There are yield estimates. There is soil analysis on which chemical needs to be applied where ... and Agricultural is a very big GPS user ... from maping the soil to spraying the crops for the highest yield possible. And when disaster strikes, there is "insurance".

There is no "insurance" in education.

I've not seen any metrics provided by the teachers, those on the front lines of this battle. I've seen the teacher union oppose alot of metrics.

What is the objective here? Till the country can settle on the objective, they will roam aimlessly about. If we are looking to develope productive citizenship, we will have to say what that looks like?

How many Pell Grants are given out annually to those who are attending remedial classes? I mean those who just graduated High School and started College in the fall, not those who went to work and then decided to hit the books.

and best of all for investing purposes theres insurance. So if your crop doesn't grow as good as it should you get a fat check.

 

...
The role of a teacher has less to do with knowledge and testing and more to do with guidance and molding a mind into an independent free-thinking being who appreciates the importance and joy of learning, with knowledge on how to engage in the process of learning.
...

I understand why that is such a wonderful concept, and I totally agree that is is also a wonderful incentive and goal for teachers.

But practically, in the real world, encouraging personal growth is only a small part of teaching.

...
In the end, no one can truly teach another. The best we can do is inspire others to want to teach themselves...
...

Now I have to call BS on that one! If I teach someone to drive, or how to operate a 'scope, by the time I finish they have been "truly taught" and will have functional competence. In other words "one had truly taught another".

I'm not belittling that wonderful concept of encouraging someone toward a lifelong habit of personal growth, but that is a small part of schooling (especially high schooling which is something of an emphasis here).

It is vitally important that the student is "taught" to be competent in basic real world measurable skills like reading and writing, basic math, and some others like decision making and financial skills. All those things can be taught as specific skills and judged in performance by testing.

I find it horrific that you might be saying it's perfectly OK for a teacher to pump out a heap of high school *graduates* that can't read and write and add up, but that's perfectly ok because they now "have a love of learning".

I'm glad you are not a driving instructor.

 

I'm glad you are not a driving instructor.

I can't think of one thing my driving instructor taught me that I can use when I will drive to work today. I learned how to drive from a number of things. First, I watched my parents nearly every day as a normal part of living. Then I learned the rules of the road by studying on my own from a book, which enabled me to pass the written exam. Then I drove for 6 hours with an instructor who's job it was to just review the basics and monitor me and give some guidance to me as I learn by doing.

After the 6 hours of teaching from the driving instructor, I took and passed the road test. Now how good of a driver was I on that day? I would say not very good at all because I had no experience. I had not yet truly taught myself how to drive well.

When I drive to work today, I will be drawing exclusively on my over 30 years of experience in driving, and not on what my driving insructor taught me at all.

 

I find it horrific that you might be saying it's perfectly OK for a teacher to pump out a heap of high school *graduates* that can't read and write and add up, but that's perfectly ok because they now "have a love of learning".

)

You really think that's what I'm saying?

 

accurate?

 

...
When I drive to work today, I will be drawing exclusively on my over 30 years of experience in driving, and not on what my driving insructor taught me at all.

While that may be entirely relevant for you (and likely for me too ), it's not relevant to my point about schooling in general. Many, if not the majority, of young people going to driving school are NOT competant drivers and need specific teaching and testing to ensure competance before being let loose on the roads.

...
You really think that's what I'm saying?

I'm asking IF that is what you are saying. I know from your other posts you have a high intellect and advanced education, both of which I respect. I also respect and agree with the premise that it is very important for teachers to encourage a love of learning.

Where I disagree is your statement; "The role of a teacher has less to do with knowledge and testing" and strongly disagree with this statement;
"no one can truly teach another" as this may have SOME truth in a generalisation of learning, but in relation to the topic of high school teaching and standardised testing then it is actually the JOB of teachers to not only "teach another" but to apply testing to ensure that another has been properly "taught" when the process is completed.

As an example in the 1970's a teacher would "teach the knowlege" of the times tables, and students made to memorise the times tables and be tested on them. The result was the teaching of a specific real world skill enabling the students a level of competence in basic mental arithmetic. If the teacher had instead taught a "love of learning" how well would the 10 year olds have performed on their math test, and how well could they add up their grocery bill?

Teching and testing specific knowlege is vitally important and seems counter to your statement; "The role of a teacher has less to do with knowledge and testing and more to do with guidance and molding a mind into an independent free-thinking being who appreciates the importance and joy of learning."

 

I'm asking IF that is what you are saying.

OK, for the record, of course that is not what I'm saying.

And, of course I understand and agree with what you are (at the core) saying.

Clearly my wording uses a lot of poetic license. Literally, teachers teach and students have been taught when the teacher has taught. The teacher has taught well if the student has actually learned something too. I wasn't being literal. I could explain further, but it is not important enough to distract the thread with my personal experiences. What applies to me probably does not apply well to the masses anyway.

 

I've seen people who couldn't make change ... or do other "requisite" math skills involving money.

The "rote" method certainly works for some things. But then, I attended a parochial school for my first nine years of education. The same could be said for small "country schools", those in the rural areas. When they were incorporated into the "city schools", the country school kids outperformed the city school kids. Make one wonder ... why?

Do you remember when Radio Shack's advertising stated "You got questions ... We got answers." Well, the next time I walked into a RS and the salesperson stated that, I asked ... "What's the square root of 2?" I got the "deer in the headlights" look.

If teaching to the requisite objectives is "teaching the test", I'd say go for it. The spark of learning has many facets. As a middle schooler, I'd walk about 10 miles up river to the musuem where DuPont made gun power for the Revolutionary War. I was studying American History at the time. I visited where the Swedes landed in the "new world" at Fort Christina.

We can't complain about people being unemployable without discussing what KSA's (Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes ... correlating to Bloom's Taxomony) are required. Yes, even unskilled labor has KSAs.

 

We are back to to teaching the test,that all you hear from parents,the kids don't

care as long as they keep moving thru the system. Get that college loan that gets

them away from home,and given a cap and gown.

 

Thanks,Joe...Loose Change laying around for higher learning.

 

OK, for the record, of course that is not what I'm saying. ... I wasn't being literal.
...

Thank you for the clarification, I took your words as being fairly literal so the misunderstanding was on my part.

We are back to to teaching the test,that all you hear from parents,the kids don't care as long as they keep moving thru the system.
...

Does it matter how much high school kids "care"? My point is that IF the test measures actual competance, and the students have been taught enough to pass the test, then they can do the work and it is a 100% success.

Students that "care" can go onto higher education and put in as much work as they choose learning the specifics required, probably in line with what SteveB hinted at that in higher education students are not so much "taught" but are required to learn by their own efforts.

I've seen people who couldn't make change ... or do other "requisite" math skills involving money.
...

That's exactly my point! All those people that can't "make change" are probably high school graduates that *passed* more complex math subjects like algebra and trigonometry.

I would prefer it if they had been taught (and really tested well) and achieved good competence in the real world math tasks like making change, working out credit card interest etc.

Any of them that need to calculate the area of a triangle etc can learn those skills as part of their specialised career training later, and let's face it they will probably just look it up on the internet anyway.

 

Teaching the the test questions, I disagree.... what happen to the Gettysburg

that prepared me for greater things In life. Standing before the class like a

toastmaster ( ask Mr.Chips on that one )...I did that....learned the whole thing.

Was that a different Loosewire.....WOW........Loosewire,wm

 

Teaching the the test questions, I disagree....

In Tennessee, teachers don't have access to the actual questions that will be on the tests, but they do have specific subject matter that will be tested. In addition, they have practice tests that cover the subject matter with questions that are similar in structure and format to the actual test questions.

So, they aren't "teaching the test questions."

The problem in Tennessee is that the subject matter (called "standards") is poorly chosen, poorly defined, poorly organized, and poorly coordinated from grade to grade. The No Child Left Behind act, is a large part of this problem.

 

There's a difference between Numeracy and Mathematics. Numeracy is really the manipulation of numbers - ie - everyday maths. This is not tested as far as I'm aware.

Maths, is based upon manipulation of concepts, algebra and formulae.

To ask why people can't do everyday numeracy when they passed maths, is like asking why people can't analyse a text when they've passed English Language. :/

 

Which raises the point, why are teachers spending a huge amount of time teaching crap like algebra and trig that 90% of the population will never use for the rest of their life when they are driving trucks and serving fries, but teachers spend almost zero time teaching and testing real world "Numeracy" skills that would greatly help people practically every day of their lives?

To throw an analogy back in the mix; teaching trig theory to people who can't add up three grocery items is like teaching classic English lit to someone who doesn't know all the 26 letters in the alphabet.

 

Because unless you are going into a profession which relies upon maths, then maths (and the qualification) is a good idicator of other things.

How much maths would a lawyer need? Not much, but an A-level in maths is often a requirement to study law. Why? Because it demonstrates the canditates ability to look at a problem, search for the best solution that they know to solve it, implement it and use their method to get an answer. Also, there are many times where it proves if a canditate checks their answers make sense.

All these skills are useful in jobs which don't normally involve algebra.

Sure some people need more time on the basics, that's why math classes are split. In reality, if you could not do numeracy in primary school, then you'll probably end up doing it in secondary.

Besides, it's not like you don't do subtraction/addition/multiplication/division in algebra. :/

 

To throw an analogy back in the mix; teaching trig theory to people who can't add up three grocery items is like teaching classic English lit to someone who doesn't know all the 26 letters in the alphabet.

Believe it or not, teachers are sometimes expected to do just that, thanks to the No Child Left Behind act.

 

Back when I was in school they did have two different math courses, higher math and "shop math". The higher math was for those headed to college and shop math for those that were headed to work. Guess that we all should go to college today.

 

Guess that we all should go to college today.

That's exactly what the politically correct position is today in the USA.

 

Learning Algebra Trig, Cal, etc... Builds problems solving skills, and is actually much more important then people give it credit. I feel the people arguing that it should not be taught anymore have grown dependent on computers and the use of them. But the basic skills of each should be taught even if you forget 90% of it because it will help you in other fields. Mathmatics/Numeration are really the only constants in the universe, I think it would be terrible to not teach them.