And this is our state superintendent of education!
Anyone around many teenagers for very long knows their abysmal lack of knowledge of history, so the results of the most recently instituted end-of-course test in South Carolina, U.S. History, should have come as no surprise to anyone. [See Students Bomb on Newest Test.]
Superintendent Rex has another take on the ignorance, however. Quoted in the article, Rex stated that "'These low history scores, together with the mixed improvement we see for the other tests, are proof that many schools need extra tools for learning.'" Tools? Would that be chalk, paper and pencils, or desks? Or more edublob special programs and gadgets?
Maybe they can't read.
Rex's retirement from his position can't come a moment too soon!
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Disagree with you here.....
I don't agree with everythng he does either, but this state perpetuates losing with legislative decisions based on politics vs needs for kids. Rex has done some good things and I personally hope he makes the governor's chair...please don't tell me he would not be an improvement from the ass who didn't want us to have stimulus money for our schools?
Has this money been properly used is still up for debate, I know....
Has the P&C reported on PASS scores and I completely missed it? I know they're out - my daughter brought hers home last week.
When the state determines it will give blind tests in content based subjects areas where teachers are not given any clue what specific information will or will not be tested, it is a putrid test.
No social studies teacher has been able to see a US History test since it is illegal to even look at it.
Algebra does not change, simply the numbers. The English I test is predominantly skill based. Physical Science gives students the formulas.
There is a myriad of specific information that could be tested, and because the state opted for informational, rather than conceptual testing of US History, teachers have no way of knowing which eras to emphasize, which to ignore, etc...
Oh, and another thing...the test is written at the tenth-eleventh grade reading level.
Wouldn't you have loved to be a fly on the wall while they decided which areas to emphasize? What a can of worms that would be, And, who decides, anyway? The testing company? Or is it given parameters by the State Department of Education?
The testing company writes the test using a massive test bank, then choosing items that seem to be aligned to the nebulous standards created by the SC Department of Education.
Contrast this with the New York State Board of Regents testing, which creates its own test bank (with outside consultants most likely), then releases the previous tests the next year for perusaland use by teachers.
Do you think they're not releasing tests so that they can reuse them and save money?
That may be a part of it, but ultimately, they are not releasing tests because they do not trust teachers.
It is a system designed to test teachers, not students.
If it were a system designed to evaluate where students are regarding their knowledge of content the expectations required for the US History EOCs would be clearly communicated and dilineated, specific question-types furnished.
The writers of history-based tests have to have a different mindset than those who create skills-driven courses. You cannot practice content, you can practice skills. Math and English, and to a lesser extent Physical Science, are skills based. The same concepts are repeated; just the numbers/reading passages are changed. Whereas, content is not repeatable.
So to answer your question, yes, I think they save money, but the conception of the test is flawed whichever reason they don't release it.
Post a Comment