# No Child Left Behind



## V-te (Nov 4, 2009)

Ok, 
I know this will be a controversial topic. Kinda loosely organized, I am a thought writer, not a standards based writer.


I have noticed that when we learn at school (California) 
We are shown these ugly things called standards. I get things like these

"You have to know this because it's going to be on the test"
"Today we are taking our 5th test of the week!(when it's barely wednesday)"
"The state says you have to know this because it will be on the test"
" You don't need to learn that, it's not on the standards and it won't be on the test"

I have asked a lot of my teachers what their opinions are on NCLB and most agree that it is one of the worst education related laws ever.

My chemistry teacher says that he used to teach about many subjects that are no longer covered in the standards. He said "I remember how my kids would enjoy the lessons, and they would actually be willing to participate, Now, everything I teach I have to because you have to do well on the test."

I was wondering too, since I remember many of my teachers teaching us fun and exciting things, what had happened. I asked my teachers. They all said the same thing: NCLB.

I notice a lot of kids fail at tests because they lack an understanding of a concept. Myself included. I remember back in 5th-7th, the teachers would make sure that everyone _*understood*_ the reason why a problem was what it was. Nowadays, I'm learning matrices one day, parabolas the next, pythagorean theorem the day after. I only have a slight understanding of these concepts, and it really makes me mad that they throw information at us, expect us to understand it, make us practice for a day, and then move on. 
Some kids take longer to grasp a concept. I know some intelligent kids in my class, they take about 3 days to fully grasp and understand a concept. With a different subject everyday, they are now failing at most of their tests, simply because of their lack of understanding. This has caused many personal issues, including feeling stupid, lower self-esteem, and just complete frustration, which leads to the student just ignoring the task completely. 

A friend of mine, Cynthia, is always worried about hw. Sure she does tennis and has friends, but when she gets home " I only worry about homework. I don't call my friends, I'm not online, I have to finish! Don't you understand! I will fail if I don't!!!" 
She doesn't have a boyfriend because of these stresses. She also lacks the understanding of concepts and tries to make it up by trying to teach herself. It works.... but ask her if she had any fun that day. "Only tennis"
Did you stay afterschool to talk to some friends?
" No I have to get home to finish my work" 

My point is that, teaching nowadays has become so...robotic. We never learn for fun anymore. We learn things that "will be on a test". We don't feel like teachers are teaching what we want to know, rather what we need to know for an exam. A drill. I want to see the joy come back to teaching and learning. 
The only problem is NCLB itself. I don't see any advantage of it. Our generation before us (the big successful wealthy business corporates) Grew up and achieved without it. What does Washington want? Perfection? We cannot be perfect. We are individuals!!!! Education must not be limited!!!!! 

Please share your own thoughts on this topic. One more question. Is there anything anyone can do to repeal this law????


----------



## qqwref (Nov 4, 2009)

When I was your age, I had to walk for six hours uphill just to get to school, and we only had Latin and Economics.

More seriously, a law like this is not going to get repealed because old people (that is, the kind of people who haven't been to school for 20 years but have the _power_ to decide the experiences of people who go to school now) believe that the more work you put into education the smarter you will be, period, in every case. They don't want to make things easier because they are concerned that America is educationally lagging behind, and while this is true it's not because our students are not working as hard as others, but because our students enjoy school less and because our schools teach less efficiently. American pop culture has recently had a pretty strong anti-intellectual undercurrent, and if you add to that an educational system that makes people hate school/reading/learning instead of enjoying it, anyone could predict that American students will perform less than optimally.

In my opinion, one of the biggest other problems (besides teaching to the test, which favors short-term memory and rote learning over long-term knowledge and understanding, and gives a huge disadvantage to people who do badly at tests even though testing skill is irrelevant to anything outside school), is the belief that everyone can be taught the same stuff in the same way. The people in power believe that because the same educational system worked for them (and of course it did, otherwise they would not have been able to get power) so they can't see how it could not work for others. You end up in each class with some students thinking the material goes far too fast for them to understand anything, whereas others are bored because so much time is spent going over concepts they understand immediately. (Of course, the students who do well aren't the same for each class!) If you make the homework any easier the slower kids won't learn the material at all, but if you keep it the way it is you penalize anyone who can learn the material without doing drills. I'm not sure how to fix this problem, but I agree that regular testing and set-in-stone curricula are not the way to do it.


----------



## deepSubDiver (Nov 4, 2009)

I live in Germany, but we somehow have a similar concept given by the state. Graduation tests are now (in most parts of Germany) centralized, which means every student of the same grade all over the state gets the same tests.
There is, indeed, no official way of repealing these laws in Germany. There are ways to request different treatment for special cases () though, but not for the graduation itself (well, if you're sick or something, of course there is).
We have a minister for school matters you can contact (an to my surprise, I received an answer pretty quickly) in case of any issues you encounter (e.g. unfair treatment of the students, poor marks with no reason etc). It is rarely accepted or handled though, but at least you have that possibility.


----------



## V-te (Nov 4, 2009)

qqwref said:


> When I was your age, I had to walk for six hours uphill just to get to school, and we only had Latin and Economics.
> 
> More seriously, a law like this is not going to get repealed because old people (that is, the kind of people who haven't been to school for 20 years but have the _power_ to decide the experiences of people who go to school now) believe that the more work you put into education the smarter you will be, period, in every case. They don't want to make things easier because they are concerned that America is educationally lagging behind, and while this is true it's not because our students are not working as hard as others, but because our students enjoy school less and because our schools teach less efficiently. American pop culture has recently had a pretty strong anti-intellectual undercurrent, and if you add to that an educational system that makes people hate school/reading/learning instead of enjoying it, anyone could predict that American students will perform less than optimally.
> 
> In my opinion, one of the biggest other problems (besides teaching to the test, which favors short-term memory and rote learning over long-term knowledge and understanding, and gives a huge disadvantage to people who do badly at tests even though testing skill is irrelevant to anything outside school), is the belief that everyone can be taught the same stuff in the same way. The people in power believe that because the same educational system worked for them (and of course it did, otherwise they would not have been able to get power) so they can't see how it could not work for others. You end up in each class with some students thinking the material goes far too fast for them to understand anything, whereas others are bored because so much time is spent going over concepts they understand immediately. (Of course, the students who do well aren't the same for each class!) If you make the homework any easier the slower kids won't learn the material at all, but if you keep it the way it is you penalize anyone who can learn the material without doing drills. I'm not sure how to fix this problem, but I agree that regular testing and set-in-stone curricula are not the way to do it.



Hmmm.. I see what you mean. Well I would say that instead of focusing on an 
"all for one" policy, why not focus on a way to make school interesting and te make it understandable for kids? I'm sure that would help out way more than having us do assignments simply because we have to. Another thing that bothers me is the threats in the law. If teachers do not abide by it, they will be fired. They have no choice. That makes me really angry. One of the only groups of people that have the power to speak out about it are being threatened.
This completely contradicts our "definition" of our "*Representative* democracy. We choose representatives to make decisions for us, based on our interests. Government nowadays has been ignoring the public more, and instead is focusing on the contributions by companies to make sure they goin or don't lose any profit. NCLB is mainly about money. 
My school used to go on field trips before NCLB. After NCLB, We were not "meeting" the standars, so most of our money was instead focused on math and English. Can you imagine a student who has always enjoyed school and learning and enjoys the activities provided by the school to have their free mind destroyed by standards? Very sad. 
Another thing is they want us to do better just so the school can get more money, and if we do better "The teachers will have done their ""Job"" and will get a raise" It's all about money.

We may or may not be lagging. Kids in California are performing worse, simply because we are expected to know so much, within a limited time frame, and the tests they give us are too hard. Kids in other states with lower standards do better simply because their tests are made easier to make it seem like they did better. To receive more money. School should be an adventure, something we should look forward to. Not something we can't wait to be over.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Nov 4, 2009)

In the UK it's exactly the same thing. You have to teach what is on the curriculum and that is that. This is certainly the case for state run schools that don't necessarily have the resources to find additional learning that doesn't directly relate to the curriculum. I know several teachers very well and I know that much of their time is spent adjusting the teaching they will offer over the year in what is known as the "scheme of work", which is heavily, if not entirely based on what the government outlines. Occasionally there will be an individual within the school that chooses to enhance his or her teaching with subject matter that isn't on the curriculum but this can only really be done in addition to the basics. I would imagine any teacher found to not be teaching for the exam would be penalised as they would be seen as even "failing" the children when actually they could be doing quite the contrary.

At independent schools here however they do make a strong effort to teach you for the sake of understanding and enjoying the subject, which I have found to be the principal difference between a state and independent school in the UK. Although one might expect this to be more beneficial to the student, many reject a lot of ideas for the very reason that "it won't be on the test". A lot of teenagers *are* lazy (yes I know a lot aren't before I get destroyed) and so having a whole plethora of information available to them just isn't appealing. 

I'm not really sure I have a strong point here at all, I just thought I'd shed some light on what the situation was here over the pond. What is for sure though, is that some students, such as the OP prefer to be taught things for the sake of understanding and not necessarily because it's on the test. Although this may seem more attractive, I have met many, and was one of the people that dismissed a lot of teaching because I knew it would not be in a test and therefore wasn't worth as much of my concentration/effort as other classes that dictated my overall grades.

Although it may be frustrating to you at the moment, I think if you intend to go into further education and require high grades for that, you just need to "play" the system. Even though you disagree with its structure you *need* that system in order to progress, whether rightly or wrongly. At a later stage you will be able to organise your own learning, which will undoubtedly be more beneficial to you.


----------



## LNZ (Nov 4, 2009)

The problem with any standards testing is this. On what basis is it based upon? Gold or super high standards (ie "High base") or low minimum standards (ie "low base")?

It matters. I could tell lots of examples personally over the years on this issue. I research all education issues every day online and love it. 

I live on an Australian Disabity Support Pension (DSP) and have one so since November 16, 1995. I was due for DSP review on November 16, 2008 but the GFC prevented that from happening.

A speedsolving.com applicable example of high vs low standards base testing for me when I go for a DSP review on November 16, 2013. Hope tht the GFC is over by then.

I tell the CMO (Commonwealth Medical Officer, someone paid by the federal government to do pension reviews) that I can solve all cubes from 1x1x1 to 7x7x7 but I'm not super fast due to scoring 2/10 in a Raven's Progressive Matrices Test in the early 1990's.

Low base: The CMO cannot even solve any Rubik's cube product ever. This is true for about 99% of the population. He calls me an overachiver for a 70s (PB 45s) average for a 3x3 and the fact my PB for a 7x7 is 28:30. To him, I'm way above average and awesome. To solve a 7x7 is really a wonderful thing to solve. Result is that I'm very smart and can work and go off the pension and that Raven's score is useless.

But here's the problem. If he ever heard that Felix Zemdegs has a 9s average for a 3x3, then what would he say to him? Or that Dan Cohen has roughy 3:50 PB for the 7x7? I wonder.

High base: The CMO has solved all cubes from 1x1x1 to 7x7x7 (rare and unlikely) and his PB for the 3x3 is 15s and his 7x7 PB is 5:30. Then I'm a failure to him and way below average. and because of that I stay on a pension for as long a I live as he thinks I'm really dumb.

Well, I've presented a cubing take on high bae vs lowbase testing. You can apply the same ideas to all aspects of educational testing. Low base (ie really dumbed down test) gives lots of good passes and good school profile or high base (old fashioned standards) with a high failure rate and poor school profile.

If I was a school principal, I'd choose the low base for obvious reasons. Even though after 12 years of school, we would have a hopeless future workforce. After all, when you finish high school, you're out of the loop forever and you don't matter to the school anymore.


----------



## 4Chan (Nov 4, 2009)

Lolol. I should still be in high school. 
But I got out a year early~

School sucks in the south-east as well, kinda similar to what you described.


----------



## Edward (Nov 4, 2009)

My thoughts exactly V-TE. I just never found a way to word them.


----------



## Cride5 (Nov 4, 2009)

The NCLB policy sounds very much like a "one size fits all" attitude to teaching, and is probably the reason so many folk are fed up with it. Anyone keen on the subject will feel its moving too slowly and get frustrated with the lack of material. Anyone that's not interested, or that finds it difficult will get frustrated by the sheer mountain of material.

When I did school in the UK, the system did seem to acknowledge variation between pupils. For example, the standard grades (first basic qualifications of high school) were taught at three levels: Foundation, General and Credit. It meant that the class clowns weren't able to disrupt folk who actually wanted to learn, and also meant that slower learners didn't walk away feeling bewildered by information overload.


----------



## V-te (Nov 4, 2009)

Very interesting guys. LNZ, I understand what you mean. But like i've said, Everyone is different and learns differently. We all have sub 15 potential, but for some it takes months, others years. The point is that we all have it within, we just need to be given the chance to take it out from us.

I don't agree with the fact that everything is predetermined for us, so I don't see a point in "playing the game". The game shouldn't be there at all. We are human beings being stripped of our interests simply because others decide otherwise. Is there anything at all we can do against NCLB??? If not, then I'll have to look into private school or something else. (are all private schools religious?)


----------



## fanwuq (Nov 4, 2009)

Let me start disagreeing with everyone.

1. LNZ,

What kind of disability do you have? If your claim is only on the mental inability to work, then clearly you are way smarter than anyone else. I know I'm not smart enough to get free money from the government. Being able to solve the cube and typing a long post with no grammar errors do mean that you have no intellectual problems and is in fact above average.

2. V-te,

State standards are incredibly low. It's difficult to fail them. If you don't know the stuff they are testing you on, then you are in bigger trouble than you think. For one state test I had, rather than answering the essay question, I complained about the errors in the test and wrote about how counterproductive the test is. I still ranked 95th percentile.
Thankfully, my teachers never teach to the test, we are usually many levels above it. If you like to learn something yourself that teachers won't teach, either take over the school system (contact the school board, not your principal), or just study by yourself.
The test are actually beneficial for the lowest level students who refuse to learn otherwise. It always attempts to even out grading systems between different schools. My issue is that the tests are poorly made and contain much inaccurate information.


----------



## Kian (Nov 4, 2009)

A federal Department of Education was a bad idea from the get go. Reagan often said that his greatest regret in office was not being able to get rid of it. Education was a state issue until Jimmy Carter decided to ruin our public education system by installing a national governing body in 1979.

The main issue that has inhibited the school system in the United States (as well as around the world) is a lack of competition. Private schools have been falling off the face of the map because it's impossible to compete financially with the public schools the populace is forced to contribute to with their taxes. Vouchers are probably a better idea and would increase competition, but it still falls short of solving many of the basic problems such as: 

A) Teachers unions exercise near complete control over the education system when there are no viable private options.

B) Waste and corruption are inherent when you have a school system that is accountable to no willingly contributing patrons.

C) There will be no motivation to succeed beyond minimum standards for teachers so long as tenure exists in its current form.


----------



## V-te (Nov 5, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> Let me start disagreeing with everyone.
> 
> 
> 2. V-te,
> ...



See, 
#1. The fact that standards are low or high don't matter. They are still being forced upon us.

#2 I do know the material, my problem is I like to understand what I'm learning and the school isn't doing that.

#3 You have a lucky school, which I envy. _My_ teachers have to teach by the test.

#4. I've already tried all, and I think that I shouldn't have to be spending my free after school time learning something we were supposed to learn in school. That's why our tax dollars are being wasted on education.

#5 I, nor my friends, are the "lowest level students" They should at least include something for us with an open mind.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 5, 2009)

V-te said:


> If not, then I'll have to look into private school or something else. (are all private schools religious?)


No, they aren't. The private high school I went to had high-quality teachers (and students!) and nothing to do with religion. However, many private schools are expensive, and a lot of them have some kind of entrance exam, so a private school may not be a possibility for you.



fanwuq said:


> What kind of disability do you have? If your claim is only on the mental inability to work, then clearly you are way smarter than anyone else. I know I'm not smart enough to get free money from the government. Being able to solve the cube and typing a long post with no grammar errors do mean that you have no intellectual problems and is in fact above average.


Intelligence isn't a single-dimensional thing. Solving a cube and being able to type a long post without huge errors are more based on how hard someone tries than how smart they are. If what LNZ says is correct, then he has enough trouble recognizing patterns that the government thinks he won't be able to find a job, but that doesn't mean he has intellectual problems in other areas. You just can't tell how well someone will perform one task by looking at how well they perform a totally different one.



fanwuq said:


> State standards are incredibly low. It's difficult to fail them. If you don't know the stuff they are testing you on, then you are in bigger trouble than you think. For one state test I had, rather than answering the essay question, I complained about the errors in the test and wrote about how counterproductive the test is. I still ranked 95th percentile.


You seem to have the attitude that if you did not have trouble with something than nobody else should. I think you need to understand that not everyone lives in the same conditions as you - it's completely useless (and not very nice) to respond to someone's complaint by saying that because you do not have the problem they should stop complaining or ignore the problem. It is certainly not true that every student can pass the state standards without trying, or even that every state's standards are the same (you do not appear to live in the same state V-te does, so your allegations that state standards are "incredibly low" aren't even relevant). I wouldn't be surprised if your school is better taught/organized than V-te's, too.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Nov 5, 2009)

I have to 100% agree with qqwref about the school systems favoring short term memory and test taking skills. 
There are three courses that I've taken in all of high school that I feel I'll really be able to actually remember information from in the future. I'm not going to include two of them because they were taught by the same teacher who happens to be amazing, but the class style isn't that different from other classes. The teacher was just amazing.

The class I want to focus on is actually three that amount to two years of computer science. When the collegeboard decided not to continue with the AB test, and only keep the AP, my teacher decided that he was going to write his own curriculum, since we could easily be done with the AP curriculum by December. 
The class is unique to all the others that I've taken in High School in the sense that you really can learn at your own pace. There are tests, but they are pretty far apart from eachother, and we spend far more class time understanding topics (mainly through labs) than we do trying to learn how it could appear on a test (whether it's the AP, or the tests he makes.) MAybe I've just had some unlucky streaks of teachers, but this seems to be something that just doesn't happen in other classes, and as a result I really feel like I'll be able to remember and understand this information in the future. 

Counting elementary, middle, and high school years, I think it's safe to say I've taken 5+ years of biology. The last bio class I took was three years ago. Last year, my brother was in seventh grade, and over here 7th grade science is bio. Although I am 100% sure that I've done the material he was doing many times before, I could not help him at all on his science homework. I don't blame the teachers for this, but I really have to blame the emphasis and rewards for using short term memory in the school system.

Edit: Also another rant point, teachers who coast along on tenure. Why the f*** does a high school teacher need tenure? While yes I've had some great teachers who I have to assume have tenure, I've also had teachers who were absolute crap and actually flaunt the fact that they have tenure an can basically do whatever they want. WTF.


----------



## Edward (Nov 5, 2009)

Ive had only a handful of great teachers since ive gotten out of 5th grade. A trend among all of them was that they could explain the rules of whatever subject theyre teaching, but they could also explain why the rules are there, how they work, and the purpose they serve (my 6th grade pre algebra teacher was wonderful with that). The teachers that I disliked the most, were the ones who didnt like me to question why i was supposed to do a certain something to figure out something else.


----------



## DavidSanders (Nov 5, 2009)

I have noticed that teachers teach by the test in standard level classes, but in higher level classes(IB and Magnet), they do not just teach by the test. They teach you concepts and even more than the test requires and in my opinion most of the classes are really enjoyable. Especially Calculus.

So, the solution is that if you want to be challenged and have fun/enjoy class move to an IB or Magnet school. There are probably 20 kids at my school who drive from 30 minutes to over an hour every day(one-way) just so they do not have to sit in classrooms that teach by the test.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Nov 5, 2009)

Well I think my school handles the boredom & feeling left behind pretty well.

First of all honours & AP programs in the high school, many schools have these.

I'm still in middle school, they give us 3 types of math in middle school, for eighth Pre-Alg, Alg, Honours Geometry.

They also have grade skippers, myself being one. If I was still in seventh grade math instead of 10th grade honours geometry right now I would probably be very bored, but since I get a chance to go farther I am not bored.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 5, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> When the collegeboard decided not to continue with the AB test, and only keep the AP, my teacher decided that he was going to write his own curriculum, since we could easily be done with the AP curriculum by December.



My high school 1st year German teacher did something very similar. I knew basically no German previous to this class, and he actually finished our entire textbook, covering the entire state German 1 curriculum, by the time we were taking our midterm exams, so I think either December or January. For the remainder of the year we learned curriculum that he gave us, which essentially started teaching us 2nd year German topics as well as really expanding on what we had learned from German 1. For example we did lots of skits, and had lots of reading assignments. The best part was that he was very good at picking material that was at an appropriate level for beginning German students. He was definitely one of the best teachers I have ever had, and he is probably also one of the main reasons why I love the German language so much.

Chris


----------



## Mastersonian (Nov 5, 2009)

Cyrus C. said:


> They also have grade skippers, myself being one. If I was still in seventh grade math instead of 10th grade honours geometry right now I would probably be very bored, but since I get a chance to go farther I am not bored.



My school is like this. Those who struggle can take pre-algebra as a senior or AP Calc as a sophmore. The only complaint with my school district, is that students are chosen seemingly at random (in elementary school) to excel in certain areas. For example, this year, I am taking AP Calc one and two the entire year. (In my school it is abnormal for seniors to take them, I'm a Junior) It is also possible for us to take two math classes a year, (we have block scheduling where we have 4 classes a semester, everyday.) this makes it very easy for us to level up quickly through classes exhuasting programs at our school.


----------



## fanwuq (Nov 5, 2009)

qqwref said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > State standards are incredibly low. It's difficult to fail them. If you don't know the stuff they are testing you on, then you are in bigger trouble than you think. For one state test I had, rather than answering the essay question, I complained about the errors in the test and wrote about how counterproductive the test is. I still ranked 95th percentile.
> ...



I agree with most of your points. What I described is the situation in Maryland.
http://www.mdreportcard.org/Assessments.aspx?WDATA=State&K=99AAAA#HSAgradGrade12all
Apparently 99.9% of the students passed. Even in 10th grade, over 80% can pass the test. Clearly the tests are pointless if so many people can pass without trying. I still don't know how they score them. Many people who pass do not actually understand the subject. The state just wants everyone to graduate from high school without learning anything. That said, I do know of some schools that care about the test. The students do not wish to learn and many teachers do not know their subjects. They need the test to keep them on track.
My school is quite strange. It is generally well taught, but it definitely is not well organized. The teachers for upper level courses are highly qualified. Half of the department heads do not know their own subjects. The Math department head was fired this year because for 4 years, she could not pass a simple algebra 1 final for students.  The head of foreign language department is too lazy to teach. For 10th grade French, she did not teach my class at all. We just played on the computer (or cubed) in the computer lab. The principal is completely powerless and does not do his job. He only cares about school pride and image and in actuality facilitates the decline of the school. He is way to wimpy to stand up to students even when they constantly set the bathroom trashcans on fire. He doesn't do his job. I was supposed to receive my National Merit Semifinalist packet from him at the beginning of the school year and he had no clue what was going on until a friend outside my school told me when it was already too late. He cannot handle the school budget and waste money on stupid things. He tried to combine the Social sciences and foreign language departments, causing some of the best teachers to resign in protest. This sparked an underground rebelling among students. Students who aren't officially even in Student Government actually do the jobs of administrators because they are too lazy to do it themselves. But since they are so lazy, I was allowed to assign myself any course I want this year, even some that don't officially exist. Nothing gets done if you actually rely on the school staff. 
I've had some horrible teachers too. I just ignored them and cubed all class. The only way you can possibly fail at my school is if you don't do the work. If you do all the work, even if it is crap, you will get over 80% in most classes. This attitude of making everyone pass is horrible. Failing is difficult. For that 10th grade French class I had, I scored lower than 70% on every single test, didn't hand in some assignments, and somehow got a 97% for my grade. In that case, a standardized test would have forced the teacher to actually teach that class and would have ruled out this mysterious massive inflation. Most of my other teachers would have given me less than 80% for that kind of work. Teaching to the test is only an issue when the teacher is incompetent or the students are incredibly slow. In most cases, it helps to keeps schools at fair levels and make sure that teachers teach what they are supposed to teach.
Only people who are much more advanced than the state tests complain about classes being taught to standardized tests. In that case, forget them and study whatever you want by yourself.

Kian, 
A well written national test would be so much better than state tests. The state department of education doesn't do anything.



qqwref said:


> Intelligence isn't a single-dimensional thing. Solving a cube and being able to type a long post without huge errors are more based on how hard someone tries than how smart they are. If what LNZ says is correct, then he has enough trouble recognizing patterns that the government thinks he won't be able to find a job, but that doesn't mean he has intellectual problems in other areas. You just can't tell how well someone will perform one task by looking at how well they perform a totally different one.



You do not need to be intelligent to get a job. I don't know why people think manual labor is inferior to office work. Personally, if I can't do what I absolutely want to do, I would not get an office job requiring no real thinking or rely on others. I would gladly be a janitor, trash collector, or construction worker. Imagine OH cubing and mopping. I'm serious, this isn't bad. I might just do that for a while. Much better than spreading the epidemic of obesity by working at fast food places. At least that's one of the rare jobs that exists with absolute net benefits to society. I think it's much more rewarding to know what you do has a purpose. You do not need pattern recognition ability to get a job. You'll simply get jobs that nobody else wants, which I think is actually much more interesting. Thus, LNZ, if you are not physically disabled, why not? But if you are, then why should they even care about the mental test?

Edit:
Wait... I don't even remember my main idea and which side of the argument I'm on.

No Child Left Behind?... Why not? Leave them behind if they don't care and put in no effort to try. Tests should not be made just to pass everyone. What does failure mean? I would not mind it at all if I failed when I did not put in any effort. Sadly, most people around me put in even less effort.


----------



## moogra (Nov 5, 2009)

I live in the same state as the original poster and I know what he is talking about with the standards and the stupid tests. 
During my sophomore year in high school I took the CAHSEE (California High School Exit Exam), a extremely trivial test. To sum it up, 60% is a pass, and the math problems take about a few second to solve. There was an essay section, and many of my friends just doodled and one even drew a hand turkey since the other writing sections would compensate for the points lost.

However, when you take AP classes that prepare for the AP tests, you definitely want to learn what is on the test. I took calculus last year, and although I had previous calculus experience, if I slacked off the whole year, there would be no way I would have gotten a 5 on that test. I did not know series, and I was shaky on integration by parts and other integration methods.

Many of you are talking about not being challenged enough. This is also a common complaint on the math forum http://artofproblemsolving.com. Most of the members there suggest taking their math classes. They're advanced, fast paced, and are much more interesting than the classroom curriculum. The teachers there certainly teach you what you want to learn, whether be probability and counting, or number theory. (Advanced) Geometry, algebra are also taught. 

For your friend's problem, that is definitely a big problem where I go to school. All the "over-achievers" work like robots. Go to school, come home and do homework, sleep, repeat. Some have sports, volunteering in the middle. The reason: to go to a good college. 

I doubt this law would be repealed unless 40-50 years later, when everyone here is a statesman the people repeal it.


----------



## PCwizCube (Nov 5, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> I agree with most of your points. What I described is the situation in Maryland.
> http://www.mdreportcard.org/Assessments.aspx?WDATA=State&K=99AAAA#HSAgradGrade12all
> Apparently 99.9% of the students passed. Even in 10th grade, over 80% can pass the test. Clearly the tests are pointless if so many people can pass without trying. I still don't know how they score them. Many people who pass do not actually understand the subject. The state just wants everyone to graduate from high school without learning anything.
> No Child Left Behind?... Why not? Leave them behind if they don't care and put in no effort to try. Tests should not be made just to pass everyone. What does failure mean? I would not mind it at all if I failed when I did not put in any effort. Sadly, most people around me put in even less effort.


Yeah, some of the state tests are just too easy. I haven't taken the test yet, but my social studies teacher said that the HSPA (high school test in New Jersey) is "designed for students to pass." lol  It seems to me the state literally doesn't want to leave anybody behind by making sure they pass the test haha.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 5, 2009)

There is a similar situation with low standards for High School Geometry in North Carolina. In all honors Geometry classes, the students are taught how to do fairly challenging geometric proofs, that require a decent level of mathematical insight for a student with a high school math background. The tests the students see in the classes all use proofs at this level, and the students often complain of finding them to be excessively challenging.

The state mandated End Of Course test for High School Geometry in North Carolina gives one or two problems that are related to a geometric proof. On these problems the entire proof is worked out for them, with the exception of one step (and even then either the statement is missing only, or the reason why the statement is true only). The student must pick the proper completion of that step from the choices given.

The lower level geometry classes, the ones for those who struggle, do proofs in the same way as the End Of Course test, by simply filling in the blank of proofs that are already worked out for them, with the exception of a portion of one step missing.

There is definitely a double standard of sorts for the Honors Geometry students, which I think is a bit strange.

Chris


----------



## V-te (Nov 5, 2009)

Rubik's Cube Fan said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with most of your points. What I described is the situation in Maryland.
> ...



Thus another flaw of NCLB. Bias.
This money should be directed at new 21st century teaching methods.


----------



## Escher (Nov 5, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> No Child Left Behind?... Why not? Leave them behind if they don't care and put in no effort to try. Tests should not be made just to pass everyone. What does failure mean? I would not mind it at all if I failed when I did not put in any effort. Sadly, most people around me put in even less effort.



If a child has been brought up in an environment of anti-intellectualism, where neither of their parents have a job, and none of their peers go to school or attend school regularly, do you think they would have any reason or motivation to care and put in effort at school? No, of course not.
Is it still fair to let somebody fail just because they've never been taught to work?

NB; I am not defending NCLB


----------



## PCwizCube (Nov 5, 2009)

I agree with the points that a lot of students aren't really learning because of the different teaching styles because of the NCLB. But I think there might be a different reason. It might sound absurd but this is my opinion.

In the US, we have honors classes, then something like middle level and then a lower level. In some Asian countries where people claim they get better test scores like Taiwan (I'm only talking about Taiwan because that's the country I know most about), they only have one level of class, for everybody.

Now I think we can all agree that most peoples' parents would not be happy if their child got straight Ds or mostly Ds on their report card. In lower classes, it's easy for people to get at least Cs. All they have to do is do at least some of their homework and do decent on tests. For them, it's not that hard. Consequently, they get at least mostly Cs. However, I think because of this work ethic, they're not really learning anything.

Now imagine putting all this people in honors classes. If they continue to use their lazy habits, they definatly will get Ds or lower. This is what it's like in Taiwan. Most students don't want to get mostly Ds, so they actually try. They actually try and learn things. But if you're in a lower class in the US, you don't really learn that much, you learn something but you don't practice it enough or care about it that much and you forget it a couple of weeks later.

In Taiwan, many years before, it was like the US. They had high level, then middle level, then lower (something along the lines of that). But in Taiwan it's different, you are in the same class (with the same people) for all your subjects, so you would either get high classes in all your subjects or low in all of them. Then the parents of the lower classes got upset and then they banned it.

So what do you guys think. Hypothetically, if you put everyone in Honors classes, what do you think would happen? Do you think people would work harder? I would like to know all your opinions on this


----------



## qqwref (Nov 5, 2009)

Escher said:


> Is it still fair to let somebody fail just because they've never been taught to work?



That's a good question, but the answer really depends on how you feel about school itself. Is the goal of school mainly to grade students (i.e. decide who is the smartest) or to teach students? If we want to teach students, why is it - are we trying to bring everyone up to a certain level, or to bring the highest people up to the highest level we can get, or to improve everyone equally, or what? I think a lot of people will have different viewpoints on this.

Your question also brings up an important counter-point: is it fair to force someone to work harder because you want them to match a certain standard? Personally I think that if someone wants to learn they should be given the opportunity, but if they clearly don't want to be in school then there is no reason to waste resources on them. It's better to use our resources to help the people who will benefit most than to just hand out the same education to everyone and not care who gets the most out of it.


----------



## fanwuq (Nov 6, 2009)

Rubik's Cube Fan said:


> So what do you guys think. Hypothetically, if you put everyone in Honors classes, what do you think would happen? Do you think people would work harder? I would like to know all your opinions on this



That does not work. Officially, all the classes are called honors in my school, but in reality, the styles of each teacher vary a lot. There are many classes with the exact same name that are clearly of different qualities.



qqwref said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > Is it still fair to let somebody fail just because they've never been taught to work?
> ...



Interesting. I don't think there is a correct or wrong answer. I don't even know if it is to the benefit of the society how well I do. I actually sometimes think that I shouldn't even apply to college-- what if I get into a college and take the place of someone else who valued it more than I do? I guess we really shouldn't even care about this at all. Each person values education differently. Learn whatever is you want and is available and dropout if it is necessary. Give everyone freedom and equal opportunities. That sounds fair, but it may decrease the overall quality of life of the entire society. 

At the moment my marginal benefit from taking AP English is negative. I'm being blasted with a whole bunch of BS philosophy rather than actually practicing writing. It would be so much better if the teacher was teaching to the test. Most of my other classmates love the teacher and that class, but that is the only class I've ever truly hated in my life. I know I'm wasting the resources provide by that class, but I'm doomed to stay in there. It is impossible to make sure everyone is receiving maximum benefits from classes. It was my fault for choosing that class and that's ok.
Teaching to the test is not the issue. The problem is forcing people to study subjects they have no interest in. Of course it can be argued that they could unconsciously learn valuable lessons that benefit them later on; children do not know if what they like to learn is what they should learn. Then again, is failure even a bad thing?


----------

