After a few generations of not taking any math, administrators won't be able to figure out why not taking math increased their average scores in the first place. At that point, they'll re-institute a math program, probably cutting out history, since that's over and done with.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday August 11 2007, @02:27AM (#20193421)
In *general* (not in *all* cases but in the majority of them) people tend to do whatever they have been given incentive to do. When you judge the success of a school by how many A's they give to their own students, you have given them just as much incentive to exercise statistical manipulation and practice grade inflation as you have to provide an education.
I believe that the people who test students, and the people who educate students, should be different people. The educators should not be able to rate their own success by giving whatever grades they please to their own students. Instead, the public school should only provide the education. Then, at the end of the year, the students are sent off to take some standardized tests which are graded by people who do not work for the school board, and who focus primarily on objective criteria.
Since the educators will no longer be able to determine the grades, and since the grades will still be used as a determination of the success of the educators, they now have to focus their efforts on the providence of a good education (rather than the grade inflation and what have you).
I think it would help. It would create its own set of problems (schools trying to expel special-needs students rather than help them, for example), so it is not a perfect solution. But I do think it would help.
Evidently, they've already cut out critical thinking considering that high school grades are only a small part of what universities look at when considering a student, at least in the US. Standardized tests such as the SAT play a far more important role. Get a 1600 on the SAT and it doesn't matter what your grades were, you have your pick of the colleges.
Actually, high school grades are a better predictor for college grades than SAT scores. And most colleges know this. SATs are only a big deal for folks selling SAT prep courses and TV shows that can't come up with anything more original than another 'JR's worried about his SATs' episode.
Someone with a perfect SAT score (which would actually be 2400 now adays, not 1600) and bad grades is likely a smart, lazy high school student who will become a smart, lazy college student. Been there, done that, have t-shirts from several fine institutions of higher learning.
It would make a little more sense if this was college when you have an idea what you want to do with your life and realize it doesn't make sense to take calculus to finish out an art/language major. But really, a student that is not interested in going into the sciences is unlikely to use calculus or higher mathematics much, but that doesn't mean they should drop it just to boost their GPA.
The mistake you're making is looking at this from the perspective of the student. They're not talking about boosting the students, they're talking about boosting the school's ratings. I don't have the full story on Australian/UK educational policy, but the climate sounds like the US's "No Child Left Behind Act" policy, which diverts teaching resources away from actual teaching and focuses on teaching students to perform well on yearly standardized tests.
The net result is overwhelmingly bad. Just as the article describes, by attempting to make your kids appear better statistically, you make them less educated in actuality.
NCLB does not divert resources away from teaching. It influences what is taught. If one happens to think the standardized tests actually test what we want students to learn, then this is a good thing. If one happens to think the standardized tests fail to measure what we want students to learn, then it's a bad thing.
In either case, however, the solution is to make sure the tests are measuring the right things. There are a lot of people who feel the tests aren't doing that - so let's fix the tests.
What we should NOT do is abandon the whole premise of measuring progress just because the tests could be better. (I'm not saying you did or did not advocate this. But a lot of anti-NCLB folks do just that). The only real way to know where a school needs improvement, and whether attempts at improvement are actually working, is to get some sort of empirical evidence, which pretty much boils down to testing.
What we should NOT do is abandon the whole premise of measuring progress just because the tests could be better.
Measuring is good. The issue is what you do with the measurements. If they're out of parameter then they should be investigated; there may be good reason, in which perhaps you refine the tests to take that reason into account, or there may not be, in which case you intervene. I don't know about the NCLB situation, but all too often here in the UK the measurement is tied automatically to the measurement, with nobody actually looking at why the measurement is the way it is: management is replaced with administration; it's cheaper and you can always blame somebody else. And the results are disastrous, because the measurements end up rewarding people who are good at manipulating the measurements, and penalising those who focus on the job. Anybody who looks can see it happening, but those who set the targets choose not to look, and the whole performance indicator tied to reward/punishment system doesn't have anybody whose job it is to look.
I disagree. Teaching a student so that they perform well in a test and teaching a student so they will eventually perform well in college and life are very different things. I have heard reports of colleges who complain that students are increasingly ill-prepared in terms of reasoning, thinking, researching, and persuasive writing, because these things are hard to test in the standardized testing environment. From what I have heard first-hand from people in teaching credential programs, many kids in charter schools are barely being taught to write. They are being taught to take standardized tests.
I don't mean "Teach this fact, which will be on the test, and not this other fact." I mean teaching only to parrot facts without achieving a depth of understanding. Teaching to bubble in responses rather than write a clear and convincing argument or extracting knowledge from a book unaided.
I know there are a lot of holes in that. I don't have time to really back up my position. However, if you want empirical evidence, testing is not the only way to get it. Testing is just pretty cheap and fast. A far more effective way to get a real sense of the problems in schools would just be to send actually human beings to them to write reports, but it would be very costly and subject to variance and human eccentricity. In fact, I think that our aversion to any type of evidence that doesn't fit in a spreadsheet is part of the problem.
"NCLB does not divert resources away from teaching. It influences what is taught." --Wrong.
"In either case, however, the solution is to make sure the tests are measuring the right things. There are a lot of people who feel the tests aren't doing that - so let's fix the tests."
Let me give you some real world perspective. In 2005 I worked for an after-school tutoring company, in Las Vegas. We would tutor high school kids in basic math and English, so that they could pass the state proficiency tests. This was not to boost a school's ratings. This was because just about half of the high school students in Las Vegas were flunking the math portion of those standardized tests. Were the tests too difficult? No. These students could not do math involving fractions. These students could not do math involving decimals. Some of these students could not do math involving division. These were 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th graders. There was no predominant racial bias to the spread of students. I know that these students could not do these things, because I had to tutor them 2 to 3 times a week for between one to two hours a session. I would tutor up to 5 students per session, and it was a full time (40 hour work week) job.
Do you know what No Child Left Behind means? It means that regardless of whether or not the student can do the work they get promoted to the next grade with their classmates. It also means that at graduation time, if they cannot pass the standardized tests, they are out of school without a diploma. If you find that you cannot believe this, then educate yourself. I was one of the people that had to take a 12th grader who obviously would have been held back much earlier because he did not know algebra, geometry, trigonometry, or even basic fractions, and teach him all of these things so he could actually graduate with a diploma.
The tests don't need to be fixed. The students need to stay in those classes until they learn the information that the tests are testing for.
Having worked in a school district when NCLB was instituted, I can tell you that it does, indeed, divert resources from teaching.
NCLB requires use of standard tests, which cost a lot of money to administer. In Oregon, those tests are done by computer, and the systems required upgrades to the computer systems and computers. In fact, several schools in the district created computer labs that were only to be used for testing and not for instruction. In addition, new administrative staff have to be hired to handle the workload of ensuring compliance.
In a rural school district with limited resources, the money for all this testing and equipment has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is usually the budget for optional programs, laying off teachers, skimping on resources such as needed new textbooks, and building enhancements.
This is why many school districts claim the NCLB requirements are an unfunded mandate. They have been required by the federal government do to these things yet were not given funds to do it.
On top of that, the testing regime takes about a week of class time out of the year.
So basically NCLB is a big win for companies who sell and administer standard tests. Everyone else pretty much gets screwed. Schools have less money, students get less education, and the country gets dumber.
If you really want to help the US education system, do the following: * ban sodas and candy and fastfood * expand the free lunch program to every kid and include breakfast - hungry kids can't learn - and there are too many of them * go to year-round schooling with longer non-summer seasonal breaks * make physical education mandatory at every grade level - they need breaks and exercise * allow merit-based pay/bonuses for teachers who do a good job (using a variety of metrics) * lower class sizes - a teacher can't manage 38 kids AND teach them * lower the administrative burden on schools so they can hire more teachers and fewer administrators
Indeed. The NCLB folks need to realize that if you only teach what the least capable students can learn, the class will only be taught what the least capable student can learn.
I'd give you +1 insightful moderation points if I had any.
The best teachers we had were those that had the entire syllabus on glossy workcards (glossy to stop them getting all torn and smudged). In that way every student could more or less work at their own speed. If anyone missed or fell behind a lesson for any reason, they could quickly catch up by working at home. The worst teachers were the ones that made everyone work in lock-step from the blackboard - mainly wordy subjects like history.
The best books were the Lett's study guides for A-levels. They had the entire syllabus for every exam board listed on the front pages, along with each module in a separate chapter. Combined with past exam paper questions, anyone who wished to learn a subject could simply work from home in this way.
Math still has its place. If you want to go to graduate school in humanities, then you may still need some advanced math. In particular, many students from medicine, political science, humanities, and the arts, do advanced multi-variate statistical studies as part of their post-graduate studies. Understanding the tools used in these advanced statistical studies typically requires first or second year statistics skills. If you want your Master's degree, you need your undergraduate math.
As such, a significant number of undergraduate degrees require "Math for Humanities" or "Statistics for Non-stats Major" courses. It is a good idea to keep math throughout high school. It gives you many more options when you reach university.
Math still has its place. If you want to go to graduate school in humanities, then you may still need some advanced math. In particular, many students from medicine, political science, humanities, and the arts, do advanced multi-variate statistical studies as part of their post-graduate studies.
As an example, I'm doing an English language degree for fun (already having degrees in Electronics and Computing, for my career). One aspect of my (undergraduate) course is corpus linguistics, which involves multivariate statistical analysis. Another area is trend analysis in type-token ratios to identify critical points in texts. I've rather enjoyed seeing how maths applies to linguistics (and my tutors are bewildered by how quickly I can whip up a Python script to do some esoteric analysis:-)
That might be true, but why doesn't the "well rounded education" argument ever come up when math and hard science classes are in jeopardy?
There's no shortage of people willing to defend the liberal arts because a well rounded education is so necessary to being a good person, but they're strangely silent when attendence in technical courses is dropping.
You would absolutely love having a background in EE.
It makes the difference between shopping for a CD player and saying, "Oh, so they put fun inside" and "it's still going to be limited by the sensitivity of the DAC, so I don't need to pay extra for the oversampling."
Man, I loved physics, and, once I could see the problem in diagram or demonstration, I was able to get the math part of it. Then I got to college and took basic Algebra 101. Failed it twice. Finally, third time, had a teacher who taught it a different way and I was able to pass it. A few years later, working as a mechanic, figuring cylinder chamber pressures and such, I was using it again. Am one of those people you have to draw a diagram for.
True education has been replaced by the ersatz education of testing and scoring, which is one big, complex game which has little to do with the true advancement of knowledge.
It helps to think about this in economic terms (by the way, feel free to shoot me down here, I'm not that good with economics). With fewer new schools being built and more students wanting to go to college because it is increasingly a factor in one's success, there is a lot of competition to get into college. One would think that more competition would result in brighter kids in college overall. However, colleges are increasingly complaining that incoming freshmen are not prepared for work at the college level.
However, we do not select freshmen based on factors which will lead them to success in college, such as reasoning, curiosity, or perseverance. We select them mostly based on grades and test scores. The tests test the student's ability to solve brain teasers. They are easily subverted, and there are myriad non-cheating ways to game the system in order to inflate your score. Also, classes are increasingly being taught to the tests, because that's what the parents want.
Therefore, there is increased competition, but due to highly imperfect information on the part of the colleges about which kids will perform best, they make worse choices as to who gets in. Furthermore, because the kids are less prepared, and there's nothing to do about it, they must make the courses more remedial. And then, everyone in the educational system gets stupider.
Well, in my high school (a couple decades ago now), they went past ignoring the problem. In my sophomore year, I decided that math was interesting, so in the first month, I read through the entire textbook. Then I started borrowing books from the math teachers. By the end of the year, I'd made it through their college calculus books.
Their response? They finally woke up to what I was up to, and let me know that they wouldn't be loaning me any more math books. I was supposed to learn it in classes, not on my own time. They were all in agreement, and I didn't get another math textbook from them.
However, I did have some good friends at a nearby college. I borrowed math books from them. The high-school teachers didn't learn about it until the next year, when I didn't enrole in any more math classes, and explained why.
What was especially bizarre was that when I finally graduated and went off to college, I passed all their entrance math tests and got the most "advanced placement" that they gave bright students: They let me enroll in second-year calculus. I knew the subject better than the instructor did, which didn't exactly endear me with the instructor. But "That's the rules", and there were no exceptions; I had to have that class to be allowed into more advanced classes.
(Note that I've carefully said nothing that would identify the schools. This is intentional, so you might suspect that it might be schools in your area.;-)
I read that same article earlier today. Did you notice the part where Germany and several other countries dropped out too? And the price tag? We could throw that money somewhere else, maybe...hire a few more math and science teachers?
In my high school (it was a Georgia public school), you had to have skipped 6th grade math to get to super-basic (no AP) calculus in high school. Otherwise, you topped out at trig. On top of that, trig was optional even for what they called "college prep" diplomas. Guess how many people were in that class. That was going on 15 years ago, though.
This is what you get when schools do what it takes to look good. While they are too blame, the blame also lies on governments and parents who are looking for schools which turn out the most graduates.
Ideally a rating system should be based on the "quality" of those grades. What I mean by this is that the maths levels would be broken down into categories from easy to advanced. A school should be given higher marks if they manage to turn out a few good maths students as opposed to many low level maths students. I am not sure how this could be made to work in reality though.
I taught 8th grade science, and we were always encouraging students to take as much math as possible.
Unfortunately, students make short sighted decisions in 8th grade that determine whether they are on the calculus track or not. You must start on the path that leads to calculus in 8th grade or it is unlikely you can catch up by 12th grade.
We held an annual pep-rally for 7th graders encouraging them to enroll in math and science courses in 8th grade. If they don't, they are closing doors for future opportunity. Without calculus in high school, it is difficult to be accepted directly into technical/science degree programs in universities. At a minimum, some remedial college math is likely to be required. If you think you might want to be an engineer, scientist, doctor, mathematician, actuarial, astronaut, architect, etc. you should take the most advanced math offered by your school.
In fact, with few exceptions, if you want a high paying job that doesn't require graduate school, you are well served to take advanced math in high school.
That's ridiculous--the moment there's even a shadow of that problem, you weight upper-level classes with a 1.1 or so. The idea is not to punish someone for taking a harder class, after all. (High school math was probably trivial for all of us, but it isn't for everyone.) My high school weighted honors classes at 1.05 when they averaged them into your GPA, and AP classes at 1.10; a similar technique would work here.
Maybe not intentionally. But the way math courses are setup discourages many otherwise capable students from being successful in the subject. My middle school district did a poor job of coordinating math courses with the high school district. As such, I was behind by the time I reached high school and struggled the whole way.
Couple this with the ridiculous "integrated math" fad that plagued countless districts (at least in California). We barely covered trig functions, factoring, and other critical topics. (Anyone else have a thought about integrated math?) High school physical science courses did a poor job of incorporating math.
In college, I changed to a geology major that required calculus courses. Having struggled with math in high school, I had to start from intermediate algebra and work my way up. At least college math curriculums were organized in a logical and relevant fashion. It helped when the professor said, "Yeah, pay attention to this because you might have to derive the formula for centripetal acceleration in a physics course." Connections are important, especially when dealing with abstract math concepts.
My friends had similar experiences and, not wanting to blow a year taking bonehead math like me, decided not to explore their interests in astronomy, physics, chemistry, and other math-intensive subjects. It's a shame, really.
There needs to better curriculum coordination at the middle- and high-school levels so kids understand the importance of math and have a foundation that preps them for college. I understand how easy it is for a student's math foundation to get ruined. Such foundations, at least in my case, take years to build. Oh yeah, and (excessive) testing doesn't help -- but that's a whole other rant! If you want to encourage kids to take math, do a good job of setting up the courses in the first place...and tell them how important it is!
As a former mathematics teacher in Canada (Winnipeg, Manitoba if it matters) I can say that there is a worse scenario, it is not uncommon for school principals to put pressure on math teachers to give all students good grades. The logic being that since math courses are mandatory for graduation, failing a student will socially stigmatize them.
As a specific example, I personally had 3 students who did not attempt a single assignment and all of them had attendance rates below 50%. I was told by the principle that if I wanted to be hired on next year I would need to give these students an extra assignment for 'Bonus' marks so that they would pass. I refused and hence am a former math teacher.
No, you're not a former Math teacher. You're still a Math teacher, only now you're a math teacher with integrity. That's a former school. You're still a Keeper of the Flame of Knowledge. That building used to be a place where Knowledge was passed on.
Now, like me, you're probably making the money you should have made as a teacher doing something else. And, yes, our world is poorer for it.
When you are being bred to be a bunch of mindless controllable sheep?
A country of dishwashers and burger flippers dont really need an advanced education.
Eventually it will backfire of course, when the country slips into place as a 3rd world nation that cant even support itself. But until then, it keeps the ones in power, in power.
In high school, they took the me and other 49 or so kids that were taking more than 2 AP classes aside for an entire day of testing in the school library. We had snacks and were able to take breaks. They did this so that we would have a calm, cool, environment to do the best we could and thus bring the school scores up. Far from ethical, but better than denying others the same test.
Working now in education and having worked with a very large school district, I've seen a similar system practiced.
I worked in a lumber yard one summer when I was in college. I worked on the end of line that spit out two by fours cut from logs. The pallets were always of different height, but always the same width - 10 units. At the end, you had to paint the total on the side. So if it was 14 units high, you'd have 140 pieces. Me being "just a kid" wasn't trusted to paint the number. The "senior" person busted out a calculator every fucking time. To multiply a number under 20 (the max) by 10.
Math and maths both being short for mathematics. I guess it depends on whether you consider mathematics to be a science (ergo singular) or a group of sciences (ergo plural).
In general, community colleges in the US only offer two year degrees, whereas universities generally offer four year degrees. However, the courses at many community colleges are transferable, so it is very common for people to spend a year or two at a community college to save money before transferring to a university to get a four year degree. So employers in the United States will obviously care which you graduated from simply because they are different degrees. However, there is generally no distinction made between someone who spent part of the time at a community college versus someone who spent the whole time at a university.
However, you also need to keep in mind that colleges and community colleges are not synonymous in the US. In general, universities tend to be larger institutions with many areas of study (often divided into smaller units called colleges), while there are many smaller institutions called colleges that have a much narrower academic focus. These sorts of colleges usually offer four year degrees as well as advanced degrees, so they are generally comparable to universities in terms of prestige and value of the degree.
If you never learned calculus or any higher maths, how do you know that you would have never used them? Math is used for all kinds of research in history: population extrapolations, statistical correlations, dynamic modeling, hypothesis testing, etc.
You're like a blind person who has found ways to cope with what you're missing, but that doesn't mean that you wouldn't benefit from sight.
If you never learned calculus or any higher maths, how do you know that you would have never used them? Math is used for all kinds of research in history: population extrapolations, statistical correlations, dynamic modeling, hypothesis testing, etc.
This may be a red herring argument. He didn't say that he didn't use math; all he said was that he's gotten what he's needed: arithmetic and geometry ( and I would bet he also uses some statistics ). Can you think of some examples where you would need trig or calculus to understand some historical phenomenon?
Can you tell whether you understand something or not? If he's grasped every graph or math-based explanation he's needed to, and knows only arithmetic and geometry, that means that he's never needed trig or calculus.
Funny but also kinda true. Math is a gateway to Critical Thinking or Logic. The kind of accuracy and clarity you get with math isn't something that most modern governments really want to encourage in the populace. Not the math itself, but the kinds of thinking you learn by way of math. It's much easier to sway them with a convincing soundbite than to actually have to have a through and logical understanding of an issue. Factoring a polynomial teaches you break things down into clear components in a much different way than you will get if you are only ever exposed to literature,history,and civics. A well educated thinking man is going to be a politicians toughest constituent.
IMHO that's just wishful thinking. How strong are Chinese students in math? I'm one, and I consider myself quite strong mathematically, though most of my Asian peers are even more insane. Of course, I am probably *the* only critical thinker out of the bunch. It's entirely possible to create a bunch of math geniuses without risking exposure to democratic ideas.
Slightly off topic, but what I find most interesting about my Chinese peers is that they haven't been indoctrinated to worship Mao, or any such nonsense. Rather, they've been indoctrinated not to care. Most have a very mild contempt for Mao, and aren't writing rave reviews about their government, but at the same time they fail to see what the fuss is about with democracy, freedom of the press/religion, etc, having been totally trained to believe that politics simply aren't important in a proper person's life. I find it altogether much scarier than a bunch of Mao worshippers, and infinitely more depressing.
I just don't think that's the case. I took the four years of math (two of algebra, one of statistics, one of geometry). plus another in college (having deliberately chosen a major that would let me avoid as much math as possible). That's five years of math, plus the algebra class in eigth grade, which could count as a sixth year of math even though it was, obviously, not very advanced.
To this day I have absolutely no idea what a quadratic equation is beyond a vague "something to do with parabolas". I still remember the formula thanks to a silly mneumonic, and if forced I could probably still crunch through one. But that was ten years ago, and that is all I can do today.
Even then, being exposed to it every single day, I didn't understand it. I had no idea what it was used for, and I had no idea whatsoever how it worked. At all. And I still don't.
To say I -- or anyone like me who is not inclined towards math -- is "learning" it is somewhat disingenuous. I learned nothing about math in high school. I did what most non-math types did, which was memorize the formulas long enough to plug the numbers in and pass the test. I had no idea what I was doing -- just steps in a dance I was forced to go through like a trained monkey.
And today I still suck at it.
See, the reason I don't like your analogy is because, unlike math, English (or whatever your native language may be) is something you are constantly exposed to, and you will use it every single day of your life, regardless of your profession, interests, social status, etc. And because of that, it is useful to everyone, from every walk of life, in every professional or personal communication they have with anybody. Ensuring that people are better at this is a good thing for everyone, and moreover, it doesn't take much, because everyone is exposed to it all the time.
You cannot make the same argument for math. It is rarely used by anyone; only a small subset of people use it for their professions, and another small percentage find it of personal interest. But the majority of people never encounter math beyond arithmetic outside the classroom -- and because of that, they forget what they allegedly learned.
Learning English may have helped you be somewhat better at it, but then, you have plenty of opportunity for practice. Learning math won't help most people, who will never find a chance to use it, and after only a year or two away from the classroom, will have forgotten most of it.
I'm not denying that math is important -- the fact that we're talking about it using computers which require an intimate understanding of silicon semiconductor physics demonstrates that. But Joe Average didn't design the computer. But can you really, with a straight face, tell me that most people have any use for math beyond basic arithmetic?
See, the reason I don't like your analogy is because, unlike math, English (or whatever your native language may be) is something you are constantly exposed to, and you will use it every single day of your life, regardless of your profession, interests, social status, etc. And because of that, it is useful to everyone, from every walk of life, in every professional or personal communication they have with anybody. Ensuring that people are better at this is a good thing for everyone, and moreover, it doesn't take much, because everyone is exposed to it all the time.
You cannot make the same argument for math. It is rarely used by anyone; only a small subset of people use it for their professions, and another small percentage find it of personal interest. But the majority of people never encounter math beyond arithmetic outside the classroom -- and because of that, they forget what they allegedly learned.
The value of the math content in a curriculum is more than just "useful math", in the same way that composition, literature, art, science, and history courses have value far beyond the explicit content. It's true that the specific mathematical skills that are taught in high school and college math are not necessary for most people. However, the rigorous logical analysis and problem solving skills necessary in mathematics are absolutely essential to an educated person.
I've forgotten most of the specific content of my literature courses, but they were part of how I learned how to read critically. I don't remember much from my college chemistry courses, but they helped me to think scientifically. I've forgotten many of the details from my history, art, and social science courses, but along the way I learned to analyze and appreciate the world around me.
The purpose of an education is to learn to think, and mathematics is a crucial part of that process.
Teaching people to learn to think is a worthwhile endeavor. Especially in the age of Wikipedia teaching people facts is somewhat useless. I can lookup almost anything I want to know on the Internet, but I can't necessarily interpret what I've read or tell if there's any value to it. Teaching a vocational education sounds good in theory, but what happens when your job gets moved over to a cheaper country? You have been left with no skills to learn a new trade.
It'll all work out (Score:5, Funny)
Incentives (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe that the people who test students, and the people who educate students, should be different people. The educators should not be able to rate their own success by giving whatever grades they please to their own students. Instead, the public school should only provide the education. Then, at the end of the year, the students are sent off to take some standardized tests which are graded by people who do not work for the school board, and who focus primarily on objective criteria.
Since the educators will no longer be able to determine the grades, and since the grades will still be used as a determination of the success of the educators, they now have to focus their efforts on the providence of a good education (rather than the grade inflation and what have you).
I think it would help. It would create its own set of problems (schools trying to expel special-needs students rather than help them, for example), so it is not a perfect solution. But I do think it would help.
Parent
Re:It'll all work out (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, high school grades are a better predictor for college grades than SAT scores. And most colleges know this. SATs are only a big deal for folks selling SAT prep courses and TV shows that can't come up with anything more original than another 'JR's worried about his SATs' episode.
Someone with a perfect SAT score (which would actually be 2400 now adays, not 1600) and bad grades is likely a smart, lazy high school student who will become a smart, lazy college student. Been there, done that, have t-shirts from several fine institutions of higher learning.
Parent
I dropped my math course (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't this a good thing? (Score:5, Funny)
My mistake.
Re:Isn't this a good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
in college this would make some sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:5, Interesting)
The mistake you're making is looking at this from the perspective of the student. They're not talking about boosting the students, they're talking about boosting the school's ratings. I don't have the full story on Australian/UK educational policy, but the climate sounds like the US's "No Child Left Behind Act" policy, which diverts teaching resources away from actual teaching and focuses on teaching students to perform well on yearly standardized tests.
The net result is overwhelmingly bad. Just as the article describes, by attempting to make your kids appear better statistically, you make them less educated in actuality.
Parent
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:5, Insightful)
In either case, however, the solution is to make sure the tests are measuring the right things. There are a lot of people who feel the tests aren't doing that - so let's fix the tests.
What we should NOT do is abandon the whole premise of measuring progress just because the tests could be better. (I'm not saying you did or did not advocate this. But a lot of anti-NCLB folks do just that). The only real way to know where a school needs improvement, and whether attempts at improvement are actually working, is to get some sort of empirical evidence, which pretty much boils down to testing.
Parent
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree. Teaching a student so that they perform well in a test and teaching a student so they will eventually perform well in college and life are very different things. I have heard reports of colleges who complain that students are increasingly ill-prepared in terms of reasoning, thinking, researching, and persuasive writing, because these things are hard to test in the standardized testing environment. From what I have heard first-hand from people in teaching credential programs, many kids in charter schools are barely being taught to write. They are being taught to take standardized tests.
I don't mean "Teach this fact, which will be on the test, and not this other fact." I mean teaching only to parrot facts without achieving a depth of understanding. Teaching to bubble in responses rather than write a clear and convincing argument or extracting knowledge from a book unaided.
I know there are a lot of holes in that. I don't have time to really back up my position. However, if you want empirical evidence, testing is not the only way to get it. Testing is just pretty cheap and fast. A far more effective way to get a real sense of the problems in schools would just be to send actually human beings to them to write reports, but it would be very costly and subject to variance and human eccentricity. In fact, I think that our aversion to any type of evidence that doesn't fit in a spreadsheet is part of the problem.
Parent
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:5, Informative)
--Wrong.
"In either case, however, the solution is to make sure the tests are measuring the right things. There are a lot of people who feel the tests aren't doing that - so let's fix the tests."
Let me give you some real world perspective. In 2005 I worked for an after-school tutoring company, in Las Vegas. We would tutor high school kids in basic math and English, so that they could pass the state proficiency tests. This was not to boost a school's ratings. This was because just about half of the high school students in Las Vegas were flunking the math portion of those standardized tests. Were the tests too difficult? No. These students could not do math involving fractions. These students could not do math involving decimals. Some of these students could not do math involving division. These were 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th graders. There was no predominant racial bias to the spread of students. I know that these students could not do these things, because I had to tutor them 2 to 3 times a week for between one to two hours a session. I would tutor up to 5 students per session, and it was a full time (40 hour work week) job.
Do you know what No Child Left Behind means? It means that regardless of whether or not the student can do the work they get promoted to the next grade with their classmates. It also means that at graduation time, if they cannot pass the standardized tests, they are out of school without a diploma. If you find that you cannot believe this, then educate yourself. I was one of the people that had to take a 12th grader who obviously would have been held back much earlier because he did not know algebra, geometry, trigonometry, or even basic fractions, and teach him all of these things so he could actually graduate with a diploma.
The tests don't need to be fixed. The students need to stay in those classes until they learn the information that the tests are testing for.
Parent
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:5, Informative)
Having worked in a school district when NCLB was instituted, I can tell you that it does, indeed, divert resources from teaching.
NCLB requires use of standard tests, which cost a lot of money to administer. In Oregon, those tests are done by computer, and the systems required upgrades to the computer systems and computers. In fact, several schools in the district created computer labs that were only to be used for testing and not for instruction. In addition, new administrative staff have to be hired to handle the workload of ensuring compliance.
In a rural school district with limited resources, the money for all this testing and equipment has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is usually the budget for optional programs, laying off teachers, skimping on resources such as needed new textbooks, and building enhancements.
This is why many school districts claim the NCLB requirements are an unfunded mandate. They have been required by the federal government do to these things yet were not given funds to do it.
On top of that, the testing regime takes about a week of class time out of the year.
So basically NCLB is a big win for companies who sell and administer standard tests. Everyone else pretty much gets screwed. Schools have less money, students get less education, and the country gets dumber.
If you really want to help the US education system, do the following:
* ban sodas and candy and fastfood
* expand the free lunch program to every kid and include breakfast - hungry kids can't learn - and there are too many of them
* go to year-round schooling with longer non-summer seasonal breaks
* make physical education mandatory at every grade level - they need breaks and exercise
* allow merit-based pay/bonuses for teachers who do a good job (using a variety of metrics)
* lower class sizes - a teacher can't manage 38 kids AND teach them
* lower the administrative burden on schools so they can hire more teachers and fewer administrators
Parent
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:4, Insightful)
The best teachers we had were those that had the entire syllabus on glossy workcards (glossy to stop them getting all torn and smudged). In that way every student could more or less work at their own speed. If anyone missed or fell behind a lesson for any reason, they could quickly catch up by working at home. The worst teachers were the ones that made everyone work in lock-step from the blackboard - mainly wordy subjects like history.
The best books were the Lett's study guides for A-levels. They had the entire syllabus for every exam board listed on the front pages, along with each module in a separate chapter. Combined with past exam paper questions, anyone who
wished to learn a subject could simply work from home in this way.
Parent
Even in Art, Math has its place (Score:5, Insightful)
Math still has its place. If you want to go to graduate school in humanities, then you may still need some advanced math. In particular, many students from medicine, political science, humanities, and the arts, do advanced multi-variate statistical studies as part of their post-graduate studies. Understanding the tools used in these advanced statistical studies typically requires first or second year statistics skills. If you want your Master's degree, you need your undergraduate math.
As such, a significant number of undergraduate degrees require "Math for Humanities" or "Statistics for Non-stats Major" courses. It is a good idea to keep math throughout high school. It gives you many more options when you reach university.
Parent
Re:Even in Art, Math has its place (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no shortage of people willing to defend the liberal arts because a well rounded education is so necessary to being a good person, but they're strangely silent when attendence in technical courses is dropping.
Parent
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:4, Funny)
Huh? trying to square the circle, are you? Rounded you say?
(sigh) Must be a sine of the times...
"Know thyself" - Socrates.
Parent
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes the difference between shopping for a CD player and saying, "Oh, so they put fun inside" and "it's still going to be limited by the sensitivity of the DAC, so I don't need to pay extra for the oversampling."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:in college this would make some sense (Score:5, Insightful)
True education has been replaced by the ersatz education of testing and scoring, which is one big, complex game which has little to do with the true advancement of knowledge.
It helps to think about this in economic terms (by the way, feel free to shoot me down here, I'm not that good with economics). With fewer new schools being built and more students wanting to go to college because it is increasingly a factor in one's success, there is a lot of competition to get into college. One would think that more competition would result in brighter kids in college overall. However, colleges are increasingly complaining that incoming freshmen are not prepared for work at the college level.
However, we do not select freshmen based on factors which will lead them to success in college, such as reasoning, curiosity, or perseverance. We select them mostly based on grades and test scores. The tests test the student's ability to solve brain teasers. They are easily subverted, and there are myriad non-cheating ways to game the system in order to inflate your score. Also, classes are increasingly being taught to the tests, because that's what the parents want.
Therefore, there is increased competition, but due to highly imperfect information on the part of the colleges about which kids will perform best, they make worse choices as to who gets in. Furthermore, because the kids are less prepared, and there's nothing to do about it, they must make the courses more remedial. And then, everyone in the educational system gets stupider.
Parent
Shhhhhh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Shhhhhh (Score:5, Interesting)
Their response? They finally woke up to what I was up to, and let me know that they wouldn't be loaning me any more math books. I was supposed to learn it in classes, not on my own time. They were all in agreement, and I didn't get another math textbook from them.
However, I did have some good friends at a nearby college. I borrowed math books from them. The high-school teachers didn't learn about it until the next year, when I didn't enrole in any more math classes, and explained why.
What was especially bizarre was that when I finally graduated and went off to college, I passed all their entrance math tests and got the most "advanced placement" that they gave bright students: They let me enroll in second-year calculus. I knew the subject better than the instructor did, which didn't exactly endear me with the instructor. But "That's the rules", and there were no exceptions; I had to have that class to be allowed into more advanced classes.
(Note that I've carefully said nothing that would identify the schools. This is intentional, so you might suspect that it might be schools in your area.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What upper-level math courses? (Score:4, Interesting)
Worrying (Score:5, Insightful)
Ideally a rating system should be based on the "quality" of those grades. What I mean by this is that the maths levels would be broken down into categories from easy to advanced. A school should be given higher marks if they manage to turn out a few good maths students as opposed to many low level maths students. I am not sure how this could be made to work in reality though.
The obligatory... (Score:3, Funny)
I taught 8th grade science (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, students make short sighted decisions in 8th grade that determine whether they are on the calculus track or not. You must start on the path that leads to calculus in 8th grade or it is unlikely you can catch up by 12th grade.
We held an annual pep-rally for 7th graders encouraging them to enroll in math and science courses in 8th grade. If they don't, they are closing doors for future opportunity. Without calculus in high school, it is difficult to be accepted directly into technical/science degree programs in universities. At a minimum, some remedial college math is likely to be required. If you think you might want to be an engineer, scientist, doctor, mathematician, actuarial, astronaut, architect, etc. you should take the most advanced math offered by your school.
In fact, with few exceptions, if you want a high paying job that doesn't require graduate school, you are well served to take advanced math in high school.
Weight scores. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Couple this with the ridiculous "integrated math" fad that plagued countless districts (at least in California). We barely covered trig functions, factoring, and other critical topics. (Anyone else have a thought about integrated math?) High school physical science courses did a poor job of incorporating math.
In college, I changed to a geology major that required calculus courses. Having struggled with math in high school, I had to start from intermediate algebra and work my way up. At least college math curriculums were organized in a logical and relevant fashion. It helped when the professor said, "Yeah, pay attention to this because you might have to derive the formula for centripetal acceleration in a physics course." Connections are important, especially when dealing with abstract math concepts.
My friends had similar experiences and, not wanting to blow a year taking bonehead math like me, decided not to explore their interests in astronomy, physics, chemistry, and other math-intensive subjects. It's a shame, really.
There needs to better curriculum coordination at the middle- and high-school levels so kids understand the importance of math and have a foundation that preps them for college. I understand how easy it is for a student's math foundation to get ruined. Such foundations, at least in my case, take years to build. Oh yeah, and (excessive) testing doesn't help -- but that's a whole other rant! If you want to encourage kids to take math, do a good job of setting up the courses in the first place...and tell them how important it is!
Math in Canada (Score:5, Interesting)
As a specific example, I personally had 3 students who did not attempt a single assignment and all of them had attendance rates below 50%. I was told by the principle that if I wanted to be hired on next year I would need to give these students an extra assignment for 'Bonus' marks so that they would pass. I refused and hence am a former math teacher.
Re:Math in Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
who needs math (Score:4, Insightful)
A country of dishwashers and burger flippers dont really need an advanced education.
Eventually it will backfire of course, when the country slips into place as a 3rd world nation that cant even support itself. But until then, it keeps the ones in power, in power.
My Experience (Score:4, Informative)
Working now in education and having worked with a very large school district, I've seen a similar system practiced.
True story: (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Math? (Score:5, Informative)
-uso.
Parent
Re:Math? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Bath? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Math? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Adsvert too (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
How do you know? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're like a blind person who has found ways to cope with what you're missing, but that doesn't mean that you wouldn't benefit from sight.
Parent
Re:How do you know? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you tell whether you understand something or not? If he's grasped every graph or math-based explanation he's needed to, and knows only arithmetic and geometry, that means that he's never needed trig or calculus.
Parent
Re:Tinfoil (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Tinfoil (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny but also kinda true. Math is a gateway to Critical Thinking or Logic. The kind of accuracy and clarity you get with math isn't something that most modern governments really want to encourage in the populace. Not the math itself, but the kinds of thinking you learn by way of math. It's much easier to sway them with a convincing soundbite than to actually have to have a through and logical understanding of an issue. Factoring a polynomial teaches you break things down into clear components in a much different way than you will get if you are only ever exposed to literature,history,and civics. A well educated thinking man is going to be a politicians toughest constituent.
Parent
Re:Tinfoil (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO that's just wishful thinking. How strong are Chinese students in math? I'm one, and I consider myself quite strong mathematically, though most of my Asian peers are even more insane. Of course, I am probably *the* only critical thinker out of the bunch. It's entirely possible to create a bunch of math geniuses without risking exposure to democratic ideas.
Slightly off topic, but what I find most interesting about my Chinese peers is that they haven't been indoctrinated to worship Mao, or any such nonsense. Rather, they've been indoctrinated not to care. Most have a very mild contempt for Mao, and aren't writing rave reviews about their government, but at the same time they fail to see what the fuss is about with democracy, freedom of the press/religion, etc, having been totally trained to believe that politics simply aren't important in a proper person's life. I find it altogether much scarier than a bunch of Mao worshippers, and infinitely more depressing.
Parent
Re:Why is this a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why is this a bad thing? (Score:4, Interesting)
To this day I have absolutely no idea what a quadratic equation is beyond a vague "something to do with parabolas". I still remember the formula thanks to a silly mneumonic, and if forced I could probably still crunch through one. But that was ten years ago, and that is all I can do today.
Even then, being exposed to it every single day, I didn't understand it. I had no idea what it was used for, and I had no idea whatsoever how it worked. At all. And I still don't.
To say I -- or anyone like me who is not inclined towards math -- is "learning" it is somewhat disingenuous. I learned nothing about math in high school. I did what most non-math types did, which was memorize the formulas long enough to plug the numbers in and pass the test. I had no idea what I was doing -- just steps in a dance I was forced to go through like a trained monkey.
And today I still suck at it.
See, the reason I don't like your analogy is because, unlike math, English (or whatever your native language may be) is something you are constantly exposed to, and you will use it every single day of your life, regardless of your profession, interests, social status, etc. And because of that, it is useful to everyone, from every walk of life, in every professional or personal communication they have with anybody. Ensuring that people are better at this is a good thing for everyone, and moreover, it doesn't take much, because everyone is exposed to it all the time.
You cannot make the same argument for math. It is rarely used by anyone; only a small subset of people use it for their professions, and another small percentage find it of personal interest. But the majority of people never encounter math beyond arithmetic outside the classroom -- and because of that, they forget what they allegedly learned.
Learning English may have helped you be somewhat better at it, but then, you have plenty of opportunity for practice. Learning math won't help most people, who will never find a chance to use it, and after only a year or two away from the classroom, will have forgotten most of it.
I'm not denying that math is important -- the fact that we're talking about it using computers which require an intimate understanding of silicon semiconductor physics demonstrates that. But Joe Average didn't design the computer. But can you really, with a straight face, tell me that most people have any use for math beyond basic arithmetic?
Parent
Re:Why is this a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
The value of the math content in a curriculum is more than just "useful math", in the same way that composition, literature, art, science, and history courses have value far beyond the explicit content. It's true that the specific mathematical skills that are taught in high school and college math are not necessary for most people. However, the rigorous logical analysis and problem solving skills necessary in mathematics are absolutely essential to an educated person.
I've forgotten most of the specific content of my literature courses, but they were part of how I learned how to read critically. I don't remember much from my college chemistry courses, but they helped me to think scientifically. I've forgotten many of the details from my history, art, and social science courses, but along the way I learned to analyze and appreciate the world around me.
The purpose of an education is to learn to think, and mathematics is a crucial part of that process.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Teaching a vocational education sounds good in theory, but what happens when your job gets moved over to a cheaper country? You have been left with no skills to learn a new trade.
Not to mention the fact that I use a large amount