4 ms·
You spat out: "So what about 'engaged' in the article by the third grade teacher?" but didn't bother to answer it. You say you and I are in agreement; I thoug
by angus77 16y ago
You spat out: "So what about 'engaged' in the article by the third grade teacher?" but didn't bother to answer it.
You say you and I are in agreement; I thought I was in agreement (on that point) with the author; you imply you are in disagreement with the author. I must say, I'm confused.
As for the rest, I might be assuming that Canadian and American public school education is more similar than it actually is. Maybe what you have to say about the state of American education is less hyperbolic than I take it to be. I've lived in Japan for the last 13 years, though, and comparing the to-the-test Japanese system with its long hours of rote learning and cram schools, I definitely think the Canadian system produces better results (and the UN seems to agree). The impression left in my mind by the article was of a Canadian-like system shifting towards being more like a Japanese-like one. It may be these assumptions that have us talking at cross purposes.
Although I must assert that, while I think tests are an important gauge, "teaching to the test" is a short-term goal that, in my experience, leads to a lot of cramming and very little long-term learning. (personally, though, I never crammed---I paid attention in class, although it didn't always look like it)
- NY_USA_Hacker 16y agoGenerally the Asians nearly totally fail to 'get it'. There is no chance that US (or Canadian) K-12 will go very far making the mistakes the Asians make. That tests are fine does not mean that the Asian approach to rote learning is fine. That some students cram for tests does not mean that tests are useless. For being 'engaged', I gave a very long list of ways a third grade teacher might get her students engaged. So, I agree that being 'engaged' is important. But in the article the teacher was using being 'engaged' (A) in only a weak sense (my examples were much stronger) and (B) was using her weak results on 'engaged' to excuse paying less attention to good tests on the basic material. But on being 'engaged' and actually learning well and retaining that knowledge, we've ignored the 2000 pound elephant in the room -- what the student gets at home. Yes, the US could use some national tests of basic material during K-12: The US already has good tests at the end of K-12 (CEEB, SAT) and end of college (GRE, LSAT, GMAT). But for the rest, keep that local at the level of the family, teacher, school, and school board.
- angus77 16y agoYou're still bringing up the "tests are useless" thingy as if anyone has ever said anything so ridiculous. All I've seen is the criticism of teaching test-taking skills as opposed to content (and the retention thereof). I'm pretty sure that's what everyone means by "teaching to the test". I'm pretty sure nobody here (or anywhere) has argued against greater students having better comprehension and retention.