The sky is blue. Water is wet. Fast food is bad for you. And Americans, especially younger ones, are dumber than a goddamn bag of hammers. These are all things we know. Every few months the media trot out a remarkably similar story: organization conducts poll of basic political, historical, or general-knowledge information.
online pharmacy nolvadex best drugstore for you
Respondents do terribly. Media wrings hands. Fingers are pointed. Blame is assigned and rebutted. No consensus is reached. Story fades away.
People are "stunningly ignorant," as this new entry on Slate claims, and they appear to be getting dumber. This linked article tells me nothing I haven't heard before and nothing that isn't confirmed on a daily basis in my work.
buy amitriptyline online www.mabvi.org/wp-content/languages/new/usa/amitriptyline.html no prescription
The author seems remarkably eager, though, to assign blame to No Child Left Behind. There are some basic logical problems with that premise.
First of all, has performance in these areas suffered since NCLB was passed? If I recall correctly, people were this stupid 10 years ago too. Absent some supporting evidence that performance has actually declined, these facts are irrelevant to her conclusion. Second, her supposition that NCLB is to blame (for the decline she doesn't show) is a pure leap of faith. Correlation = causation at its finest.
online pharmacy propecia best drugstore for you
People are dumb and NCLB exists. Ergo NCLB makes people dumb.
Education is the sole policy area in which I qualify as a legitimate conservative. I know that teachers don't like NCLB, and I'm not qualified to comment on whether it is a good policy.
buy stromectol online www.mabvi.org/wp-content/languages/new/usa/stromectol.html no prescription
What I do know is that the basic premise of the law is appropriate. Yes, NCLB focuses on math and language skills at the expense of arts, humanities, and social science. But I submit that knowledge of the arts, humanities, and social science is useless in the hands of people who can't write a paragraph in grammatically correct English to save their souls, understand how interest rates work, or make a simple written argument with supporting facts.
Every day I deal with undergraduates who simply can't write. At all. They can't write, they can't express themselves in anything other than text-message slang and sentence fragments, and they find utterly foreign the idea of having to prove what they assert to be true. Let's say NCLB disappears and an emphasis returns to humanities and social science. Great. So we'll have generations of high school graduates who can find El Salvador on a globe….and can't fucking write. What does that accomplish?
Factoids, history, and social science can be taught to a reasonably smart 19 year old. Teaching an adult how to write is a lot more difficult. Call it narrow-minded, shortsighted, or just plain wrong, but if we aren't effectively drilling the basics into our high schoolers then any other facts they manage to learn are just lipstick on a pig.
Charles says:
I tutored writing at a PSU branch campus for four years. In my estimates, perhaps 1 in 50 students I helped was functionally illiterate. It was frightening.
Ben says:
Ed, I'm technically at work right now, so I don't have time to look up which one, but I'm pretty sure you're committing one of your own Logical Fallacies. "NCLB purports to focus on math and language skills, therefore math and language skills will improve during the reign of NCLB, and will suffer if NCLB is revoked". That's pretty much your implication, yes?
The problem (and, I'm guessing, the LF) here is that NCLB only purports to focus on math and language skills. I spend a lot of time discussing this with veteran teachers, and their genuine concern about NCLB is that its one real focus is test-taking skills. Test-taking skills are fine, but building a curriculum around them doesn't actually teach anyone anything about math, science, language, etc.
The problem isn't that NCLB focuses on any one subject area at the expense of another. The problem is that it focuses on diddly-squat at the expense of anything meaningful.
Samantha says:
My kids are lucky to live in a district in Georgia (of all places) where the public education is pretty darn good (Adequate Yearly Progress for the 2nd
year in a row, achievement gap among students reduced by 30% since 2004, fourth highest district graduation rate in the state, 99% of 3rd graders met or exceeded expectations on state tests in mathematics, middle school students scored at least 10 points above the state on state tests in science). My 4th grader told me this morning that her class is preparing for a writing test that all 5th graders are required to pass, demonstrating their proficiency at "the writing cycle," which involves selecting a topic, organizing ideas and fleshing them out, editing, and revising. I was delighted to hear that our system is preparing students early for a future of writing, although I'm not sure how much NCLB has had to do with its success.
Ed says:
Ben, you're making an implication that I did not. I am not arguing that taking NCLB off the books will cause math and English skills to suffer. As I said, it may be a terrible law. I'm not qualified to judge. What I am arguing is that the premise of the act is sound. Teaching kids to speak english intelligibly is Step 1 in the educational process; if we fail at that, steps 2 through infinity are irrelevant.
I've heard the "teaching to the tests" argument and I don't know what to make of it. On the one hand, it makes logical sense to me. There is an awful lot of emphasis on standardized testing. On the other hand, I'm usually hearing the argument from 19 year old Education majors, whom I suspect are simply repeating what they've been told without much supporting evidence.
Samantha says:
Someone just now sent me this funny little thing:
1. Teaching Math In 1950s:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ?
2. Teaching Math In 1960s:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100 His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
3. Teaching Math In 1970s:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?
4. Teaching Math In 1980s:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Math In 1990s:
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class particip ation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's ok.)
6. Teaching Math In 2007:
Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?
Jeff says:
Honestly, by the time a student passes middle school he/she should already be able to write a basic paragraph in proper English, and he shouldn't be allowed onward until then. Some of these fundamental skills in writing and argumentation we are teaching way too late. By the time one is in high school writing well should be second nature, and why we keep emphasizing this skill later in life is beyond me.
Kulkuri says:
The only winners in NCLB are aWol's family. His brother( the one you never hear of, the one that was involved in the Savings and Loan Scandal when Daddy Bush was pResident) and his parents own huge stakes in the companies that sell the tests and books to the schools. Neil Bush either is on the board of directors or a V-P at one of the companies.
Ed says:
Jeff, I see your point, but the reason we are emphasizing it later in life is that they aren't being taught earlier. "Should have" is a concept of limited use; as college and high school teachers, we can't simply sit there and say "You guys should have already learned this." Maybe that's true, but they didn't. So then what? Do we act like Republicans and just sit there saying "Too bad, you shoulda learned this. Now you're fucked."?
Peggy says:
I teach high school, and am subject to NCLB, and here's my impression: it's a mixed bag, mostly made up of good intentions and bullshit. Its main premise is that ALL students will be performing AT GRADE LEVEL by 2010. That's a lovely intention, but believe me when I say that I'm not being overly cynical, bigoted by soft expectations, or failing to believe in the children when I say that that is SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE, NO WAY UH-UH. If it were more of a "most" students, it would be much more reasonable, but let's talk numbers.
There are 122 students at my HS, all of whom take the ISTEP+, a once-a-year standardized test with multiple choice and free response sections. For us to be in compliance with the law, we have to show Adequate Yearly Progress in improving our scores in 17 different categories, such as:
white, non-hispanic males
black females
non-native speakers
special education
etc.
As the English teacher (/department), I am in charge of making sure students are prepared to pass the test, and whether or not they do reflects on me and my school. If we fail to make AYP, we can be shut down. This year we didn't make AYP because we failed in one of the 17 categories: special education. At the HS, we have a number of students who qualify for services, but the number is small enough that one kid plus or minus can make or break us. Of these students, there are at least five who work hard but will not EVER perform at a 9th-grade level. Ever. Even if I worked one-on-one with that student 8 hours a day, they just do not have the mental capacity to pass the test. I'm not being a dick or saying they don't deserve education or anything, and I enjoy teaching inclusion classes that include these students. But these students won't be at grade level, in 2010 or ever.
I have some non-native speakers, most of whom are doing fine–but there are some who struggle, not because they're stupid or even because they've missed a lot of education (although in some cases they have) but because they just don't have the English fluency necessary to pass the ISTEP yet. What about students who are immigrating now, or next year? Will they be at grade level *in English* by 2010? Seems unlikely.
Last, but not least, I'm still responsible for the students who transfer. Indiana's moving their test to the spring, but currently the scores reflect how the students are doing after I've been teaching them for ONE MONTH–and we start school very early. I'm responsible when they're not at grade level? Yikes.
Anyway–I know this isn't the point of your post, Ed, but this soapbox is so nice for standing on! It's something I struggle with a lot. Similarly, the teachers here like to despair of how stupid the students act/are quite often, but we haven't given up hope.
Personally, I think that rather than cutting out humanities (which can spark a kid's interest and get that kid to read, for example, or to willingly write), schools should invest more in programs like Writing Across the Curriculum, which emphasize that writing is a way of learning and is important in ALL classes, not just some. Teachers here do a good job of that–kids write essays in PE, Health, science, music, and art classes; history is mostly taught through primary-source documents and involves term papers and essay tests; I've even heard of some paragraphs happening in math! The problem with programs like WAC is that lots of teachers resist them, because they are lazy or because they aren't comfortable grading writing or because they just don't feel like it. I agree with you that logic and rhetoric should be emphasized more (in fact, I've been fighting for two years to require seniors to take a Logic & Rhetoric class… I know some of the kids would a)be into it (b/c they love to argue) and b)benefit from it (because they suck at arguing)).
ARGH STOP COMMENTING! Sorry, Ed & readers.
J. Dryden says:
Wow. Remember back when Ed was worried that not enough people were reading him? Turns out all he has to do is throw the right rattlesnake into the bushes and we all come running out! Anyhoo–
I'm in the curiously fortunate position of having taught only at highly competitive public universities or at private colleges with comparatively high standards, so that I'm not confronted with those the educational system failed. But–I give my freshmen (who, even as the smartest, still need *serious* f***ing help with the basics of constructing a thesis, let alone a logical argument that derives therefrom) an assignment: write a proposal to their high school administration, identifying a problem with their education and how it might be fixed. So, I tell them, think back a few months to your high school experience–what worked? What didn't? And what, arriving at college, would you have wanted to learn, but didn't? It's remarkable–they age about 12 years in a split second in terms of thoughtfulness and maturity; they're articulate and intelligent and objective–they actually *care* about what they learned or didn't learn.
And what's their nearly universal answer? That high school didn't exist to educate them–it was taught entirely on the presumption that they would go on to college, and that therefore they were taught to take standardized tests, not to think or, God forbid, use logic. We've gone, in this country, from the laudable principle that "Everyone should have the opportunity to go to college" to the rather despicable "Everyone should go to college," which transforms high-school into a means to an educational end, rather than an education in itself. I think the problem–teaching to the test–existed long before NCLB. Like our national drug policy, our current educational policy is based on a lot of bad/easy decisions made long ago by people who weren't going to be around to have to deal with the fruits of said decisions.
I also agree heartily with Peggy's proposal re: writing across the curriculum.
Emma says:
On one point only…"Teaching to the test".
I am a Kindergarten teacher, and it isn't do much the teaching to the test that's the problem, it's the amount of testing.
My five year olds where given the IOWA test during the first month of Kindergarten, a whole group fill in the bubble test. Some of them didn't have the motor skills to fill in the bubble, which led to anger and crying all over the room. Some didn't even try. They will take the test again at the end of the year.
They are given the TPRI test three times a year. This is a one on one language arts test. Once they get to the first grade the lower students will be tested every two weeks, again one on one.
In addition, we have mclassmath, a math skills test, my students who work at a high level are tested three times through out the year – those who are behind or just below standard are re-tested every two weeks. This test is also a one on one test. I work at a low performance school – almost all of my children have to go through progress monitoring.
In addition, there are a number of math standard performance based tests – again they must be administered one on one.
In addition, I need to give Unit and chapter tests for Language arts and math that go with the books and curriculum that we teach.
These one on one tests often take up learning time – as I the teacher and not my teacher assistant must administer them. So the kids are often doing busy work while I'm trying to test everyone.
This is Kindergarten, with each additional grade more time will be spent testing. It isn't that I am teaching to the test, it's that I'm being paid to test.
Ed says:
I am very glad to see teachers chiming in.
Standardized tests for kindergartners? That takes "stupid" to entirely new levels.
Peggy says:
Emma: my sympathies. Your story is exactly what I fear will be the end result of well-meant but poorly thought out plans like NCLB.
Rob says:
I'd like to point out another weakness in the Slate article: it insinuates that America's educational performance as a whole is "mediocre", while supporting this argument with a questionnaire of 30 mostly unimportant peices of trivia that even intelligent people may forget as soon as they've successfully passed their history tests. I would consider myself a fairly intelligent person, but I'm not sure off-hand who wrote the Canterbury Tales or who the commander of the American army was in the Revolutionary war… It is not because I'm not capable of remembering this crap – it is because I don't care, and I suspect there are a large (and growing) number of young adults that would agree.
On the other hand, I think they may have inadventently stumbled upon some truths. I would not be surprised at all if America's children in general are asymptotically approaching the IQ of a rotten prune. And (while I don't have any more proof than Slate provides on this), I do suspect that NCLB is a misguided solution to a very real problem.
j says:
I want to take that whole 30-Q test–does anyone know where I can get a link? Oh, and was there a question about Job from the Bible on there?
Peggy says:
I'm with Rob that I think asking random trivia doesn't actually mean shit about a person's *intelligence* (another reason why standardized testing is often misused–students are taught to take a test/answer questions rather than think in complex ways about problems or have a complex understanding of language/math). I'm much more impressed by someone who knows *how* to find the answer to a question than who just knows the answer to the question. The problem with America isn't, in fact, that people haven't memorized enough trivia; it's that they can't apply knowledge that they have in new ways, think critically about multi-step solutions to a problem, etc.
Cassie says:
My mother just retired this past year after teaching junior high math for more than 35 years (she is more hardcore than all y'all) and she thinks that NCLB is having a negative effect on education. She cites "teaching for the test" as a big part of that. She said that that because of it things like word problems don't fit into the curriculum anymore because they are not covered in the test and this bothers her because more advanced questions like that are what actually teach kids how to apply their knowledge of math to reality. And even as a math teacher she worries about the fact that subjects like social science and the arts are getting shafted because of NCLB. One thing I remember her saying about NCLB is that it requires every child to be average, which is of course impossible because not everyone can be average or else the word average loses it's meaning. I think she would agree a lot with Peggy, there are just some people out there that are NEVER going to perform at grade level, even at 8th grade level math and the system doesn't allow for that.