CHARLES BEAMS spoke of The Real Story 2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-19-96
CB>Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
CB>DT>Actually I don't buy the idea that we are behind other nations.
CB>You are not the only person writing in this echo who feels that way. 
CB> Since there have been many well-publicized reports (A Nation At 
CB>Risk, U.S. Ed. Department NAEP scores, etc.) over the years 
CB>indicating that our students score lower in math and writing than do 
CB>children in other nations, a few of which I've quoted here, can you 
CB>cite evidence to support your position?
Well-publicized inaccurate reports.  There are many who like to bash 
education (I believe it's a great political football) and it's easy to 
slant these studies (and they have been slanted).  I am willing to go 
out on a limb even though I don't have any evidence right at hand.  But 
I will try to obtain some to prove the point.  I think that when many 
studies which compare today's SAT's with SAT's of yesterday there are 
many factors which are ignored.  When we compare apples with apples, we 
are producing better apples today and we are producing more of them.  
(We also have more crab-apples and rotten-applestaking the tests today 
and driving down the scores.
 
CB>DT>We are graduating more students than ever before.
CB>But at what level of competence?  How many colleges and employers, 
CB>both, are complaining about the lack of basic skills among recent 
CB>high school graduates?  
I don't know but we have record numbers of attendance at major colleges 
in Washington State and elsewhere.  
In what manner does this show that our 
CB>students are better educated than children from other nations?
It doesn't but if one looks the data is there.
CB>DT>When one looks at test results from year to year for a 
CB>DT>comparison, all factors must be considered.  We have more 
CB>DT>students in the lower 60% taking tests and thus driving down the 
CB>DT>results.
CB>In the most recent administration of the international exams, an 
CB>analysis was done of the top ten percent of kids in each of the 
CB>participating nations in order to check this hypothesis.  The top 
CB>10% of U.S. students still scored 13th out of 14 nations.  I posted 
CB>Al Shanker's report on this sometime last winter or spring.
CB>DT>I am not looking at any data in front of me but I'm willing to 
CB>DT>bet our results are much better when we take a second look at 
CB>DT>_all_ contribution factors.  
CB>Americans do have a tendency to always want to believe they are the 
CB>best at everything.  In the 1960's this was characterized in a book 
CB>about American diplomacy called _The Ugly American_.  It manifests 
CB>itself in other ways, such as the cheering at the Olympics in 
CB>Atlanta that was disruptive to athletes of other nations.  In one of 
CB>the first tests given comparing students in various nations, 
CB>American students scored near the bottom in all categories, except 
CB>for self-esteem, in which they scored the highest.
CB>DT>Research has shown that when learning is made meaningful, children
CB>DT>want  to learn and learn better.
CB>I've not run across these studies anywhere.  How was the learning 
CB>made more meaningful?  To what degree were the kids more successful? 
CB> Was there any difference in the impact of more meaningful 
CB>instruction between children of different races or socio-economic
CB>groups?
CB>DT>The same concepts can be taught in boring fashion or in ways that 
CB>DT>engage and challenge the learner.  Sounds like you opt for boring 
CB>DT>while I opt for engaging learning through meaningful activities.
CB>Interesting interpretation.  I would tend to see things a bit 
CB>differently.  Although I do give some effort each year to a few 
CB>changes in my teaching style, I do not see my job as that of an 
CB>entertainer.  My job is to educate.  I try to make the math 
CB>interesting by connecting it to other branches of math or science, 
CB>or by connecting it back to something the kids did earlier in math.  
CB>I present some history and a few anecdotes about the math as I go, 
CB>but I do *not* bring in pies to teach the kids how to do fractions.
I'm a bit of both educator and entertainer.  But then I teach 
kindergarten and must be entertaining to keep the kids attention. 
CB>If a child finds the math we are doing to be of interest, good for 
CB>them.  If they do not find it interesting, I still expect them to 
CB>learn it - knowing it will make transitions to other learning 
CB>easier.  If a child makes a mistake doing the age-appropriate math I 
CB>am teaching, I tell them they are wrong and teach them how to 
CB>correct it.  I do not teach in such a manner nor discipline in such 
CB>a manner as to protect their fragile egos - they are in school to 
CB>learn and I expect them to exert some effort toward that end.
I am not a strong proponent of the "self-esteem" stuff either.  I think 
children need to be respected (by their teachers and their peers) and 
they need to show respect to their teachers.  But I don't think they 
need to have their *fragile* egos protected.  I think that many probably 
need to have their balloons deflated once in a while . ]
CB>I think you are the product of the "self-esteem first" education 
CB>system.  You believe that if the kids have strong self-esteem they 
CB>will learn better, so you go out of your way to make the kids happy 
CB>and comfortable at all costs (e.g., making learning meaningful and 
CB>inventive spelling).  
Yuck!!!!!!   NO I do not believe in this.......ahhhhhhhh
I opposed the self-esteem curriculum our district had when I arrived 
here 8 years ago.  I thought it was stupic then and I think it is stupid 
now.  We dumped it finally and I secretely never taught it (for which I 
took a lot of flack when I was discovered).  I believe in teaching 
respect (and I demand it from my students) and I think that children 
will feel valued by us when we interact with them in respectful ways.  I 
value children because they are valuable but their work has nothing to 
do with how I value them as individuals.  If a child in my room does sub-
standard work (for his/her abilities) I do not value that work.  I teach 
my kids to do quality work and I strive very hard to teach them what 
quality work is (doing your very best is quality, following directions 
is quality, taking one's time on a project is quality, putting obvious 
effort is quality).  
  
I believe that standards are lowered to 
CB>achieve this state of euphoria and a false sense of self-esteem may 
CB>be created.
CB>I think the learning style you espouse is ineffective, presents a 
CB>false view of the world to the kids, and reduces the children's 
CB>ability to adapt in the upper grades.
CB>DT>I really don't think you understand young children.  You are a 
CB>DT>high-school teacher right?
CB>Middle school.  Still, I think I understand young children quite well
CB>- I was one once.  I think you just want to coddle the children and 
CB>don't realize the impact that not imposing standards will have on 
CB>them later in life.
Oh but I do have standards for my kids.  Mine are very realistic and 
appropriate.  They differ from child to child according to the child's 
abilities.  
CB>DT>CB>I'm afraid I don't follow this.  My point is this...if we
CB>DT>CB>establish that  we want all 3rd graders in this country to be
CB>DT>CB>able to read at a 3rd  grade level on the XYZ Exam, then I
CB>DT>CB>don't care *what* the kids think is  boring, we teach them to
CB>DT>CB>read at the proper level by the 3rd grade.  The  adults are in
CB>DT>charge, not the kids. 
If it is really boring then you had better care because if the child 
isn't engaged in the lesson you are wasting your breath.
CB>DT>If you want a child to learn 3 digit adding before they are 
CB>DT>developmentally ready it doesn't matter one bit who is in charge.
CB>DT>Kids  can only learn what they are able to comprehend
CB>DT>developmentally.  I  again refer to Piaget (as well as many others
CB>DT>who have contributed to  the idea of cognitive development).
CB>At no time have I argued that we ask Kindergarten children to learn 
CB>3-digit addition.  You *have* argued, however, that when *you* 
CB>determine a child is not developmentally ready to do something in 
CB>Kindergarten, even if it is part of the program, you don't push the 
CB>child.  You lower the standards for that child, and that student 
CB>will be below grade level for the rest of his/her life.  
Not true....in any given elementary grade level we can have up to two 
years of developmental difference.  I have a young girl who is an 
emergent reader in my class.  I also have a child who is borderline 
retarded.  On a developmental continumn, he is at the bottom; she is at 
the top.  The rest of the class falls inbetween.  I don't lower my 
standards.  For the girl I have very high standards because I think she 
is extremely capable.  For the boy I hope he can write his name at the 
end of the year and can recogize most of his letters.  I cannot expect 
this boy to learn beyond his abilitys.  I think that what's important is 
seeing growth and continued progress in each child.  
Instead of 
CB>making excuses for the child and letting them off the hook, seek 
CB>intervention - get the child tested, get the child a tutor, provide 
CB>additional practice, get the parents involved - but DON'T let the 
CB>kid fall behind the others!
I do agree with this...in fact I am beginning testing next week to see 
what I have to work with.  
CB>DT>I agree with you that we should not lower standards.  Standards
CB>DT>should  be set that are appropriate.  One questions that I have
CB>DT>pondered is  whether we should design curriculum bottom up or top
CB>DT>down.  What do you  think?
CB>I'm willing to listen to both sides, but generally speaking I believe
CB>in  top down curriculum.  We should decide on our graduation
CB>standards, then  work backwards to decide what our kids need to learn
CB>at each grade level to  get them to graduation.
I used to lean the other way but now am not sure.....I have a friend who 
argues the top-down model and his arguments make a great deal of sense.
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
Clinton -- The Carter of the 90's
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
 
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------