Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack
Just curious, has anyone's opinion changed or been affected on who they will vote for based on these Understanding The Issues threads I've started?
|
These threads are good summations of where each candidate stands on the issues... I don't have to dig too far when everything is listed here in one place.
In terms of standardized testing, general tests like the SATs and GREs are not predictors of future success (however, specialized entrance exams, like the MCATs and LSATs, are legitimate tests for their programs). I knew kids who killed at these general tests, but they didn't match high scores with an inherent motivation to succeed at the next level. The SAT is only an indicator of how well you take that particular test.
There's a reason why students can increase their scores a few hundred points after taking an SAT class. These courses teach you how to take the test in the most efficient manner- in addition to brushing up your pre-trig math, they mostly offer tricks to beat it. For example, plugging in the answers to figure out the solution (backwards-solving), scanning for major points on reading comp., bettering your odds, etc. These tricks have nothing to do with IQ or high levels of problem-solving. It's also a reason why many universities are placing less weight on these tests for entrance.
In regards to high school learning, teaching to the test does place a crutch on effective teaching styles. Schneed, you actually bring up a good point re: how logic is important when taking these exit exams. The only problem is that teachers can't sharpen these analytical skills when they teach to the test.
Give instructors the ability to teach in ways that get through to an ever-changing student body and you'll find a rise in critical-thinking skills and problem-solving ability. You do this by providing kids a hands-on approach to content learning via authentic activities. Apply the way high school chemistry is taught to all areas of teaching. What would work better? A strict state-mandated curriculum for a history class that has teachers assigning text, interspersed with quizzes and finals? Or a teacher who teaches outside the box? For example, providing activities that compare past events with current ones, allowing students a more interactive way to analyze historical events (because they're provided a relevant parallel).
Because funding for CA public schools is heavily reliant on these test scores, there is absolutely no time in the semester for teachers to do anything outside of the mandated curriculum. I think most of my generation went through the rote memorization method of learning. I memorized what I needed to, aced the test and then forgot it the next day. One thing I like from Obama's educational platform is his commitment to innovation. Let's change the educational paradigm, so kids are better equipped to learn the basics (math, English and science) via higher levels of critical thinking and problem solving abilities (and not through paint-by-numbers memorization words/numbers).