tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post2560834694346331008..comments2024-03-02T15:23:18.091-05:00Comments on D-Ed Reckoning: Whose National StandardsKDeRosahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-26564859667036743542008-12-19T18:25:00.000-05:002008-12-19T18:25:00.000-05:00Wow! It seems I struck a nerve and have angered y...Wow! It seems I struck a nerve and have angered you. That is always evident when the air quotes surface. <BR/><BR/>For you to quote neuroscience so dismissively seems to show a little bit of disdain on your part, but that's fine. I will merely inform you that I hold a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Georgetown University. I also work with children every day. I have created motor skill development programs that have served thousands of children. Quite obviously I can't truly flesh out a whole subject on a blog, man. <BR/><BR/>Mood, affinity, and motivation are pretty closely related with regard to brain function. They are in fact connected concepts / functions, and each influences the other significantly. Drugs that affect mood also usually affect levels of motivation. That should provide some clue as to how functionally close these things are. Then the rest is common sense. Don't you like things that put you in a good mood? There's your affinity. <BR/><BR/>"The matter of standards has morphed into requirements."<BR/><BR/>Standards, when enacted, become by definition requirements. Once you measure a school by a set of standards, and hold them to it, they become requirements. <BR/><BR/>I can't obviously outline a whole systematic plan here. This is a blog with tiny comment boxes. But here are a couple of ideas. <BR/><BR/>I outlined part of how I would change mood and motivation when I discussed paying teachers more and supporting them better. Supporting them better would involve giving them the training they need. The pay would provide motivation to receive the proper (very involved) training it takes to take a talented person who cares about kids and make them an effective teacher. <BR/><BR/>Part of this training, that would directly address the motivation factor, is to train teachers and others in education to make a practice of praising effort and reinforcing enjoyment of the process process instead of solely results or intelligence. Some research data have shown that kids who are told they are intelligent are often less motivated than kids who are told they are hard workers. They often pick the "easy way out". Their motivation is lacking, because there is no real value in being intelligent. This is a non-actionable item. Show me a kid who becomes unmotivated, I will often show you a kid with a depressed "mood" (not always, but often enough). <BR/><BR/>Most children, when motivated by the desire to engage in process rather than results, seem to have a greater affinity for what they are doing. This in turn feeds motivation. It is the kids that love dribbling the basketball and get the proper support and guidance that become the greatest players, not the ones who have played the most or have drilled the most. <BR/><BR/>This is a simple thing to recognize when observing children. It is readily observable in an athletic environment. This is what happens with the dour, highly talented underachievers we often observe.Dr. Kwame M. Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08616209402820200654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-71489055984034528782008-12-19T17:46:00.000-05:002008-12-19T17:46:00.000-05:00Well, we've switched from "mood" to "affinity" and...Well, we've switched from "mood" to "affinity" and we're talking at cross purposes with straw men in between, and with an appeal to "neuroscience." The matter of "standards" has morphed into "requirements."<BR/><BR/>I've said how I'd propose to "take care of" academic learning. Read the thread. If you want to explore that further, or detail how you would take care of "mood/affinity/motivation" that might be productive, Kwame.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-22556718087666299092008-12-19T16:28:00.000-05:002008-12-19T16:28:00.000-05:00My points about affinity are not some touchy-feely...My points about affinity are not some touchy-feely appeal to be more emotional. <BR/><BR/>They are rooted in sound developmental neuroscience. We are talking about motivation to learn. Sitting kids in chairs for 8 hours a day is one of the biggest problems we have. <BR/><BR/>Kids do not learn best through rote memorization. Yes, certainly the instructional quality needs to be addressed. That is exactly what I'm saying! Kids don't learn because we require the right things. They learn because they want to. We must address the wanting to before we address the issue of requirements. Otherwise, we will continue to fail our kids. <BR/><BR/>To understand the argument for affinity and stimulation is to understand the most basic concepts in neuroscience. <BR/><BR/>We always retreat to requirements because it is simpler to solve, and we can look really smart because we have a concrete solution that can be written on paper. <BR/><BR/>However, when you really come down to it, affinity for learning and knowledge is mostly a cultural issue. It is mostly an issue of affinity. All the requirements and railing against the system will not change that. <BR/><BR/>How do you propose to "take care" of the academic learning? How is it going to be made more stimulating just by definig what the requirements are and what they mean? That is the challenge for the next few decades.Dr. Kwame M. Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08616209402820200654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-30016330130276492112008-12-19T13:02:00.000-05:002008-12-19T13:02:00.000-05:00Jeesh. We already have "balanced literacy"-the ol...Jeesh. We already have "balanced literacy"-the old Whole Language, with a smattering of incomplete and inconsistent "phonics." Now we have a push for another "balance"--between "emotions" and "standards."<BR/><BR/>In both instances the "how to" of reliably delivering kids who can read and do math capably falls through the cracks. To say nothing of other capabilities. <BR/><BR/>Take care of the kids' academic learning and the emotions will take care of themselves. <BR/><BR/>The "bailout" of older kids who have been mis-instructed indeed warrants attention. But a goodly proportion of each new cohort of K-1 kids are instructionally lost/crippled because we keep doing the same thing, irrespective of the rhetorical squabbling, expecting different results when nothing has changed instructionally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-82123378052101346612008-12-18T22:01:00.000-05:002008-12-18T22:01:00.000-05:00Kwame, I agree with your sentiments on balance. I ...Kwame, I agree with your sentiments on balance. I work in a 'failing' district. As you probably appreciate, this puts teachers and curricula firmly in the grip of a bureaucratic fruit press that squeezes out balance in favor of torrents of standards. <BR/><BR/>We have; standards for bulletin boards, standards for three ring binders, standards for tables of content, standards for word walls, standards for displaying student work, and even standards for how to arrange our desks. These are all wrapped up in state standards and district curriculum maps. The irony of it all escapes many, methinks.<BR/><BR/>Here we are preparing kids for success in the most competitive free market, democratic, and capitalistic society on the planet in a centrally managed, micro standardized, tightly scripted, impossible to fail in, socially funded, public education system. Sometimes I wonder if there wasn't more balance in those old one room school houses with bare foot kids and pot bellied coal stoves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-12388539016156849612008-12-18T21:15:00.000-05:002008-12-18T21:15:00.000-05:00P.S. I am not saying, by the way, that I don't bel...P.S. I am not saying, by the way, that I don't believe in requirements. I would just like to see a little bit more balance in where we put our energy.Dr. Kwame M. Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08616209402820200654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-31774307745888121972008-12-18T21:13:00.000-05:002008-12-18T21:13:00.000-05:00Mr. Schutz:As I see it, there were several discuss...Mr. Schutz:<BR/><BR/>As I see it, there were several discussions on this thread about which types of requirements we should have to evaluate success. <BR/><BR/>My point is that most people who are truly successful at something are because of an affinity that they have for it. Granted, it is sometimes a tortured affinity given the premium that our society places on acheiving success at the behest of the whims of others. But there is some sort of affinity. <BR/><BR/>My point was that we seem to spend an overwhelming amount of time debating requirements. this is an old debate (I am the product of two successful educators, so I have been hearing this discussion since I was 6-7 years old at the dinner table). <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that we need to get children excited about learning (or maintain that excitement, definitely concede the point about kindergarteners, but I would like to reach back and get those wwe've already lost, too). The only reliable way to do that is to be excited ourselves. The only reliable way to do that is to have teachers who are paid well enough, and just as importantly supported well enough in the classroom to retain their own excitement. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, we must make some societal changes that value exploration and the thirst for knowledge. <BR/><BR/>I will make my own plug here (smile). I discuss some more on this topic at http://drkwamebrown.wordpress.com<BR/><BR/>AND CALL ME KWAME! I am certainly not learned enough to be called Dr. by another adult.Dr. Kwame M. Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08616209402820200654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-34030668040563132522008-12-18T20:14:00.000-05:002008-12-18T20:14:00.000-05:00I agree the consequence in my post is a bit polemi...I agree the consequence in my post is a bit polemic but from my classroom observations, maybe not so much.<BR/><BR/>I fear we are not producing well rounded, literate, reasoning, thinkers. And yes, it's a stretch to blame that on math standards but it does make me go hmmmmmmm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-83069688195372746402008-12-18T16:54:00.000-05:002008-12-18T16:54:00.000-05:00Good plug for your blog, Paul. I bit, and posted ...Good plug for your blog, Paul. I bit, and posted a positive comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-34632088599358870272008-12-18T16:21:00.000-05:002008-12-18T16:21:00.000-05:00In the real world, standards evolve to serve the c...In the real world, standards evolve to serve the consumer. In the education world, standards evolve to spread the gospel and fatten the disciples.<BR/><BR/>Here is a longer exposition on the <A HREF="http://arp148.com/blog/?p=35" REL="nofollow"> contrasts over time </A> of standards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-38818051987271472522008-12-18T12:57:00.000-05:002008-12-18T12:57:00.000-05:00Hmm, Dr. Brown. We have a "communication problem....Hmm, Dr. Brown. We have a "communication problem." There has never been a consensus favoring "Standards" in this thread. Quite the contrary.<BR/><BR/>But that aside. If "mood" is the key, how do you propose reliably changing it?<BR/><BR/>Is changing "mood" prerequisite to reliably teaching kids to read and do arithmetic?<BR/><BR/>Kids enter K-1 well-motivated. If they're not taught to read, "mood" goes sour fast.<BR/><BR/>It would seem that "retaining" good mood, is all that's required.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-60817235111650120132008-12-17T20:49:00.000-05:002008-12-17T20:49:00.000-05:00What a circular discussion. It started with folks...What a circular discussion. It started with folks decrying standards, and ended with a consensus that we need standards. <BR/><BR/>what if I told you I thought that the problem wasn't standards at all, that we could make standards irrelevant real quick? <BR/><BR/>How about the mood of the children? That's right, I said the mood. We are so full of ourselves that we are spending all of our time talking about what we want them to know or whether we even want them to know it - We forget to ask how interested they are in knowing it. <BR/><BR/>I truly believe that this is the key to our solution here. Looking at it from the other end, no matter how many standards we have (or not) the central issue is whether kids are finding what they are learning interesting. These are primate brains people. They are interested in novel stimuli, and since they are higher order, they have very well developed associational cortices. <BR/><BR/>They operate by finding new things and conecting them to other insteresting things. What if we aren't giving them anything interesting. <BR/><BR/>The war of 1812 happened in 1812. "Big f'ing deal", I would say. Why was it fought? What emotions have I experienced that those people did that went to war? You see, the dates just give a placeholder. We want to evaluate placeholders, and we forget to set out the meat. <BR/><BR/>What do you remember long term? The things that have an emotional content. The things that speak to your "core". Think about that, and let me know what your thoughts are. How happy, engaged, and interested are kids in school? <BR/><BR/>Time is likely not the answer. Money is likely not the answer.<BR/>Standards, while they have a place and are slightly useful, are likely not the answer.Dr. Kwame M. Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08616209402820200654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-78994173167729805692008-12-17T16:38:00.000-05:002008-12-17T16:38:00.000-05:00What the President-elect and the new Secretary of ...What the President-elect and the new Secretary of Education will have to say about “Standards” and “NCLB” is anyone’s guess. Both are presently basking in pre-honeymoon media coverage. <BR/><BR/>For background on the new Secretary’s tenure in Chicago, the best source is the Internet site “District 299.” <BR/><BR/>www.district299.com<BR/><BR/>“Hosted by journalist Alexander Russo, District 299: The Chicago Schools Blog is a 24/7 gathering place for Chicago education news, official and otherwise.”<BR/><BR/>When it comes to reading instruction, Duncan was anything but a “reformer.” The substance of the “Chicago Reading Initiative” was formulated between 1999-2002—prior to NCLB. It hasn’t been changed since. The ”Chicago Miracle,” like the “Texas Miracle,” was miraculous only in press releases.<BR/><BR/>www.intranet.cps.k12.il.us/Universal/II_Stories/Reading_Initiative/reading_initiative.html <BR/><BR/>I happen to believe(for what that’s worth)that Duncan was the best possible choice. The job of Ed Sec has little in common with that of a City Supt. The Fed job is not particularly more difficult than the City job; it’s just different. <BR/><BR/>Yes he can? We sure have to hope so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-83579565721108545072008-12-06T23:15:00.000-05:002008-12-06T23:15:00.000-05:00Thank you, Paul. Mouthing "standards" doesn't kee...Thank you, Paul. Mouthing "standards" doesn't keep kids from counting on their fingers if they're instructed in "discovering mathematics" but not in arithmetic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-12093355454651803522008-12-06T23:02:00.000-05:002008-12-06T23:02:00.000-05:00With respect to mathematics standards, through mid...With respect to mathematics standards, through middle school...<BR/><BR/>Standards are (at least in my state, MA) wrapped up in pedagogical clothing, i.e. they don't reflect the hierarchical nature of the mathematical content. They reflect a desire to impart spiral, constructivist, grade level attributes to a discipline ideally unsuited for such treatment.<BR/><BR/>The only thing this accomplishes is to instill in the student an advanced state of learned helplessness and abject loathing of anything mathematical. I would submit that given the current belief system of the 'leaders' in math education, this is the sort of thing that would move to a national level and it would be a remarkably bad thing to do.<BR/><BR/>Sadly, Massachusetts standards are revered in some quarters. In our classrooms, not so much.<BR/><BR/>I have kids in my grade 7 classroom with accepted national testing scores (NWEA MAP) with a std deviation of about 1.5 years (so 4 sigma is six years). This is a spiral curriculum in action. 13 year olds are adding single digit numbers on their fingers under our standards!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-10175459584296146622008-12-03T02:21:00.000-05:002008-12-03T02:21:00.000-05:00I think that standards are important. Without them...I think that standards are important. Without them our world would be in complete chaos. Especially in education. I think that without standards we would have no curriculum to set ways to determine when a student can move on to the next grade or how teachers should teach. Standards don't need to be strict, but i think that without at least a broad term for standards, nothing would get accomplished and the school system would fail.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-41694582917616357342008-11-25T20:34:00.000-05:002008-11-25T20:34:00.000-05:00Parry asks: "Who would be a better body to develop...Parry asks: "Who would be a better body to develop the KPIs and certifiable accomplishments [than a committee]."<BR/><BR/>Well, the KPI's define a given certifiable accomplishment. It's really an individual intellectual task although certainly other individuals can contribute and help refine.<BR/><BR/>The task is to generate a scenario that describes how one would go about delivering the specified aspiration, using the prerequisites as the start and ending with the accomplishment specified. The KPI's are the 5-11 markers of the scenario.<BR/><BR/>You need some sort of a structure to bring to bear on the task. In reading, this is the Alphabetic Code. In math, it's the number system. In other domains. it's the structure of the discipline, where as I've indicated, well-formed course descriptions are appropriate means for certifying accomplishments.<BR/><BR/>The proof of the pudding is the reliable delivery of the "practically significant" academic capabilities. It's an empirical matter and it's an iterative matter.<BR/><BR/>There is no single scenario for delivering a certifiable accomplishment. But neither are there a very large number of reasonable and feasible alternatives.<BR/><BR/>It's conceivable that if a "Standards Committee" were forced to attach time and instructional scenario to each standards statement, the effort would evolve into KPIs. But this has never happened. The lateral and hierarchical links at the micro-level of standards statements are too numerous, too weak. To get the illusion of connections, metaphorical "strands" are introduced. But that's mere word play.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-86730701395332254992008-11-25T16:36:00.000-05:002008-11-25T16:36:00.000-05:00"State and local standards are formed by committee..."State and local standards are formed by committee. They reflect consensus beliefs without any empirical coupling of time and materiel for teaching the standard."<BR/><BR/>Very true.<BR/><BR/>Who would be a better body to develop the KPIs and certifiable accomplishments (or standards, but I know you won't like that term)?Parry Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01109638345554364909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-40125015683800436192008-11-25T09:59:00.000-05:002008-11-25T09:59:00.000-05:00Tracy W says" I don't believe that setting a stand...Tracy W says" I don't believe that setting a standard automatically turns a subject into unteachable things.<BR/><BR/>I certainly don't believe that either.<BR/><BR/>However. A goodly number of the statements found in standards are unteachable, repeated from one grade to another, or included to satisfy some special interest. <BR/><BR/>State and local standards are formed by committee. They reflect consensus beliefs without any empirical coupling of time and materiel for teaching the standard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-40860202291594333092008-11-25T03:15:00.000-05:002008-11-25T03:15:00.000-05:00Well "certified accomplishments", or "certified ac...Well "certified accomplishments", or "certified accomplishment"s sound just like outcome standards done well to me. <BR/><BR/>As for why I thought you were saying that the history of WWII was unteachable, I proposed a set of standards that included covering the history of WWII, and you later on wrote: ""Standards" just lead to metaphorical "strands" or into "higher order" abstractions that are unteachable."<BR/>I do not believe that standards just lead to things that are unteachable, as I was taught the history of WWII at high school. This is why I offered it as a counter-example to your blanket statement. There of course can be bad standards, but I don't believe that setting a standard automatically turns a subject into unteachable things.Tracy Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08999246551652981965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-40283848992355437442008-11-24T20:50:00.000-05:002008-11-24T20:50:00.000-05:00Well, “benchmarks” and “gateways” are sorta in the...Well, “benchmarks” and “gateways” are sorta in the ballpark. But they’re more convoluted. With the logic I’ve been trying to talk about, you want to keep the prerequisites as parsimonious as possible, and the Certifiable Accomplishment structure as simple as possible. The aim isn’t to constrain, but to open up student choices. Again, these are subtle differences, but again, they’re highly consequential. In el-hi ed we seem to have a penchant for making matters complex as possible rather than as simple as possible, and involving as many elements rather than as few as possible. The verbiage very quickly gets out of hand. People mouth it, but act on it “variously.”<BR/><BR/>Another point that may help clarify the difference in the orientations, is that the alternative logic is always concerned with the instructional wherewithal for reliably accomplishing the specified aspiration. This is pinned down in terms of “program” with tested reliability of effect, and time and cost considerations. The deliberation does not occur “before” or “apart from” the consideration of “instruction” and the “achievement testing” is transparent and not a third separate realm. “Alignment” of standards, instruction and measurement sounds good, but it is just not feasible. It hasn’t occurred in the past; isn’t occurring now; and won’t occur in the future.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I’m very much OK with “mixed age” classrooms. But it’s also possible to have “same age” at different points in the Key Performance Indicators. Physical development constraints aside, “age” has very little to do with instructional accomplishments.<BR/><BR/>And Yes, I was talking fast when I said that “Capability to perform arithmetic computations is a prerequisite for instruction in algebra.” But I wouldn’t go back into “standards, gateways, and such” in doing the additional work to clarify the instruction in arithmetic. I’d use the same logic that I’ve been talking about for reading. That work is much easier in math than in reading. It seems to me that the Report of the National Math Panel provides a good basis for the work, but I don’t see anyone doing anything with the Report. It’s quite possible there is activity I don’t know about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-77565405945081802132008-11-24T17:15:00.000-05:002008-11-24T17:15:00.000-05:00Dick,Translating into edspeak, I believe you're ta...Dick,<BR/><BR/>Translating into edspeak, I believe you're talking about benchmarks and gateways. Student A demonstrates that she can accomplish tasks X, Y, and Z, therefore she is ready to move on to the next set of benchmarks in that subject area. After meeting certain benchmarks across multiple subject areas, she is ready to pass through a gateway on to a more sophisticated level of learning. Does that sound somewhat accurate?<BR/><BR/>Two questions. Are you okay with mixed-age classrooms, in which students of different ages are working toward the same benchmarks? How do you accomplish this structurally?<BR/><BR/>And one additional point. You said to Tracy that "Capability to perform arithmetic computations is a prerequisite for instruction in algebra". But don't you need to identify which specific arithmetic computations are a prerequisite for instruction in algebra? Simple addition and subtraction alone aren't enough. And doesn't that lead you back to something like standards, maybe just arranged within a framework of benchmarks and gateways?Parry Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01109638345554364909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-15072534218255799882008-11-24T12:00:00.000-05:002008-11-24T12:00:00.000-05:00To respond to Tracy W’s questions.Algebra is an im...To respond to Tracy W’s questions.<BR/><BR/>Algebra is an important component of mathematics. Capability to perform arithmetic computations is a prerequisite for instruction in algebra. I’ve stated that it’s feasible and reasonable to teach algebra to students who have this prerequisite. The delivering of such students would represent a Certified Accomplishment.<BR/><BR/>“Is it possible for a course to be taught and there still be a student who can't accomplish the ‘certified accomplishments’? <BR/><BR/>Well, a Certified Accomplishment is singular rather than plural. With a well-formed course description, the accomplishment is transparent and any uncertainty as to its accomplishment can readily be eliminated. The focus is on the Accomplishments that HAVE been achieved. <BR/><BR/>I never contended that a well-formed course description of the “History of World War I” couldn’t be constructed.<BR/><BR/>I certainly didn’t mean to imply that I’d look to a “government to write Certifiable Accomplishments.” Such statements are neither “good” or ‘bad” They are statements of specified instructional aspirations that are accompanied by Key Performance Indicators that permit the accomplishment to be tracked and certified.<BR/><BR/>NCLB treats “proficiency” as cut scores on ungrounded tests and imposes a statistically unattainable “adequate yearly progress” mandate on teachers and schools. This is the situation the teacher is reflecting on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-72755645475223473652008-11-24T11:12:00.000-05:002008-11-24T11:12:00.000-05:00Algebra is not a higher order abstraction of arith...<I>Algebra is not a higher order abstraction of arithmetic. Not in the same sense that "higher order thinking skills," "problem solving skills" and such are. abstraction.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't get this. Algebra is an extremely useful problem solving skill. I personally use it several times a week to solve problems. And if it's not a higher-order abstraction of arithmetic, or a higher-order thinking skill, then what is it? <BR/><BR/>Also, you haven't answered my earlier questions. In particular:<BR/><BR/>Is it possible for a course to be taught and there still be a student who can't accomplish the "certified accomplishments"? <BR/><BR/>And, when did topics like "the history of WWII" become unteachable? <BR/><BR/>My guess is what is going on here is that you are arguing against some particular implmentation of standards. I don't think tht the problems with bad standards can be solved by creating something else that is called "Certifiable Accomplishments" - the same forces that cause governments to write bad standards will cause them to write bad "Certifiable Accomplishments". <BR/><BR/>As for the NCLB - that teacher's school is storing up problems for itself. Under the NCLB it is expected to bring nearly every kid up to proficiency in a few years' time (the exception being 1% who can be assesssed by alternative standards) . By neglecting the currently low-performing kids they're losing valuable time in figuring out how to educate every single kid to the levels of proficiency. But hey, why should us taxpayers expect teachers and school administrators to think about the long-term?Tracy Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08999246551652981965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-28658646933228402022008-11-24T09:34:00.000-05:002008-11-24T09:34:00.000-05:00Tracy W says: "I think we are using the words 'sta...Tracy W says: "I think we are using the words 'standards' in subtly different ways."<BR/><BR/>Precisely. That's exactly what I said, and I went on to try to explain why the differences are highly consequential. <BR/><BR/>Algebra is not a higher order abstraction of arithmetic. Not in the same sense that "higher order thinking skills," "problem solving skills" and such are. abstraction. Setting prerequisites, such as "calculus" is certainly reasonable, and is consistent with the Certified Accomplishments logic. But that's a far cry from the hundreds of "content standards" that prevail for each subject and grade in el-hi instruction.<BR/><BR/>By the way, if anyone wants to cut through the fog of "standards and accountability by standardized tests" for a few minutes, try looking at what one shoes-on-the-floor classroom teacher who has given some thought to the matter has to say about "Not Leaving the Children Behind."<BR/><BR/>http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_11059555Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com