Comment by NY_USA_Hacker | Hacker News Reader

Comment by NY_USA_Hacker | Hacker News Reader

So, once again it's 'education'. And for more detail, there are two themes: (1) Send more money. (2) It is just crucial for us to have the money so that we can do lots of really, really important things that can't be measured.

So, is the article really just about (A) important issues in education or is it just (B) partisan politics fighting over money with some of the usual techniques of politics -- some truths, half-truths, deception, distortion, emotion, etc.?

So, to pick between (A) and (B), let's see:

(a) Source. The article is in 'The Daily Kos', and I believe I've heard that this site is essentially propaganda by the more liberal wing of the Democrats and paid for at least heavily by Soros who apparently believes that US politics should be something like some of the traditions of old Central and Eastern European socialism.

(b) Subject. The article is to grab people by the heart and the gut to have them open up below the belt, this time their wallet in their hip pocket. It's a big sales pitch leading to "Send more money".

(c) Timing. At present one of the hottest political stories in the news is the fighting in several states and especially in Wisconsin trying to reduce expenditures by state governments so that the states can have balanced budgets without raising taxes and to reduce these expenditures by fighting with unionized state employees, especially the teachers' unions.

(d) Unions. Now we come full circle: The unions are heavily in the Democrat party with propaganda site 'The Daily Kos'.

So, it seems to me that article really is about (B) partisan politics and not (A) education.

Talk about propaganda, please provide any evidence that dailykos is funded by soros.

Good point that illustrates the mess of politics: The claim is common, but I have zip, zilch, zero for solid evidence. Standard situation in politics.

In politics, we don't have much. If keep only the solid information we may have nothing at all.

Sorry about the mess of politics. Maybe the Internet can make solid evidence more important.

Except that what seems to be the most biting issue for her is being forced to teach for test scores. Throwing money at that won't make the classes any more engaging. Try actually RingTFA next time.

"RingTFA" is not in my 'Webster's'.

For teaching for test scores, as in

     http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2267851

that's fine: What the tests are asking for is little enough.

That article was JUST politics, pure and simple.

For 'education', see

     http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2267851

Now you've gotten some 'education'.

Should I have spelt it "R-ing TFA"?

Are you asking me to explain what it means, or are you saying it's an invalid thing to have typed because it's not in your Webster's?

Maybe you neant I should have read the article. But I did as my posts here fully confirm.

What's this sudden big deal against "test scores" from the K-12 teachers' organizations? Looks like an excuse to get paid the big bucks without any measurable results. Some good results are difficult to measure, but the basic results are easy enough to measure and should be measured. A serious practical problem is that K-12 is not doing well even on those basic results.

For "engaging", that's mostly nonsense.

You sound like a hired propaganda spammer paid for by the AFT or the NEA.

Test scores are important: SAT, CEEB, GRE, LSAT, MCAT. Board Certification in medicine. Qualifying exams for a Ph.D. Just what is it about test scores you and our K-12 teachers do not understand?

Because learning how to pass a test doesn't mean anything other than you passed the test.

If passing the test requires some specific skill or knowledge then passing the tests demonstrates that one possesses that skill or knowledge.

Nobody's saying that tests should be abolished. There've always been tests and there always will be. The problem is putting all effort into passing tests while letting all other aspects of education go by the wayside.

How do you measure creativity? Social skills? Should they not be taught because they're difficult to test?

The tests are asking little enough.

The solution is fully at hand: Local K-12 education is run by the local school boards, and they are fully free to evaluate and respect all forms of education including creativity, social skills, 'engaged' students, etc.

If the tests are asking little enough, then why are the teachers complaining they have no time to do anything but "teach to the tests"? Aside from calling them outright liars, I mean. Maybe that's what you're doing.

And I don't think school is a place to evaluate creativity or social skills, but to give people an opportunity to develop them.

And I'm really convinced that you're not quite sure what "engaged" students is supposed to mean, especially if you think it's something to be evaluated. I've been using the word to mean something like "maintain interest". You seem to use it to mean something different every time you bring it out. Has "engaged" become one of those meaningless buzzwords since I left North America last century? Is that what you're sneering at?

You asked:

If the tests are asking little enough, then why are the teachers complaining they have no time to do anything but "teach to the tests"?

I can only guess. It may be that the issue is some politically correct goal of some 'social justice': So, if no child is to be left behind, then in some schools the poor teacher will have to spend 90% of the effort on the bottom 10% of the students, Maybe she wants to get these students 'engaged' -- that's hopeless.

For 'engaged', I gave lots of examples, but for the examples I gave I doubt that a significant fraction of K-12 teachers accomplish much of such 'engagement'.

In the end, the yelling and screaming about US K-12 education is (A) use the failure of the bottom 10% as a way to say that the system needs to do better and (B) use that need 'to do better' to spend much more on K-12 education and maybe double real estate taxes. US K-12 can do better but not by worrying much more about the bottom 10%.

Do US schools have no streaming?

When I was in school (high school, at least---which starts in Grade 9 in Ontario, no Junior High), students were streamed into classes according to their abilities at the given subject: Basic, General, Advanced, occasionally Enriched.

The teacher can't spend 90% of their time on the bottom 10% if the bottom 10% are in another class (where they get 100% of their teacher's time).

You talk as if there were never test scores to think about before. There always have been. You can take that strawman and smoke it.

"Engaging" is far, far more important than you realize. Kids who are bored will absorb less and be distracted more easily. Of course, "engaging" must be a means, not an end. A teacher's not an entertainer. What do you think the word "engaging" means, anyways? Or did you not bother to learn that one because it wasn't necessary for a test?

The problem is not the taking of tests. The problem is focusing on tests at the expense of everything else.

This discussion is so far from reality in the present it has already violated the limit on the speed of light.

We're talking nonsense.

E.g., you wrote:

"You talk as if there were never test scores to think about before. There always have been."

Nonsense. We're in full agreement here.

Instead of some false disagreement, we need to move on to something constructive.

You wrote:

"'Engaging' is far, far more important than you realize."

Nonsense. In simple terms, you can't know what I "realize". For more, of COURSE 'engaging' is important.

My father was something of an expert in educational theory and practiced it as the educational theorist for a military technical school (electronics, welding, hydraulics, mechanicals, etc.) for years with over 40,000 students at once.

His main 'guidance' of my education was that I be 'engaged', and in some subjects I really was. I was engaged enough, but where I wasn't he didn't push; he likely thought that such pushing would be pointless and may have been correct. In the end I did well in school, went "all the way". Far and away, the best things I did in school were from my being 'engaged', although that's a bit too mild.

So, what about 'engaged' in the article by the third grade teacher?

(a) No teacher in K-12 'engaged' me in anything. Not once. Ever. Where I was most engaged, in plane geometry, more fun than eating caramel popcorn, the teacher was the ugliest person I've ever met, and I slept in class and refused to admit doing any of her assigned homework. So, she would have turned off many students but did not affect my level of 'engagement' at all.

Actually, I made sure to work every non-trivial problem in the book including the more challenging ones in the back. I was fully "engaged".

I got 'engaged' for the usual reasons: A desire to achieve the security of adult competence. The content of the media that emphasized science got me 'engaged' in science.

(b) As I outlined, there's not a lot taught in K-8. Given that, a lot of being 'engaged' is not necessary to that learning. So, it's a bit empty for her to say that she got her students 'engaged' in learning the standard stuff in the third grade.

(c) More directly, if she can get her students 'engaged', then let's see the results in student accomplishments:

So, maybe she gets some student engaged in math and they rush ahead and pass the AP calculus exam at the end of the third grade. If then she wants to say that she got the student 'engaged', then I can believe her and chalk up some credit for her getting a student 'engaged'.

Maybe she plays some music for the students and then has as a class guest the first chair violinist of the local symphony orchestra. The violinist gives a concert in class with everything from 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star' to various pieces really easy to like to some dance pieces even easier to like like to various classic showpieces to some 'video backed show and tell', say, motifs from 'The Ring', with images as in, say,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7prUFflX0_E

where the climax should get much of the class 'engaged', to something really 'engaging', the D major section of the Bach 'Chaconne':

Castelnuovo-Tedesco: "The Bach 'Chaconne' is the greatest piece of music ever written."

The central D major section is the easiest to like and has the climax of the piece. The Heifetz performance of the climax is especially 'engaging'.

A violin is such a magnificent piece of 'woodworking' that it is 'engaging' just to see one for the first time. Being just close to a violin being played for some of the best music by a good violinist is really 'engaging'.

I did that once: At Christmas at the farm I retired to an upstairs bedroom for some violin practice. Soon a niece about 8 came up to watch and listen. So, sure, soon I put my violin under her left chin, stood behind her, showed her how to hold the bow, and the next day her father asked me, "How much is a violin going to cost me?". Her mother had been trying to get the girl 'engaged' in music for years with no effect. I was successful in a few minutes. Part of the reason is that it is much easier to get a child engaged in something an adult is doing instead of something they are just saying. Having a really good musician in class will get a lot of students 'engaged'.

Next day, have a good concert pianist do much the same. Sure, start with some famous pieces some students in the class may be able to play already, e.g., the Bach C major "Prelude" from 'The Well Tempered Clavier', let the student get acknowledged, maybe get a 'master class' on this piece from the guest pianist, sitting beside him on the piano bench, get status in the class, and then get the rest of the class more eager to 'follow along' and be 'engaged'. Yes, the piece is in the movie 'Samantha: An American Girl Holiday' and there played very well. Net, Hollywood knows that third grade or so girls can like that piece.

Next day, a cellist. Sure, play something really easy to like, the 'Prelude' to the Bach first unaccompanied -- easy enough to like to be used in ad music, but the ascending chromatic scale climax near the end is one of the better moments in all of music.

Next day, have a guest outlining the math for satellite orbit determination as needed by GPS. So, get students 'engaged' in math and physics.

So, some student gets really 'engaged', checks out a violin, spends about half of each day in a back storeroom practicing, and by the end of the third grade plays the D major section of the Bach 'Chaconne'.

Now I'll give her credit for getting her students 'engaged'.

Some of the students like writing. Okay, have them start some blogs, write the initial posts, moderate the other posts, and respond, i.e., have them play the role of Fred Wilson at AVC.com. The teacher will get some chances to supervise the work and help with the writing, content, handling contentious issues, computer usage, grammar and spelling. At the end of the year, finally tell the world that the blog moderators were all of eight years old!

You wrote:

"The problem is not the taking of tests. The problem is focusing on tests at the expense of everything else."

The tests are not going to cover playing the Bach 'Chaconne' and, instead, just cover the basics of third grade material. Good students with good instruction can learn enough of the grade 1-8 material in a few months. Asking that the ordinary and normal students know the third grade material by the end of the third grade is asking very little.

For the "teaching to the test", that is presented as some sin but without details about the sinfulness. Go ahead: Teach to the test. Heck, most straight A students study just for the test and just as they perceive the teacher will write it anyway.

If the test is at all well constructed, then passing the test is a quite good indication of the learning. People have known how to write good tests for decades.

As we all know, tests are a central part of education, including via the examples I gave of CEEB, SAT, GRE, LSAT, MCAT, etc.

Net, these K-12 objections to "testing" with the vague sin of "teaching to the test" look like excuses less good than the classic "My dog ate my homework.".

One way I got back at my plane geometry teacher was what I did on the state test. I got back at all those teachers with my SAT scores, especially my math SAT score.

The SAT score was correct: I had not only a lot of 'engagement' and interest in math, I had some talent as subsequent events have shown: Yes, the grand hero of mathematical economics is K. Arrow. There is a famous paper by Arrow, Hurwicz, and Uzawa. Why poor Uzawa has not gotten his Nobel prize I don't know; maybe they give at most two per paper? There was a problem stated but not solved in the paper. There was also H. Whitney, long at Harvard, of the Whitney extension theorem. So I proved a result comparable with Whitney's, assumed a little less and got a little less, used my result to solve the Arrow, et al., problem, and published.

Net, that third grade teacher should (A) have her students do well on the tests and (B) have her students get fully engaged in much more that is not on tests but quite visible as I outlined.

I'll add one more important point: However much the AFT, NEA, Department of Education, Obama, The Chosen One, Blessed Be He, want all of US K-12 run directly from DC, it is still the case that local school boards run K-12 education. Bluntly, what such a school board wants, such a school board can get. If a teacher, principal, and school really get their students and parents 'engaged', e.g., parents of third grade see their children wanting freshman college texts on math and physics, a violin, piano, or cello, are listening to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7prUFflX0_E

etc., then the school board can get 'engaged', provide what is needed for, e.g., getting a concert master into third grade classes, etc., and really go for it.

Net, that's much of just why we have local school boards.

You spat out: "So what about 'engaged' in the article by the third grade teacher?" but didn't bother to answer it.

You say you and I are in agreement; I thought I was in agreement (on that point) with the author; you imply you are in disagreement with the author. I must say, I'm confused.

As for the rest, I might be assuming that Canadian and American public school education is more similar than it actually is. Maybe what you have to say about the state of American education is less hyperbolic than I take it to be. I've lived in Japan for the last 13 years, though, and comparing the to-the-test Japanese system with its long hours of rote learning and cram schools, I definitely think the Canadian system produces better results (and the UN seems to agree). The impression left in my mind by the article was of a Canadian-like system shifting towards being more like a Japanese-like one. It may be these assumptions that have us talking at cross purposes.

Although I must assert that, while I think tests are an important gauge, "teaching to the test" is a short-term goal that, in my experience, leads to a lot of cramming and very little long-term learning. (personally, though, I never crammed---I paid attention in class, although it didn't always look like it)

Generally the Asians nearly totally fail to 'get it'. There is no chance that US (or Canadian) K-12 will go very far making the mistakes the Asians make.

That tests are fine does not mean that the Asian approach to rote learning is fine.

That some students cram for tests does not mean that tests are useless.

For being 'engaged', I gave a very long list of ways a third grade teacher might get her students engaged. So, I agree that being 'engaged' is important. But in the article the teacher was using being 'engaged' (A) in only a weak sense (my examples were much stronger) and (B) was using her weak results on 'engaged' to excuse paying less attention to good tests on the basic material.

But on being 'engaged' and actually learning well and retaining that knowledge, we've ignored the 2000 pound elephant in the room -- what the student gets at home.

Yes, the US could use some national tests of basic material during K-12: The US already has good tests at the end of K-12 (CEEB, SAT) and end of college (GRE, LSAT, GMAT). But for the rest, keep that local at the level of the family, teacher, school, and school board.

You're still bringing up the "tests are useless" thingy as if anyone has ever said anything so ridiculous. All I've seen is the criticism of teaching test-taking skills as opposed to content (and the retention thereof). I'm pretty sure that's what everyone means by "teaching to the test". I'm pretty sure nobody here (or anywhere) has argued against greater students having better comprehension and retention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com