physics because the equations were provided to you.) --gregbo p.s. I do not know the current state of the Regents exams. When I was back in NYC, I took a look at some of the review books. It appears they have revised the high school mathematics curricula somewhat, as there are more questions about probability, logic, and sets, and less involving algebraic manipulation. I think I recall my aunt telling me though that some students are given different "tracks" in high school, which might not require them to take some Regents exams, but I don't remember everything she said about it.