Food For Thought. Or Thoughts To Ponder.
So, a bit of background. In TOK, we're writing ethics essays and she suggested using the topics we had done for a logic exercise. Now, for the purpose of the ethics essay, I didn't want to do the topic I used for my logic exercise - which was, in a nutshell, measuring someone's intelligence objectively. I didn't want to write an essay over it - because I knew if I did, it'd be a pointless meandering through my views on stuff like the ISTEP and No Child Left Behind, etc. Which would proceed to give me a bad grade on the essay, and with TOK, that's not something you can really afford, a bad grade.
Of course, I still felt a bit like talking about standardized testing. Then, put on top of that PL221, which is a public law in Indiana stating all schools have to have some school improvement plan, for which LN has a committee of students, teachers, administrators, parents, and even a few outside business people to discuss. And, there's a lot that they mentioned at today's meeting that really turned on the cogs in that part of the brain again, so... Yeah. If I run out of inspiration, this might end up being a REALLY crappy post.
ISTEP. PSAT. SAT. ACT. Oh, boy, don't those acronyms just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? It seems like, especially with this whole No Child Left Behind Act calling schools to improve in their GQE performances, that's all our education revolves around anymore. Passing a test. Heck, even in the so-called advanced classes, like, Advanced Placement (hmm...) revolve around... guess what? Passing a test!
Even classes you might argue transcend this, TOK in particular, still relies on assessment. Which, as far as I'm concerned, is just a fancy way to say that you're going to be tested to see what you've learned. Now, I realize that there's a big difference between the GQE and an AP. But, when you start giving people numbers, there's a slight problem with profiling and so on. Plus, you factor in test anxiety and stuff. But, I suppose, you can toss that out for the most part because extreme cases are anomolies.
But then, everyone's got a number. Like, with the ISTEP. Passing is almost arbitrarily decided every year - last year, it was 516 LA/517 Math. This year, who knows? But even so, what says that a person who got 515 is too dumb to graduate? How about someone who gets 518? How are they really that different from each other? Like, if you were to compare someone with an 800 versus someone with a 200, there's pretty obvious differences. Same with 700 vs. 300. Even 600/400. But where along these lines do the distinctions really not seem so apparent? What about people who choose not to try?
And, back to the whole education to take a test idea. As it is now, it seems the only thing important is to learn the information to pass the test - anything above that isn't necessary to live a livable life, right? My response to that is, what? Are you kidding?
I've gained some insights into what the teachers went through on the mysterious Thursday that students got off. Mainly, that a guy came over for "leadership in education" training - essentially, talking about changing technology and changing curricula. He also talked about expanding education, beyond just acquisition of knowledge into application, assimilation, and more. So, it's sort of going beyond No Child Left Behind (whaddya know? Mr. Bush's plan isn't that smart! But most people already realize this.) At any rate, before I start bashing Bush again, back on topic. The ultimate idea of the guy's message was to do a lot of interdisciplinary meshing and application. (Whoa, TOK.)
Okay, so I'm losing interest in this post. But a general overview of other places I was going to go: In the US, we focus both on academic excellence (well, occasionally) as well as academic equity. Meaning, we educate everyone. So, like, the stats that say the Chinese are so much smarter than us is probably because half of their children aren't being educated. Another topic was the idea of culture versus structure. Meaning, when you go to improve a school, instead of just putting in new programs and policies, you have to change the attitudes and stuff in the school. Just because you put in an upperclassmen tutoring freshman program doesn't mean people will take it seriously or even go to its events and stuff. Whereas, if you generate a general sense of concern between grades, that sort of thing will happen anyways. Idealized, of course.
Just stuff to ponder. You know?
Of course, I still felt a bit like talking about standardized testing. Then, put on top of that PL221, which is a public law in Indiana stating all schools have to have some school improvement plan, for which LN has a committee of students, teachers, administrators, parents, and even a few outside business people to discuss. And, there's a lot that they mentioned at today's meeting that really turned on the cogs in that part of the brain again, so... Yeah. If I run out of inspiration, this might end up being a REALLY crappy post.
ISTEP. PSAT. SAT. ACT. Oh, boy, don't those acronyms just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? It seems like, especially with this whole No Child Left Behind Act calling schools to improve in their GQE performances, that's all our education revolves around anymore. Passing a test. Heck, even in the so-called advanced classes, like, Advanced Placement (hmm...) revolve around... guess what? Passing a test!
Even classes you might argue transcend this, TOK in particular, still relies on assessment. Which, as far as I'm concerned, is just a fancy way to say that you're going to be tested to see what you've learned. Now, I realize that there's a big difference between the GQE and an AP. But, when you start giving people numbers, there's a slight problem with profiling and so on. Plus, you factor in test anxiety and stuff. But, I suppose, you can toss that out for the most part because extreme cases are anomolies.
But then, everyone's got a number. Like, with the ISTEP. Passing is almost arbitrarily decided every year - last year, it was 516 LA/517 Math. This year, who knows? But even so, what says that a person who got 515 is too dumb to graduate? How about someone who gets 518? How are they really that different from each other? Like, if you were to compare someone with an 800 versus someone with a 200, there's pretty obvious differences. Same with 700 vs. 300. Even 600/400. But where along these lines do the distinctions really not seem so apparent? What about people who choose not to try?
And, back to the whole education to take a test idea. As it is now, it seems the only thing important is to learn the information to pass the test - anything above that isn't necessary to live a livable life, right? My response to that is, what? Are you kidding?
I've gained some insights into what the teachers went through on the mysterious Thursday that students got off. Mainly, that a guy came over for "leadership in education" training - essentially, talking about changing technology and changing curricula. He also talked about expanding education, beyond just acquisition of knowledge into application, assimilation, and more. So, it's sort of going beyond No Child Left Behind (whaddya know? Mr. Bush's plan isn't that smart! But most people already realize this.) At any rate, before I start bashing Bush again, back on topic. The ultimate idea of the guy's message was to do a lot of interdisciplinary meshing and application. (Whoa, TOK.)
Okay, so I'm losing interest in this post. But a general overview of other places I was going to go: In the US, we focus both on academic excellence (well, occasionally) as well as academic equity. Meaning, we educate everyone. So, like, the stats that say the Chinese are so much smarter than us is probably because half of their children aren't being educated. Another topic was the idea of culture versus structure. Meaning, when you go to improve a school, instead of just putting in new programs and policies, you have to change the attitudes and stuff in the school. Just because you put in an upperclassmen tutoring freshman program doesn't mean people will take it seriously or even go to its events and stuff. Whereas, if you generate a general sense of concern between grades, that sort of thing will happen anyways. Idealized, of course.
Just stuff to ponder. You know?