5 ms·

I thought a lot of what we learned about poems in school was overly prescriptive, and my friends and I could often invent and justify other meanings. But, unlik

I thought a lot of what we learned about poems in school was overly prescriptive, and my friends and I could often invent and justify other meanings. But, unlike with multiple choice, in assignments and exams we were supposed to do exactly that. Exploring what something "might mean" is one of the ways to get into a poem. I mean, I still thought that how we studied poetry was not a very good way. But now I see it could have been much worse!

ansible 10y ago
Indeed. I don't know why that sort of thing is on a standardized test anyway. We are having enough problems ensuring that all students have basic functional literacy. If they can read a paragraph from a credit card application and understand it, that will go a long way towards increasing their overall successful functioning in society. Let them do poetry interpretation on their own time and according to their own interest. I'm not saying that schools shouldn't teach poetry, but it shouldn't be on a standardized test either. What's the point? You want to expose kids to culture, but it may not stick, and that's OK.
- SixSigma 10y ago
  In the UK schools are rated in League Tables so parents can choose where to send children. This incentivices teaching to the test rather than teaching a rounded education and then testing the functional aspects. So in order to ensure pupils are exposed to culture, you must put it on the test to make sure it gets covered. I imagine the US uses a similarly shitty system of school funding allocation. It raises the question "what is school for?"
- oddlyaromatic 10y ago
  Like the sibling comment I would wonder about teaching things that are not tested. Poetry exploits some awesome features of language, cognition, music, speech etc. It might be possible to integrate it in a more meaningful way in a general education, than just "interpretation" for its own sake.
- analog31 10y ago
  That which isn't tested, isn't taught. This is particularly the case if the test and the curriculum are sold by the same vendor. I could see a scenario where "elite" parents complain that their kids spent a year in school being drilled on reading credit card applications, at the expense of things like literature and poetry. (I'd probably be one of those parents, and in my locale, educated parents are constantly complaining that the school curriculum has too much drill work and not enough liberal arts). So, in order to broaden the curriculum, the tests have to somehow be broadened. I suspect that the best education is also the hardest to test. There will always be a conflict between education and testing.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    "There will always be a conflict between education and testing" It's pretty much inevitable, if the results of the testing have consequences, for teacher/student/school system/etc. that what is taught will often excessively focus on testing outcomes. Unfortunately, it's hard not to do this to at least some degree at scale. Without standardized testing of some sort, there isn't a lot of feedback for how well the process is working and you more or less fall back on trust the individual teachers and schools and everything will be just fine--which isn't the case in the main.
    - analog31 10y ago
      It seems like maybe we're already back at that point. We went from trusting the teachers and schools, to adopting a test that measures household income, to hoping that we can trust the teachers and schools to educate our kids in spite of the tests.

ansible 10y ago

Indeed. I don't know why that sort of thing is on a standardized test anyway. We are having enough problems ensuring that all students have basic functional literacy. If they can read a paragraph from a credit card application and understand it, that will go a long way towards increasing their overall successful functioning in society. Let them do poetry interpretation on their own time and according to their own interest. I'm not saying that schools shouldn't teach poetry, but it shouldn't be on a standardized test either. What's the point? You want to expose kids to culture, but it may not stick, and that's OK.

SixSigma 10y ago
In the UK schools are rated in League Tables so parents can choose where to send children. This incentivices teaching to the test rather than teaching a rounded education and then testing the functional aspects. So in order to ensure pupils are exposed to culture, you must put it on the test to make sure it gets covered. I imagine the US uses a similarly shitty system of school funding allocation. It raises the question "what is school for?"
oddlyaromatic 10y ago
Like the sibling comment I would wonder about teaching things that are not tested. Poetry exploits some awesome features of language, cognition, music, speech etc. It might be possible to integrate it in a more meaningful way in a general education, than just "interpretation" for its own sake.
analog31 10y ago
That which isn't tested, isn't taught. This is particularly the case if the test and the curriculum are sold by the same vendor. I could see a scenario where "elite" parents complain that their kids spent a year in school being drilled on reading credit card applications, at the expense of things like literature and poetry. (I'd probably be one of those parents, and in my locale, educated parents are constantly complaining that the school curriculum has too much drill work and not enough liberal arts). So, in order to broaden the curriculum, the tests have to somehow be broadened. I suspect that the best education is also the hardest to test. There will always be a conflict between education and testing.
- ghaff 10y ago
  "There will always be a conflict between education and testing" It's pretty much inevitable, if the results of the testing have consequences, for teacher/student/school system/etc. that what is taught will often excessively focus on testing outcomes. Unfortunately, it's hard not to do this to at least some degree at scale. Without standardized testing of some sort, there isn't a lot of feedback for how well the process is working and you more or less fall back on trust the individual teachers and schools and everything will be just fine--which isn't the case in the main.
  - analog31 10y ago
    It seems like maybe we're already back at that point. We went from trusting the teachers and schools, to adopting a test that measures household income, to hoping that we can trust the teachers and schools to educate our kids in spite of the tests.