Only 22% of California 8th Graders Pass National Science Test 580
bonch writes "22 percent of California eighth-graders passed a national science test, ranking California among the worst in the U.S. according to the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress. The test measures knowledge in Earth and space sciences, biology, and basic physics. The states that fared worse than California were Mississippi, Alabama, and a tie between the District of Columbia and Hawaii. 'Nationally, 31 percent of eighth-graders who were tested scored proficient or advanced. Both the national and state scores improved slightly over scores from two years ago, the last time the test was administered.'"
National Science Tests (Score:5, Funny)
Are known to the state of California to cause cancer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That would explain why you feel the subject is an appropriate field to place body text.
Re:National Science Tests (Score:4, Funny)
Re:National Science Tests (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder how many of those kids can pass and English test....?
Not only do you fail to make any sense in context of my post, you also fail at your own English.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how many of those kids can pass and English test....?
Not only do you fail to make any sense in context of my post, you also fail at your own English.
I'm pretty sure his point was that it is difficult to learn science if you don't speak and comprehend the language your teacher is using.
Re:National Science Tests (Score:5, Funny)
You may have a point. They certainly failed you.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the point. He passes muster, but the content is hollow.
This is nothing new. A couple of years ago the brother of a high school classmate tracked me down on one of the networking sites. His missives were in a stream of consciousness style that eschewed grammar. Reading it was like parsing "All your base are belong to us." but there was enough if it to make my head hurt.
Re:National Science Tests (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an absolutely terrible thing to say. I'm not a teacher, but i do support a better public school system. You can't automatically assume that all public schools are terrible and directly accuse teachers or board members. There are many public school in the nation which can give an amazing education, many of the best schools in the nation are public.
Re:National Science Tests (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate these kind of reports because it'll likely just force teachers to "teach the test" and not the material/reasoning/importance/usage beyond what the test requires...
Re:National Science Tests (Score:4, Insightful)
The "simple facts" are a pre-requisite for the rest. How can you whine about being unable to teach anything else but the basics when you clearly haven't even covered the basics?
Re:National Science Tests (Score:4, Insightful)
The "simple facts" are a pre-requisite for the rest.
No, they aren't. The "rest" is the logic and reasoning that makes those facts make sense, without which students lack a framework to put those facts into in an organized manner.
Re:National Science Tests (Score:4, Insightful)
The "simple facts" are a pre-requisite for the rest.
Not in the sense you're saying. I can have you memorize the most seen test dictionary words so you'll know the various definitions when they appear on your tests. Or I can teach you latin roots so you can devise the meaning of most words without having seen them before. Math and science are easier: if you have the theory of something, you can generally divine specifics as necessary. Granted, 8th grade math tests only touch upon the most basic algebra, but as long as the students have a simple understanding of equations and the most rudimentary math, they can figure things out. I'm not saying kids are going to be able to plot a bicycle jump from two unequal platforms, but they'll be able to answer: 3x+5 = 20. Solve for x.
The only place you need to truly memorize things (in the 8th grade) is history.
Re:National Science Tests (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:National Science Tests (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad private schools get better, or die.
Or reject or expel students that make them look bad.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding of how to interpret this is that:
Students whose parents are involved with their education do better in ANY kind of school (public or private). Just guessing, but I suspect the areas where students are doing better are ones with more 2-parent, single income homes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Since we're asking questions to the peanut gallery, I'm just curious: do Catholic schools in America teach evolution these days? I went to Catholic schools back in the mid-80s, (but not to high school; went to public school for that) so I wonder how they are these days. Catholics were a lot less conservative back then, and I remember the schooling being quite good, but after seeing the changes the church has gone through since then, I don't think I'd send kids there now.
Re: (Score:3)
You're in the 78%, not the 88%. At least where subtraction is concerned.
Makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
I can see states like Mississippi, Alabama doing poorly because they are run by Republicans and republicans hate spending money on kids. (Yes I just heard a guy on MSNBC say that last night.) But California is a Democrat-run state. Their students should be the best and brightest and most well-funded. Like Democrat-run Maryland. Hmmmm.
(Note: I'm being sarcastic. I think Democrats suck just as badly as Republicans. None of them know how to run anything.... not the schools, not the MVA, not the Amtrak, nor the post office.)
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, you're assuming that test competency is a good thing. That assumes the test is fair, reasonable and actually has something to do with the student's knowledge base. Given what we know about standardized tests, a bit of skepticism is in order.
That said, the bottom feeders being the states we assume to be be bottom feeders when it comes to anything other than actually eating does give one pause.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Test competency in the sciences for an 8th grader probably is a good thing. From the article:
I have trouble believing that questions like these are somehow unreasonable, unfair, or biased against black/hispanic/asian kids, or somehow socioeconomically biased. These are fairly basic science questions, and there are some fairly clear boundaries between right and wrong answers. If your kid cannot answer these questions after taking courses which are supposed to teach the answers to these questions, I think it's safe to say that there's a rather large disconnect between the educational system's goals and its outcomes.
We can argue the merits of standardized testing, and "teaching to the test" until the cows come home, but if your school system has adopted the test as a measurement criteria, and structured its curriculum around that test, and still achieves remarkably low results... something is wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
...and it's like: standardized.
You may want to bitch and moan about "teaching to the test" but it's clearly possible to prepare. I am sure all of us did it for our college boards.
Certainly for any geek household, this test is likely to be viewed as a very low bar not to be flunked for any reason.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think Democrats versus Republicans is a relevant issue. California's scores may be skewed by poor test scores in large urban areas, which the superintendent touched on in the article, and that's a hot-button issue no politician seems to be willing to tackle.
Re: (Score:3)
By disagree with stem cell research, I am referring to their moral disagreement to the research as being interpreted as an "anti-science" stance by much of the mainstream scientific community.
Birth control is related because it represents man's mastery of our own body, by regulating reproductive functions through the use of science. Many religious conservatives think it is wrong to use b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not republican or democrat... but perhaps the data really requires a more careful analysis rather than just pointing fingers to the other side.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Informative)
So, basically there isn't a nationally recognized standard for sciences, so the test is really not remotely fair.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Go get the actual results from the The Nation's Report Card web site, get the .pdf version, the on-line crap is enough to make anyone stop learning. Most of the scores appear to be about 27 points within each other...except for the District of Columbia, it appears to be a full 40 points below everyone else. I'm unsure what the point system actually means.
(A quick scan, might have missed something from the fine print show) the top score is 164, N. Dakota. The bottom of the 50 states is 137, Mississippi. The
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The Unions are the problem that stop advancement.
They are more interested in protecting their jobs, than making changes that help the students (such as firing bad teachers, or eliminating permanent employment via tenure). You can see the excellent ABC 20/20 documentary called "Stupid in America" on youtube. There's also a sequel produced for FOX which updates the older 20/20 report. And then a "part 3" sequel to the sequel.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Well the unions are made up of teachers, so obviously the problem with schools is the teachers. The solution must be to get rid of all the teachers and surely grades will improve? Unions may or may not be part of the problem, but they're hardly *the* problem. Most teachers want their students to succeed. It reflects well on them and means one of the largest choices they've ever made in their life has actual meaning.
Unions are probably part of the problem, but it's more likely to actually be the poor relationship between the school administration and the union and it generally takes two sides to feud. Of course, that relationship might be soured by a lack of resources provided to the school by the region or state.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are leaving out the fact that untill about a year ago Calironia was actually run by Republicans. With the exception of the bay area and LA, California actually votes republican (not saying Democrats are any better, just pointing out the data).
That must explain why California's electoral votes have gone Democrat for like 30+ years.
So, except for the multiple decades of a significant majority of the population who vote for Democrats, a Democrat Governer, and a Democrate-controlled Legislature, it's the Republican's fault?
Dude, did you brain wake up today?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I rest my case.
Re: (Score:3)
I rest my case.
You also don't know how to read a chart. Kerry 54%, Bush 44% - looks like a Democrat landslide to me.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:4, Informative)
You are leaving out the fact that untill about a year ago Calironia was actually run by Republicans. With the exception of the bay area and LA, California actually votes republican (not saying Democrats are any better, just pointing out the data).
Put down the crack pipe. The California state legislature has been Democrat since I can remember. The last time their electoral college went to a Republican was 1988. Schwarzenegger was the Governor, but he was far from being a right-winger and often called a RINO. Except for a small 2 year period, Democrats have controlled the State Senate for years. And LA and the Bay Area make up a majority of the POPULATION of California. Not necessarily the land area.
"Run by Republicans"? (Score:3)
Really? You mean Democratic state majorities in both legislative houses dating back to at least the Gray Davis administration were figments of my imagination? And, whew, that Arnold Schwarzenegger! What a government cutter [taxfoundation.org]!
Re: (Score:3)
Please explain how "majority" equals "two-thirds majority".
Re: (Score:3)
You are leaving out the fact that untill about a year ago Calironia was actually run by Republicans. With the exception of the bay area and LA, California actually votes republican (not saying Democrats are any better, just pointing out the data).
No. The state senate has been democrat controlled for 42 years and the state assembly for 40 of 42 years. The legislature "runs" the state, particularly in the area of education, not the governor.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:4, Informative)
California has been voting blue for years. Well at least it has been shown to be blue in all the President voting that I have seen.
You do realize that Presidential Electoral College voting is not how we select our legislature, right? The Senate and the Assembly each have over 1/3 Republicans, which means they can effectively dictate fiscal policy (it takes 2/3 vote to get anything significant done).
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a good thing.
No it is not! And I say that as a fiscally conservative Californian.
Governments have a natural bias to raise taxes and run up debts. So it is reasonable to require a super-majority to do these. But the problem in California, is that we require a super-majority just to pass a budget, even if that budget is restrained and balanced. That just leads to permanent gridlock, and since we are heading off a fiscal cliff, locking the steering wheel in place is not a good idea (hows that for a car analogy).
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, you have states like N/S Dakota, Montana, and Utah which would traditionally be classified as Red states at the top of the list....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see states like Mississippi, Alabama doing poorly because they are run by Republicans and republicans hate spending money on kids. (Yes I just heard a guy on MSNBC say that last night.) But California is a Democrat-run state. Their students should be the best and brightest and most well-funded. Like Democrat-run Maryland. Hmmmm.
(Note: I'm being sarcastic. I think Democrats suck just as badly as Republicans. None of them know how to run anything.... not the schools, not the MVA, not the Amtrak, nor the post office.)
Not only is it a statement on the fallacy of the superiority of "progressive" regimes in schooling, but in funding as well. Utah spends far, far less per pupil, and gets much better results. Success in education comes from, first and foremost, an appreciation of getting an education, and second, the willingness to work for it. You'll get better results with a single, good teacher with nothing but a piece of chalk and a chalkboard, teaching a class of eager students, then you will with any expensive computerized, state of the art classroom that's been staffed with some guy waiting for his retirement age and a class of kids that don't give a damn.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, well if it was on MSNBC then it must be true.
Re: (Score:2)
But... but... MSNBC isn't lying scum like Faux News. We can trust the MSNBC news! /sarcasm. LOL
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Makes no sense (Score:4, Informative)
That's because Fox News doesn't apologize. Instead, they go to court to argue that they can lie in their news segments. For example, they can blatantly lie about the party affiliation of a politician caught in a sex scandal, or they can lie about getting their talking points straight from the RNC.
Fox News is the official mouth piece of the RNC. Kinda like Pravda. Feel free to listen to them to find out what the RNC is thinking, but for actual news, ANY news other outlet is better.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:4, Informative)
That's because Fox News doesn't apologize
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Mississippi: 59% white
Alabama: 68% white
D.C.: 38% white
Hawaii: 24% white
Massachusetts: 80% white
Montana: 89% white
North Dakota: 90% white
Utah: 86% white
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Informative)
Some relevant data here (per pupil spending):
US average - $10499
Alabama - $8870
California - $9657
Mississippi - $8075
You'd be surprised, but California is really not spending a lot on their kids either. The places that are spending a lot:
DC - $16408
New Jersey - $16271
New York - $18126
Alaska - $15552
Vermont - $15175
Source: US Census [census.gov].
Re:Makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Informative)
You imply that spending more would help. Let's have a look at the ranks of the states you mention, and add in their rank (by average score on the science exam):
Alabama $8870 - rank 49
California $9657 - rank 47
Mississippi $8075 - rank 50
DC $16408 - rank 51 (by a *huge* margin)
New Jersey $16271 - rank 24
New York $18126 - rank 34
Alaska $15552 - rank 26
Vermont $15175 - rank 3
North Dakota and Montana, with the best results, both spend less than average amounts per pupil.
There are plenty of studies that show that throwing money at schools does not help. The single best thing you can do to improve most schools is to hire good teachers and fire bad ones. There is a strong *inverse* correlation between states with good education and states with strong teachers' unions. California is a prime example, as is New York (rank 34 on the list).
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Informative)
I call bullshit on the teacher's union correlation. In fact it is the states with the lowest scores that do not have binding collective bargaining.
Five states do not allow collective bargaining for educators, effectively prohibiting teacher unions.
Those states and their SAT/ACT rankings are as follows:
South Carolina â" 50th
North Carolina â" 49th
Georgia â" 48th
Texas â" 47th
Virginia â" 44th
http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/03/5-states-where-teachers-unions-are-illegal-have-the-lowest-test-scores-in-america/ [markcrispinmiller.com]
And in general studies show a small positive correlation.
http://shankerblog.org/?p=1941 [shankerblog.org]
Of course correlation is not causation, and in this case I really doubt it is a factor either way,
The only factor that really counts is the economic status of the parents.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine. Then don't expect my tax money to implement laws to protect you from having the rest of your money taken away from you by someone else because they want it.
Lets all devolve into a bunch of people living in armed compounds telling everyone else to fuck off. You don't get roads, you don't get electricity, you don't get laws, you don't get nothing that you can't get and keep yourself by force.
See, in your system, you want someone to help pay to enforce your rights, and you want to opt out of paying to help anybody else. Which means as long as you get what you feel you're entitled to, everyone else is on their own. Why should my taxes pay to preserve the rights of the rich?
It's not so much "society" and "civilization" as it is a collection of armed camps.
I sincerely hope you get the opportunity to experience life the way you think it should happen. I bet someone will decide you've got a pretty mouth.
All you drooling idiots who whine about the taxes being forcibly taken from you at gun point seem to conveniently forget there's a lot of those services you do make use of ... take those away, and you can have something like Somalia or the inside of a prison. Bet that would be fun.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, sir. The free-marketeers forgot entirely that their wonderful market is held together by governments which set laws decreeing how it should operate (health & safety, limited liability, tax law, inspections etc). I suspect this is why most of them want government to be for 'enforcing property rights' - i.e. 'protecting my shit, screw everybody else'.
If you want a close to home example of what free markets turn into without rules & intervention then look at your local drug-dealers. In theory y
Re:Makes no sense (Score:4, Interesting)
While I agree with you, I'm not sure it's the same.
Even if I don't have a car, roads are pretty useful things. People bring me stuff from other places in the United States on those roads. That's why I have no problem paying for roads in Idaho, even though I have no intention of using them.
Conversely, I don't really get any benefit from paying for someone else's car insurance.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. There is no benefit to you at all from living in a country with an educated population. None.
Re:Makes no sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Right. There is no benefit to you at all from living in a country with an educated population. None.
And indeed there is a downside. Being around educated people can make you feel inferior. Have you noticed how "elite" when applied to someone's knowledge or intellectual accomplishments is now a pejorative -- excuse me, I mean a bad word? Curiously it's not a bad word when applied to people who are "elite" due to their power or wealth.
Re: (Score:3)
So you don't think education is a valid societal concern? You don't think education is important public policy? You don't think the problems caused by an uneducated population far outweigh the costs of educating the population? Or is it that you do want an educated society and the benefits thereof, but simply don't want to pay your share? Either way, you are an idiot.
The sad bit? (Score:2)
The definition of insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Refer to Einstein's famous quip.
This news will undoubtedly be used as the basis for calls to shovel more money into a broken system despite decades of funding increases failing to show results, all the while modest Chinese budgets are sufficient for creating public K-12 education which outranks us.
The public schools have become a jobs program contaminated by labor politics.
We can't reward success without screaming from those who fear being held accountable for their failures.
We can't make better use of technology and automated learning because of perennial votes for make-work teaching positions.
The whole thing stinks, the public doesn't understand the system stinks, and poison politics will prevent the problems from being corrected.
Re: (Score:3)
Simple solution (Score:2)
Make the tests easier: Everybody wins!
Unsurprising (Score:2)
When so many Californians believe that their new electric meters are going to be giving them cancer ( http://stopsmartmeters.org/ [stopsmartmeters.org] ), this is comes as no surprise at all. Also, crystal healing and homeopathy.
What's the percentage for Slashdoters? Seriously. (Score:4, Interesting)
Can someone post the test here. I think it would be really interesting to see what percent of Slashdot readers can pass the test.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I'm curious on the content and how well I'd do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's the percentage for Slashdoters? Seriousl (Score:4, Informative)
Also, there's a little sample test: http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2011/sample_quest.asp [nationsreportcard.gov]
Re:What's the percentage for Slashdoters? Seriousl (Score:4, Interesting)
Virtually all of them. My kid is in 8th grade and I am familiar with the material. Not everyone here would get 100%, but passing it is well within the skills of anyone with any science background at all. Someone who couldn't pass this would have no interest in 90% of what slashdot posts and would not spend time here.
Re:What's the percentage for Slashdoters? Seriousl (Score:4, Informative)
http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2011/sample_quest.asp [nationsreportcard.gov]
all questions for grades 4,8,12 here:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrlsx/search.aspx?subject=science [ed.gov]
5/5 for me
Re: (Score:3)
If you have ADD or dyslexia read the first question CAREFULLY. Apparently I think water is HO2 -_-
Standards mean competition. (Score:2, Insightful)
Competition means pressure to achieve, and that means some people won't do as well as others.
We need school choice vouchers so some people can rescue their kids from a _permanently_ and irretrievably broken system.
(It's heresy to admit it's broken and that given the REALITY of the public DEMANDS which broke it, that it WILL NEVER be fixed.)
Vouchers would allow secularists who value education to rescue their offspring from the mediocrity of public schools and from frequently toxic public school students. (I
Re:Standards mean competition. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Standards mean competition. (Score:4, Interesting)
Every school teacher I have ever spoken with on the subject agrees: involved parents generally mean good students, uninvolved parents make for taxpayer-funded daycare until age 18.
Re: (Score:3)
We have "vouchers" in Sweden in the form that anyone can send their kids to any school, private or public, free of charge. The only thing it has brought us is segregating the kids who do well into separate schools from everyone else. The kids who performed well didn't perform any better (though the private schools like to inflate grades in order to look more attractive to parents) and the kids who did poorly now perform worse than they did before.
The way to improve schools IMHO is to reduce class sizes to 1
Designed by Apple in California (Score:3, Funny)
Apple may want to stop touting that it's products are designed in California.
It's the taxes, stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
When California passed laws limiting property taxes, local funds for schools decreased. They were never fully replaced with state funds. The problem is, sadly, democracy driven by greed. In California, laws can be made by referendum - direct voting by the people, who voted to keep their money and to hell with the school systems. I don't blame them. I have no children and don't particularly want to pay to school any, but this is the result.
Re:It's the taxes, stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
> I have no children and don't particularly want to pay to school any...
That's pretty short-sighted of you. Who do you want to perform surgery on you in 30 years? Even if you're in perfect health, would you rather your neighbors be educated and employed, or uneducated, unemployed, and prone to break into houses?
PS: Lots of people with no kids paid for your schooling...
No shit (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no children, and cannot imagine I ever will (I didn't like kids, even when I was a kid). However I gladly support taxes for education. Why? Well to put it simply I don't want to die poor. I want this nation to continue to get richer and more prosperous and for that to happen we must have an educated populace.
There are all sorts of specifics as to why an uneducated populace would make life suck from the simple like your surgery example to the complex like social unrest and revolution due to an underclass. The long and short of it is I want none of that, I want a good life and that requires that others have a good life and THAT requires good education.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no children and don't particularly want to pay to school any,
Then you are a damn fool. If you believe that being surrounded by utterly uneducated masses wold be a good place to live in any way, then you are deluded.
Re: (Score:3)
When California passed laws limiting property taxes, local funds for schools decreased. They were never fully replaced with state funds. The problem is, sadly, democracy driven by greed. In California, laws can be made by referendum - direct voting by the people, who voted to keep their money and to hell with the school systems.
Except, that's not quite right. What actually happened was that property taxes were increasing roughly 20% per year. That was outrageous and some opportunists used that too hoodwink the public. The referendum that got passed froze property taxes at their current levels but required that they be re-assessed when the property was sold in order to maintain reasonable tax revenues.
The opportunism comes in when most businesses almost immediately spun-off their real-estate holding into seperate corps. That en
Re: (Score:3)
Facts don't back up your assertion. I live in the northern LA county suburbs, and the $ per student in our district are about 60% what is allocated in the urban LA area because we are classified as "rural". But out schools are in the top 1% of the state. Moreover, you cannot "donate" money to the local school district as it will be taken by the state and redistributed to areas in need, so there is no extra funding coming from the relative affluence of our area.
So tell me how my property taxes not triplin
Re: (Score:3)
Bah.
Look at the top four states in the list: Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota and Utah.
MA spends a lot, a little over $14K per pupil per year, as compared to CA's $9.6K. But MT and ND spend about the same as CA, and UT spends far less, at just over $6K per pupil. In fact, Utah is dead last in the 50 states in per pupil spending.
It's not about the money.
Oh, and before someone blames the immigrant population in CA, please keep in mind that other border states, especially AZ, NM and TX have simil
Sample size problems (Score:3)
From TFA:
If you want to see something that is a fairer guide to academic achievement, the National Assessment of Educational Progress [nationsreportcard.gov] is a much better guide. Iowahawk used it to take down a weak argument about ACT/SAT scores [typepad.com] during the public kerfluffle about the efficacy of union vs. non-union teachers.
Remember this in the population stats. (Score:2)
We talk talk a lot about income distribution, health stats, longevity, teen pregnacy... etc.
Who wants to bet the 22 percent that passes the national science exam doesn't have most of these problems?
Now, having determined that there is correlation between many different negative demographic stats. What is the cause? Really?
Fix it.
It isn't education because they're getting the same education as the kids that do well.
It isn't school lunches because those are the same too.
What is it? Go through all the correlat
As always... (Score:4, Insightful)
That 40% contains varying degrees of ability to speak, read, and write English but it is safe to say most of them will be at a disadvantage when taking a test in a language they are not fluent in.
That being said, we (California) still have crappy public schools and this is still a huge problem. However, it isn't just a problem of bad science education, it is also a language barrier problem.
Not a surprise (Score:4, Funny)
You can bitch and whine all you want (Score:5, Insightful)
Until you have parents willing to (a) help their kids outside of school (b) become involved in helping their local school succeed and (c) make their children accountable for learning it won't matter what the curriculum is, how much teachers get paid, or what the facilities of the school system are like. You simply cannot spend 3-4 instructional hours a day spread over a class of students for half the year (180 days), then give them no assistance outside of that and expect any significant fraction of them to succeed.
Yes, there are motivated students. Yes, there are fabulous teachers. Yes, coming to an open, inviting, and technologically advanced facility makes for a positive atmosphere.
We help my daughter every night with her homework. She's just at the end of 4th grade, but there are parts of her math that my wife knows how to do, but doesn't know well enough to teach. I'm pretty lousy at my local history (I didn't grow up here, but I was never a history buff anyway). Between the two of us, she has all the tools she needs to succeed. I cringe at a couple of the kids in her class that don't get any help on their homework; it makes me feel awful for them because I know how difficult some of the concepts were for my daughter, and how we might have spent an extra hour (or three) working though problems so that she understood them. For a 9 or 10 year old confronted with a completely foreign concept and nothing but a 30 minute class discussion and two (sometimes poor) examples it's got to be frustrating beyond belief. In two years time, I expect those kids will be in the bottom groups, failing these national tests, and not caring any more because they don't have the resources to be able to make it. Don't even get me started on the kids who parents take them on mini-vacations when they get out-of-school suspension because the parents figure if they have to take off work they may as well have some fun. Or the ones who blame the teacher when their kids get poor grades.
The problem isn't the system, or the money, or the tests...it's the parents. All the money and great teachers and fabulous facilities do is set the stage for learning. If the parents can't do their part, it will - by and large - be wasted.
The Results Don't Make Sense (Score:3)
Look at the 10 states that did best. Almost all are rural: Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Virginia.
Texas and Montana did better than NY or CA?
Time to ask, 'What and who were tested?' I suspect the sample was far from uniformly distributed across all US 8th graders.
Re: (Score:3)
Not nearly as good as Massachusetts which has a first place rank and has teachers unions.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Do creationists really have much of a foothold in California? I wouldn't have expected that to be the case, but I wouldn't know. It seems to have the reputation of being a fairly liberal state though.
As much as I may dislike the Christian Right trying to inject their belief system into public education, it's not like the Right (or any subset of it) has a monopoly on ruining education with their ideas and beliefs.
It seems to me that the coddling don't-hurt-their-self-esteem attitude that is churning out kids that have screwed up expectations, inadequate educations, and a distorted view of their own competence is a product of a subset of liberal thinkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of on overall event where science is being attacked by many groups. Heartland, several churches, pundits.
"It seems to me that the coddling don't-hurt-their-self-esteem attitude that is churning out kids that have screwed up expectations, inadequate educations, and a distorted view of their own competence is a product of a subset of liberal thinkers."
well, you are wrong, but keep letting the media dictate your views for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you might be inclined to provide some evidence of this?
After all, the "science being attacked by many groups" thing should affect all States equally - it's not like the "attacks" are local to California and DC.
So, what makes both California and DC different from Massachusetts? They all lean left, DC spends more per kid than MA, which spends more per kid than CA.
Re:Quick! (Score:4, Informative)
That's an easy one. Geography, mostly. Because of all the agriculture resulting from its climate, California has a lot of immigrants (both legal and illegal) coming from Mexico who do not speak English very well when they get here. In particular, the percentge of illegal immigrants (by definition, first-generation) per capital is higher in California than any other state in the U.S. [statemaster.com], and by a very sizable margin. (Hover over each state's raw number to see the per capita figure.) Therefore, the number of children who are simultaneously learning science while still learning English is higher than anywhere else in the U.S. As a result, there are more kids struggling, who need more individual attention, which means the schools cost more while producing lower test scores.
California is liberal overall (Score:3)
San Fran & it's surrounds are very liberal. The rest of the state, not quite as much. Not that I think that has *anything* to do with the test results.
The state is "liberal" overall. Geographically "liberal" regions may be very small but that is where the vast majority of the population resides. The "conservative" regions are relatively sparsely populated.
California has a bicameral state legislature, a senate and an assembly. For the last 42 years the California state senate has been exclusively controlled by the democrats, and the democrats have controlled the assembly for 40 of the last 42 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you didn't get the memo - thanks to the failing US economy, Jesus and his buddies went back to Mexico [pewresearch.org].