Education Gap

[ZNPaaneah]

Before we can reasonably discuss education in the US, or compare an inner city school system with a suburban one, or even compare the US with other countries, there must be some standard by which we can measure them all.

Today many complain about using standardized exams. In principle I am not against trying to make the standard better, but what bothers me the most is that those who are a total failure when measured by the standardized exams are the ones who complain about them whereas those that do well do not.

Also there is an overwhelming and highly persuasive data demonstrating the effectiveness of these standardized exams (for example SAT) to predict a students success at college. Once again, you don't hear Harvard or Princeton complaining about the standardized exams. So as long as people want to go to a selective college these exams will be used to measure and compare one school to another.

Therefore I want to begin this thread with the agreed upon conclusion that standardized exams are essential for comparing schools and that they are one effective approach to measuring student learning. Those that wish to debate this point, please start your own thread, that discussion is off topic for this thread.

Also, I have no issue with those that want to improve the standard by which we measure learning. I have no issue with Common Core, a new standard introduced by college professors for high school to adhere to. But again, a discussion on how to improve our standard is not what this thread is about. Please, any discussion on how to make the SAT better or whether or not Common core is good should be on a different thread, that is another "off topic" discussion for this thread.

No, what I want to discuss in this thread is "the education gap" also known as the "opportunity gap" and also known as the "achievement gap". Basically, using standardized exams like the SAT you can see how there is a very large and growing gap in achievement. Not between whites and blacks, that gap is shrinking significantly. No, the gap is between rich and poor.

However, I do not see any need for additional funding to close this gap (I teach in an inner city school). When we compare the funding our school gets with the funding schools in other countries that are outperforming our best schools, the money is not the issue.

No, I will argue that this gap is caused by something far more insidious.

[ZNPaaneah]

I visited what is known as a "showcase school". This is a high school that the Depart. of Ed is presenting as an example of highly effective practices. I observed a math class and the students I watched were solving a math problem using two separate approaches. They consulted with one another, they came up with valid strategies and they also solved the problem correctly. They were clearly very proud of themselves. Later all the observers had nothing but good things to say. Finally I asked the obvious question -- "wasn't that a 2nd grade math problem?" No one disagreed. So I then asked if they had data to show this approach works. They said they didn't think data was applicable to this population.

So, they spend the year teaching elementary school math to high school students. The kids think this is somehow higher level because now they are solving the problem two different ways. Kids are happy, school makes sense, they are doing well, and then they take the Algebra regents, fail miserably and blame themselves. Can't be the teachers, they are great, for the first time they could understand everything. Likewise the teachers don't take responsibility for the poor results, instead the data doesn't apply to this population. They actually lift this up as an example for others to follow.

So then, what about the teachers whose students actually do well on the Algebra exam? The city has this data because they have been testing us for 4 or 5 years and collecting the data. I have asked repeatedly to visit one of those classes and there is no response.

So it doesn't make any sense. I am aware of a number of teachers who actually have very good results on these exams and they are being put under extreme pressure with numerous inferences, though not stated in black and white, to stop. Is that just paranoia? I have heard administrators dismiss those that do well as simply "teaching to the test". When asked for clarification as to what that means we have been told that it means "the kids do well on the exam but didn't actually learn the material".

So when kids in the suburbs, and in charter schools and in private schools do well on the exam it is evidence of a superior school, but when kids in the inner city do well it is because the teacher "taught to the test" and the kid didn't actually learn.

So what is going on? In NYC charter schools are growing at an amazing rate. These are for profit schools run by corporations. The city pays $10,000 per kid so there is a lot of money to be made. They are predicting that 50% of the schools will be charter. It is a great way to bust the union. But no one is going to send their kid to the charter if they aren't doing better than the public school. However, the charter, in order to save money, hires new teachers, and they don't do that well. So the solution is simply make the public school do worse. Likewise people in the suburbs don't care because then their kids will look better by comparison as well.

[Weighingin]

ZNP,
Things that go on in the world seem to be under Bizarro rule. Yet, looking into them shows ones that are going for more power, money, influence, and the like.
So do these ones now want charter schools to prevail?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

ZNP,
Things that go on in the world seem to be under Bizarro rule. Yet, looking into them shows ones that are going for more power, money, influence, and the like.
So do these ones now want charter schools to prevail?

Charter schools are run by corporations and if they are large franchises they can afford significant political contributions. If you get $10,000 per student per year, that is $120,000 over 12 years. When you walk down the halls of a charter school it is very impressive. Large charts about how their kids do better on Math and English. Student essays hanging from the walls that look great. My son went to a charter school for 5 years so I am speaking from experience.

But look behind the curtain and you see a fuller picture. There was no art, drama, or gym. His PE class consisted of walking around the block. Teachers are new teachers, usually without a Master's degree. I would drop him off on my way to school and all the teachers were there. Then when the day was over I'd pick him up on the way home from school, all the teachers were still there. So it was obvious to me the teachers had a significantly longer day. They are paid less, they have less training, and they try to compensate by putting in longer hours. So it is "work harder, not smarter". Every year they tried, often resorting to illegal means, to get my son transferred out (he gets special services which cost more and mean less profit). They will claim that they have the same population as the public school but that is only in the first year. By the fifth year they have been able to remove most of the less profitable kids. When charter schools make up 1% or 2% of school kids that doesn't matter that much, but when they are 50% it will completely transform the public school. I also saw many teachers try to unionize and get fired. I also saw almost on a yearly basis the principal being swapped out. By the last few years they didn't have a principal, only a "manager".

The problem with this approach is that it is well documented that the quality of the teacher is the biggest impact on student achievement. Saving money on teachers and trying to compensate with longer hours and less benefits is simply going to force these teachers to try and work in the Public school as soon as possible, hence there will be a lot of turnover.

But for politicians it solves several problems -- money for their campaign, someone to blame, and reducing the number of teachers with pensions and benefits.

[ZNPaaneah]

My fear is that we don't all have the same goal.

If the goal for education is to provide the best possible education then I am all for many different approaches, charter schools, private schools, Korean pressure cooker, Finnish leave it to the best teachers approach, etc.

The problem is that with charter schools the goal is profit. That is not the same. For example the charter school has two equally valid strategies to being profitable. They can work to be more effective at teaching, or they can work to make their competition less effective. In this reality what is most likely is they will have a strategy that involves both.

[Weighingin]

Thank you for your answer. So it comes down to another
group of people striving for a bigger slice of the wealth pie.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

Thank you for your answer. So it comes down to another
group of people striving for a bigger slice of the wealth pie.

Finland has the best education system at the moment. They were first identified using the PISA exam which is supposed to measure critical thinking. Korea has similar scores as well but they have a nightmare system (kids are in school from 8am to 11pm, go to school 6 days a week, all so they can get the top 2% on a college entrance exam -- everyone hates their system in Korea)

So what is the difference between Finland and the US? The US spends more money on education, but primarily on laptops, smart boards, and other technology (slice of the wealth pie goes to manufacturers of tech).

Finland on the other hand was shocked when the whole world wanted to know their secret. They had invested in the best teachers they could get and then just left it up to them. They don't have the pressure cooker of Korea, nor do they have the high tech classrooms of the US. They simply trusted highly trained teachers to do the right thing.

[ZNPaaneah]

On the world stage, U.S. students fall behind (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.fadc40555e63)

I'll summarize this article. A test has been designed to measure critical thinking in math. It is given worldwide so that we can compare school systems.

Finnland and Poland do very well. China has seen great improvement by adopting the Finland model. Their model is basically hire very good teachers (based on excellent grades for the teacher and also based on extensive training) and then trust them to do the right thing along with a few key standardized exams to monitor how they are doing.

Korea and Taiwan also score very high but most people familiar with their model view it as a nightmare scenario. The model there is "work hard for only a few spots". It is likened to a hamster wheel and it is almost universally reviled by people living in the country regardless of whether they were one of the few successful students or not. School is essentially only slightly longer than here in the US, but then after school is out they have supervised study at the school which also includes dinner and goes to 8. Then most kids go to tutoring schools which continue till 11pm. They all end at 11 because that is a national curfew for tutoring schools.

Poland is one of the amazing turnaround stories going from last place to a very high ranking in only a couple of years.

The US is ranked 40th based on the results in 2016. We can learn from the reforms that some countries have made that then result in dramatic and rapid improvement.

Some interesting take aways:

Standardized tests result in a fairer education system wherever they are implemented.

Teacher quality is the single most important factor that determines success or failure.

It is not necessary to have the hamster wheel of death that Korea and Taiwan have to be successful.

Technology is not highly correlated with success.

Socio economic status is inversely correlated with success. In the US the gap between rich and poor in school achievement is growing. But when we look at the PISA worldwide the results are the opposite. It seems having been destitute in the recent past is common trait of the countries that decided to make education a cornerstone of their overall strategy. In these countries teachers were the highest educated profession and also very highly respected.

There are people who dismiss the use of these exams, but they do not provide any alternative approach to measuring, comparing and evaluating educational systems around the world.

Workers in China have a better education than in America and are willing to work for 1/5th the salary.

[ZNPaaneah]

The US lags far behind the rest of the world in education for all but "higher education". However, that lead is also shrinking fast.

The top 100 universities ranked on a global ranking show the US dominating the top 10, but 53 out of 100 are not in the US.

Also, please note that US schools have anywhere from 10-25% foreign students who often then return home to help raise the standard in their country.

The conclusion is pretty obvious, there are several countries like Britain, Germany and France that are quite comparable to the US in higher education, there are other countries like Canada and Australia that are gaining on us quickly, and then there are others like Japan, China, and some middle Eastern countries that are spending great amounts to get world class universities ranked in the top 50.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Korea and Taiwan also score very high but most people familiar with their model view it as a nightmare scenario. The model there is "work hard for only a few spots". It is likened to a hamster wheel and it is almost universally reviled by people living in the country regardless of whether they were one of the few successful students or not. School is essentially only slightly longer than here in the US, but then after school is out they have supervised study at the school which also includes dinner and goes to 8. Then most kids go to tutoring schools which continue till 11pm. They all end at 11 because that is a national curfew for tutoring schools.

I think the lesson we have learned is that critical thinking is a really important goal for education and this PISA exam does a good job of comparing different systems and how effective they are at teaching this. That said, the cautionary tale of Korea is that regardless of how important this goal is it should not be the "end all and be all" of education. It is a hamster wheel that turns into a nightmare. We want a school experience that includes sports, drama, debate, after school activities, etc. We want kids to have a life and develop a life long love of learning. Not be burnt out by 18.

Therefore I think you have to weigh two competing interests -- critical thinking as measured by the PISA or some other accepted standard, and how much time was spent to accomplish that goal. If the US can get similar results to Korea in half the time that should be viewed as a major improvement. Finland and Poland both get comparable results to Korea in significantly less time.

[ZNPaaneah]

By the end of fourth grade, African American, Latino, and poor students of all races are two years behind their wealthier, predominantly white peers in reading and math. By eighth grade, they have slipped three years behind, and by twelfth grade, four years behind. (https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles...acts--figures/)

Most of us know this, what we don't know is that this gap can be closed in a single year.

Earth Science at my school in Brooklyn scored a mean average of 74.4% placing them with the top 5% of all High Schools in New York city. They outperformed schools that have entrance exams, schools located in the wealthiest neighborhoods, and that are nationally ranked among the best schools in the nation. These schools outperform these students by 20% in English and Math. They started the year with a huge head start (according to that article 3 grades ahead of our students).

So the gap can be closed in a single year. But not the way the department of Ed is taking:

An achievement gap is the same thing as an opportunity gap. Everyone needs to be aware how the rich and powerful bend the school system to their selfish purposes. I have been told that the success in Earth Science was simply because “I taught to the test” which they define as “kids do well on the exam but didn’t actually learn the material”. Charter schools, private schools and suburban schools claim these exams are evidence that they are superior schools. But when kids in the public school do better they claim it is not actual learning.

There is a substantial body of research that shows that admission test scores relate to the outcomes they are intended to predict (including grades, retention, and completion) and they do so over and above high school grades. Using high school grades and admission test scores together results in the*most accurate*predictions of college performance. (https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2018...lready-exists/)

This “substantial body of research” is evidence that their claim that you “didn’t actually learn” is without merit. The same people dismissing our success said that this research might not apply “to this population”. The implication is that they are inherently different from the kids in the suburbs, hence the research on learning doesn’t apply to them. Proving that inner city kids can compete with any school nationwide is the civil rights movement today.

The children of the rich increasingly do better in school, relative to the children of the poor. . . . This has always been true, but is much more true now than 40 years ago.” (https://www.educationnext.org/achiev...istent-divide/)

I first heard the term “this population” while visiting a “showcase school”. They had a day long presentation of their teaching approach. I visited in February and observed two students solving a math problem. They were required to solve it in several ways and for 15 minutes that is what they did. They consulted with each other about the problem, their reasoning was correct, and their answer using multiple approaches was also correct. All the observers had nothing but positive things to say. Finally I asked the obvious question “wasn’t that a 2nd grade math problem?” No one disputed this, so then I asked if they had any data that supports the effectiveness of this approach. They said “we don’t think the data is useful for this population”. For a year they teach kids elementary school math in high school. Since they have made this one little change of “you need to solve this in two different ways” the kids think they are working at a higher level. Everything is easy, they wonder why their previous teachers didn’t teach like this, and for 180 days they are thrilled. Then on the Algebra regents they fail miserably because they have not been prepared for Algebra. The kids blame themselves. What do the teachers say? The fault is not that they didn’t prepare kids for the Algebra regents, no the fault is with inherent differences in “this population”. Are they held accountable for the horrible performance on the Regents? No, they are accounted as an example for all to follow on how to “keep kids engaged”. What about those that do well on the Regents exam? “They taught to the test” and their kids “didn’t actually learn”. Why would anyone say this? Is it so the charter schools will look good by comparison? Is it so the suburban kids can go to the best colleges and get the best jobs? Is this bias designed to keep you down? Now the trumpet summons us again — proving that we can compete with any school nationwide is the civil rights movement today.

[ZNPaaneah]

For those who want the cliff notes version -- we know how to improve our education without increasing the cost.

The most successful educational systems are based on getting the best teachers you can. They don't spend a lot of money on computers or technology.

In the US we spend a lot, a ridiculous amount, on computers and smart boards and wifi, but let virtually anyone teach.

When the PISA test first was administered the US ranked around 18th in the world. Finland was 1, Poland was dead last. Since then the US has slid to 40th, Poland has moved into the top echelon, and Finland continues to lead the world.

Another teacher showed me something that was shocking just a month ago. One of our honor students didn't understand the concept that an = sign is similar to a balance, where whatever you do to one side of the = sign you have to do to the other. I teach Earth Science and am stunned every year that these kids don't know the water cycle. These are some of the most basic concepts that should be taught in elementary school.

[OBW]

First, before I start, I need to point out that my comments and questions are not a critique, but rather things I think about. I understand your points so far, and think that there is a lot to consider.

My oldest son and his wife are both teachers in DFW-area high schools. Mostly in math although my son has included some computer science and will be focusing exclusively on that this next year. They talk about a lot of the things that you mention. And grouse (rightly) about some of the ridiculous ideas being pushed into the curriculum.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I visited what is known as a "showcase school". This is a high school that the Depart. of Ed is presenting as an example of highly effective practices. I observed a math class and the students I watched were solving a math problem using two separate approaches. They consulted with one another, they came up with valid strategies and they also solved the problem correctly.

I’ve heard this kind of thing as well. And there is some validity. Ways of approaching math problems that work best for me might not work well for you. But ultimately, it should all be distilled down to the same overall formula, even if not written out in an identical fashion.

But there is a problem if the important thing is that they like math, and that they can’t do basic 9th grade math is not important.

My daughter-in-law has been asked by students why they need to learn more than simply arithmetic. She answers that only burger-flippers, loading dock workers, and similar manual laborers can get by with limited math. Even drug dealers need more than simple math to stay in business.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Finally I asked the obvious question — "wasn't that a 2nd grade math problem?" No one disagreed. So I then asked if they had data to show this approach works. They said they didn't think data was applicable to this population.

And here is the real problem. How we feel about ourselves is more important that actually learning anything. There are many positive things to learn from the African notion of “ubuntu” — that principle of not trying to outdo each other. But it is not rightly applicable to education where the goal should be attaining to knowledge, not feeling good about yourself. If you learn more than your neighbor, that should never be seen as somehow demeaning them. We are not entirely “equal,” therefore outcomes will never be the same.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, what about the teachers whose students actually do well on the Algebra exam? The city has this data because they have been testing us for 4 or 5 years and collecting the data. I have asked repeatedly to visit one of those classes and there is no response.

You have to assume that those teachers are not doing it the “right” way. But they can’t get rid of them or force them to do differently because of their results. But those results destroy the credibility of the latest-and-greatest from the “brain trust” so they are hidden.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have heard administrators dismiss those that do well as simply "teaching to the test". When asked for clarification as to what that means we have been told that it means "the kids do well on the exam but didn't actually learn the material".

What a bunch of malarkey. I guess that it is possible that one teacher in a hundred (thousand??) could get kids who didn’t really learn the material to manage to memorize enough to do well on the test. But if they can memorize that much, they have the ability to have actually learned the material.

Seems to me that “teaching to the test” should only be a complaint if there is a gap between what the test should cover and what it actually covers. In other words, leaving out some of the full curriculum to focus only on the parts covered. The problem with that complaint is that just learning how to feel good about doing 2nd grade math doesn’t stack up to the test at all. It is abject failure. So at least teaching to the test is probably something like 80–90% down the road to teaching the whole thing, while teaching 2nd grade math is only about 10–20% there (being generous).


In reference to charter schools:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But look behind the curtain and you see a fuller picture. There was no art, drama, or gym. His PE class consisted of walking around the block. Teachers are new teachers, usually without a Master's degree. I would drop him off on my way to school and all the teachers were there. Then when the day was over I'd pick him up on the way home from school, all the teachers were still there. So it was obvious to me the teachers had a significantly longer day. They are paid less, they have less training, and they try to compensate by putting in longer hours. So it is "work harder, not smarter."

Interesting observations.

Concerning lack of non-core curriculum, I would agree overall. But at the same time, is it the job of the school to accomplish everything in the life of a school-age child? Things that are a matter of education in some manner — including various arts — reasonably should have some inclusion, though not mandatory beyond some requirements for a certain level of electives after elementary school. I am always torn on the idea that gym/PE should be required after elementary school. In elementary school it also serves some level of social training. But after that, almost all PE can be replaced by certain other electives, including band or orchestra, neither of which really substitute for physical activity requirements other than to the extent of marching band activities for part of the year. I understand the arguments that our increasingly obese society could become more so without those activities and am not set that it should simply be abandoned.

But the emphasis on core curriculum is actually worthy of praise. That they focus on learning what is needed is to be commended.

As for the statements concerning the qualifications of the teaching staff and work they have to put in, it is always a concern. But at the same time, most teachers in the US still begin with only bachelors degrees. And they are all first-year teachers at some point. The policies that will drive those teachers to public schools could be seen as self-defeating for both the charter schools and the teachers. The charter schools will never have a truly tenured staff, and the ones that leave will be forced into systems where they are treated better, but effectively dissuaded from using the best methods of teaching.

What I have begun to see as the problem in the public schools is that there is too much emphasis on feeling good about yourself and not on learning.

But one statement you made (not quoted) is that there is a tendency for the charter schools to weed out the poorer-performing students.

Last, some local observations:

In the small city in which I live in the middle of the DFW area, the school district is exemplary. It is a more expensive area to live (overall) therefore more elite. But it does include some lower-income areas and even one trailer park. But even from those populations, the kids are prone to seriousness in their learning. My daughter-in-law has now worked in this district for one year and it has caused her to rethink working on becoming an actuary. The frustrations at her previous district have been erased in just one year. Previously she spent much time trying to contact parents who didn’t really care that their children were failing, or not even coming to class. Now it is no more. The implication is that the nature of the household is often an issue in learning that the schools cannot easily overcome, if at all. There will always be an exemplary kid who grasps their need and will rise above their circumstances regardless of their otherwise innate abilities. But it is not common. Rather, kids with underlying abilities never see them because they refuse to try. They just want to graduate with the bare minimum (or less), and their parents think that a high school diploma is in the Bill of Rights.

And it seems that the intelligentsia that should be coming up with a solution don't even address it. Seems that dumbing-down the curriculum is a better answer.

From my observations, there are many problems. And they are not the same in all places. But some are becoming universal. Mainly the tendency toward making social goals primary over learning goals. This is not just in education.

For example, multiculturalism is being taught as a cure for everything. I do not think that intentionally including or excluding anyone, or thinking anyone is automatically more or less than others is right or meaningful. But the makeup of the team is not the solution. Whether everyone feels good about themselves is not evidence of a solution. In education, if there is no actual impact on learning, it is not really helpful. Same in business.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

From my observations, there are many problems. And they are not the same in all places. But some are becoming universal. Mainly the tendency toward making social goals primary over learning goals. This is not just in education.

I fear one of my main points was not clear enough based on your response. I am very familiar with all the various issues you have raised as also your children apparently are as well. But one key point is that an entire country, Poland, has gone from worst to one of the best education systems in the world simply by requiring teachers to be of the highest caliber. My understanding of this would be something similar to anyone wanting to become a teacher to get a bare minimum of 1200 on the SAT (I'm still the old version of a two part test). That would be the top 30% of US students which is similar to what Finland and Poland do. That one change is all they did to make their education systems elite. They don't spend more money because while they spend more on teacher salaries they spend less on technology.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I fear one of my main points was not clear enough based on your response. I am very familiar with all the various issues you have raised as also your children apparently are as well. But one key point is that an entire country, Poland, has gone from worst to one of the best education systems in the world simply by requiring teachers to be of the highest caliber. My understanding of this would be something similar to anyone wanting to become a teacher to get a bare minimum of 1200 on the SAT (I'm still the old version of a two part test). That would be the top 30% of US students which is similar to what Finland and Poland do. That one change is all they did to make their education systems elite. They don't spend more money because while they spend more on teacher salaries they spend less on technology.

I will say that you manage to write so much that finding a specific point is often a daunting task, especially for someone who doesn't spend a lot of time here. For all the complaints about my long posts in the past, you have claimed the lead in that area. You may break it into two or more posts, but each is fairly long and can hardly be seen independently of each other. Without a map, it gets hard to follow.

But you are right. Better qualified teachers a very important thing.

But when you are teaching in an environment in which the child is indirectly taught from before school age that it really isn't worth much, even the best teachers cannot fix that in too many cases. It is not just a recent happening.

In the DISD (Dallas), back in the 60s they built a school to provide training beyond standard classroom curriculum so that those not intending to work in white collar jobs, or sciences, etc., could leave high school with skills that the workplace was seeking. Immediately, the leaders of the minorities rose up and insisted that the people refuse to have anything to do with it. To let the trades part of the school "rot." And it did. I was in classes with the son of that school's principal in the early 70s. The family could not eat dinner together because he was so overwhelmed by the academic and discipline problems that his conversation was not welcome. It was stabbings, rapes, and so on. So you can imagine that the learning environment was close to zero. I'm sure that there are some academic stars to come out of that school. And great teachers were very important in that. But the ability for those who were less than hyper-diligent to learn much was near zero. Getting rid of sub-par teachers and filling those positions with highly qualified and motivated teachers will not correct everything. Neither will returning the focus to meaningful education. (Of course that would make the schools where there are more diligent students even better. But that just makes the plight of the other schools seem more severe — as well it should.)

I agree that paying teachers more is important. There will be few masters degrees (or other relevant training, credentialing, etc.) at current pay rates. And much of the money could come from reducing the overburden of administrators and limiting technology to what really makes an impact.

And maybe spending less on sports. When the highest-paid teachers are too often the football and other coaches, what do we think school is for??

I agree that your point is important. But at present there seems to be an underlying failure to define the purpose and goals of teaching. Prestige generally comes almost entirely from non-academic endeavors, like sports. While I have a problem with many universities' over-emphasis on "publishing," at least it shows a desire for prominence in academic fields, even if it doesn't always translate into good teaching and education in those fields.

For standard K – 12 education, when everyone gets an award, and everyone passes, unless there is some statistical anomaly in the school's population, there is something seriously amiss. The country was founded on the right to pursue happiness, not the right to be happy. Translated into modern thinking, we have the right to pursue an education, but not the right to become educated or have the outward evidences of having become educated. Just the right to pursue it. (And at some point, the right to pursue it also ends.)

There is a problem with the fundamental position of the intrinsic worth of every person when set up against the fact that we are not all "equal" in every way. There surely needs to be better dialog on how those two notions meet. It is not in the arrogant claims that some people are "stupid." Rather, it is in the discovery that we are not entirely equal, but there is still intrinsic worth in what each can attain, not matter how much or how little.

I used to point to college football recruitment policies as a big problem for those who could play great football but couldn't really qualify for the university. They go through 4 years of college, often receiving some kind of degree. But if they don't get drafted by a professional football team, they would have been better off taking trades a Pinkston High School in Dallas and getting a job they actually have the true education for.

So in what way have education policies and goals moved the same kind of problems down the chain into K – 12 education? Those in middle school don't know basic arithmetic, so cannot learn enough to be ready for algebra. So why did they get past some elementary school grade without at least basic knowledge of the math taught there?

It is seriously systemic. I'm sure that better teachers will help. But I can't help but wonder if that is all that is needed. At the high school level the best teachers seem to be operating at odds with the administrators over them. Those who are less successful are toeing the line and the results are evident. Is it just as likely that it is the edicts of those who do not teach who are impacting elementary education in a negative way? No amount of pay can overcome a system that forces bad strategies on those who actually teach. Without those strategies, even the lesser among the teachers may have better results.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is seriously systemic. I'm sure that better teachers will help. But I can't help but wonder if that is all that is needed.

I teach in the prototypical inner city school in Brooklyn (lots of stabbings, etc). They have broken the school up into 4 schools in the same building. The absolutely lowest performing school in Earth Science #68 out of 68 is in our building. The other 4 schools score in the bottom 1/3 of Brooklyn schools. My kids score in the top 7% of all NYC schools. They compete favorably with Stuyvesant, Bronx HS of Science, Brooklyn Tech, (considered some of the best HS in the US). When you include improvement into the equation (compare their Earth Science score with their Living Environment score the year before) they are in the top 3%. If you also include the % of kids taking the exam (blocking kids from taking the exam will boost your mean average) then we are #1 out of 410 schools.

We didn't have computers and we rarely give HW (25% of my kids are homeless, they can't take books home so giving them HW assignments they can't do is biased against them).

So I am giving you my testimony, the problem can be solved simply by having better qualified teachers. You don't have to increase the budget, just cut the budget for technology and increase the budget for salaries.

[ZNPaaneah]

U.S.
Testing Craze Is Fading in U.S. Schools. Good. Here’s What’s Next.
Bloomberg Andrea Gabor,Bloomberg 12 hours ago

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- America’s decades-long infatuation with standardized testing is finally waning, and for good reasons. Despite years of training students to do better on tests, the performance of 17-year-olds on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, also known as the nation’s report card, has flatlined. At the same time, the focus on testing produced unintended consequences, including inattention to important educational priorities and growing teacher shortages.

There has to be a target, a goal to aim for. There has to be a way to measure success. How do we know our students have learned.

The SAT has tremendous amount of evidence to prove that this single test is the best predictor of student achievement and performance in college. Combined with HS GPA it is a very good predictor. Because the SAT is so important people do try to game the system (as in the recent SAT scandal). HS GPA is also easy to game, now that schools are being judged based on kids getting into college there is pressure to be more lenient on grading.

What we are seeing is entire school systems throwing in the towel. You hire substandard teachers, they know nothing about using data but are told to use the data, without any proper training they fail miserably. Even people who are paid to train teachers in the use of data have no training and have no idea how to do it.

The solution is simple and it is proven. It has been done in Finland, it has been done in Poland, it has been done in Vietnam. Different cultures, different backgrounds, same simple solution. And guess what, the solution is not going to cost taxpayers any money. Solution is get much better qualified teachers. You may have to pay more in salaries to do that, but you can cut back on your budget for technological gadgets, Software companies, Testing companies, etc. The public school system is like a big giant cow. The milk the cow is giving is very poor. But if you look at the cow it is covered in parasites.