Baltimore Sun: Widespread cheating found at city elementary school

[MattFancy]

OK, I agree with you.

But this leads me to one of three conclusions:

1) The tests are way out of whack with what the regular curriculum would be for the students.

2) The teachers would not normally be fulfilling the actual curriculum requirements if not for the test.

3) The teachers don't trust their abilities to correctly teach the material and allow the students to be tested on it.

If the issue is #1, then the process would obviously need to be re-visited.

If the issue is #2, then I think the tests are doing what they are intended to do...flush out areas where classes or school systems are coming up short.

If the issue is #3, then this group of professionals needs to be OK with having their performance evaluated in the only true way it can be...let someone grade the graders.

See this goes back to my point of everyone learns differently. That's why standardized test don't always tell the truth. I think they should be revamped to be more broad in what they include in them.

I took AP Statistics in HS. In order to get college credit for the class, you had to pass the AP test at the end of the year. I had a B average in the class over the year and felt good going into the test. You needed to score a 3 or better on the test to pass, I got a 1.5. The test didn't have much on there that we learned during the year and not many people in my class passed it. I did however felt like I learned alot in stats and ended up doing well in both my stats classes in college. Mostly because of my teacher, not because of the AP test.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

beacuse it isn't cut and dried. how do you measure "success" at different schools? in some areas just keeping all the kids in school, safe, and adequately fed is a HUGE early success... and burns alot of energy.

I see. I didn't realize we were going outside the realm of academics. I see your point.

I guess I don't have any issues with the state grading schools on a curve when it comes to the test results. At the same time, if it's determined that 10th graders should know X, Y, and Z...then I don't see the harm in testing all 10th graders and holding the schools accountable to improve.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

See this goes back to my point of everyone learns differently. That's why standardized test don't always tell the truth. I think they should be revamped to be more broad in what they include in them.

I took AP Statistics in HS. In order to get college credit for the class, you had to pass the AP test at the end of the year. I had a B average in the class over the year and felt good going into the test. You needed to score a 3 or better on the test to pass, I got a 1.5. The test didn't have much on there that we learned during the year and not many people in my class passed it. I did however felt like I learned alot in stats and ended up doing well in both my stats classes in college. Mostly because of my teacher, not because of the AP test.

I fundamentally disagree. Even your example reinforces that in my mind. Your entire class struggled on the standardized test despite experiencing success in your class. That doesn't speak to you learning differently from one of your classmates. That tells me that your teacher didn't cover the required material well enough.

I'm sure you learned plenty and understood what you learned very well. But if you were only taught 50% of what was required, then that was the failure of your teacher. To me, your example would fall under scenario #2 from my earlier post.

[mcsluggo]

as an example.... (not COMPLETELY the same, but related)

While I was working on my dissertation (or more accurately, running away from working on my dissertation!) i taught classes at different colleges around northern california (and breifly in beijing). I taught at University of California campuses (the elite) at California State campuses (the middle) and at the california equiv of community college.

ALL of the students in the UC system were either in top 5% of their high school class or went to elite schools. On the other hand, at the community college i had a huge range of students, I had some Stanford U students that were taking required classs ot the comm college to get them out of the way on the cheap (because stanford is DAMN expensive) and i had kids that barely managed to dribble out of high school, and some of them also just plain didn't give a damn.

at one point or another i taught the same class in all three situations : introductory micro-economics.

question: what should constitute a "B" in my classes? should it be the same in all three schools? am i cheating the community college students if i expect less of them? am i cheating the UC kids if I hold them to a much higher standard?

but more to the current point: was I a better teacher when I taught in the UC system if those students scored at the top of national standardized tests after my class than I was at teh community college level, if THOSE kids failed to score as well? What objective test compares teachers at the two different schools to each other in a fair and meaningful way?

[MattFancy]

I fundamentally disagree. Even your example reinforces that in my mind. Your entire class struggled on the standardized test despite experiencing success in your class. That doesn't speak to you learning differently from one of your classmates. That tells me that your teacher didn't cover the required material well enough.

I'm sure you learned plenty and understood what you learned very well. But if you were only taught 50% of what was required, then that was the failure of your teacher. To me, your example would fall under scenario #2 from my earlier post.

True, but it could be the curriculum is out of whack too. Either way, I just think standardized tests are more about your ability to take tests than anything.

My cousin graduated HS and college with a 4.0. Yet her SAT scores were no higher than a 1000. She also had to take the PRAXIS 3 or 4 times. Yet she knew her stuff, just couldn't pass the tests. She would freeze up during the tests and forget everything. You don't get a 4.0 without knowing your stuff.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

True, but it could be the curriculum is out of whack too.

That may very well be and I addressed that. If the content of the tests needs to be updated, that's fine. But that doesn't dismiss the need for standardized testing in general (in my opinion).

Either way, I just think standardized tests are more about your ability to take tests than anything.

See, I don't. I think they are a more reliable tool for testing knowledge than someone's grade in a class. You either learn it and are comfortable applying it or you don't and are not.

Getting an A in a high school class can happen any number of ways that has little to do with how well you've permanently learned the subject matter (class participation, nice teacher, extra credit, group assignments, inflating your grade with mandatory homework, etc.). Getting a good score on a test comes one way...knowing the subject that's being tested.

Of course, there can be bad tests. There can be tough questions on tests. All in all though, if the subject matter being taught is in line with the subject matter on the test AND the teachers do their job in relying it to the students, then there is no better way to gauge how well that subject has been taught.

As for your cousin, I would agree that there are rare cases when people just freeze up but I would have to assume that this is a pretty rare thing. I don't think you can invalidate the need for standardize tests because some good students are not strong test-takers.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

as an example.... (not COMPLETELY the same, but related)

While I was working on my dissertation (or more accurately, running away from working on my dissertation!) i taught classes at different colleges around northern california (and breifly in beijing). I taught at University of California campuses (the elite) at California State campuses (the middle) and at the california equiv of community college.

ALL of the students in the UC system were either in top 5% of their high school class or went to elite schools. On the other hand, at the community college i had a huge range of students, I had some Stanford U students that were taking required classs ot the comm college to get them out of the way on the cheap (because stanford is DAMN expensive) and i had kids that barely managed to dribble out of high school, and some of them also just plain didn't give a damn.

at one point or another i taught the same class in all three situations : introductory micro-economics.

question: what should constitute a "B" in my classes? should it be the same in all three schools? am i cheating the community college students if i expect less of them? am i cheating the UC kids if I hold them to a much higher standard?

but more to the current point: was I a better teacher when I taught in the UC system if those students scored at the top of national standardized tests after my class than I was at teh community college level, if THOSE kids failed to score as well? What objective test compares teachers at the two different schools to each other in a fair and meaningful way?

That's a very good analogy actually. Thank you.

I would say that, sure, the states or the federal government might want to use some type of grading curve based on the demographics or something. However, I would think that becomes tricky...I mean, who's to say that an inner-city school doesn't consist of brighter students than a school in the suburbs?

I just think the test itself is pretty cut and dry/black and white. If someone gets a 60 on a test (and assuming the test is in line with the curriculum being taught), then I think it's accurate in ALL cases to fairly determine that the student learned/retained 60 percent of the curriculum. What you choose to do with that number based on any factor you want (school, county, etc.) is up to you.

[Sticksboi05]

TD - Standardized tests don't test knowledge primarily. They test reading comprehension and test-taking skills.

Most of what you are taught in school is not important to real life anyway. When's the last time you heard a kid taking a life skills class. Is my knowledge of the citrus cycle vital to getting by? They are a waste of time and force teachers to take away valuable time studying around 50 random questions, some of which won't even be counted if too many people get it wrong.

[thebluefood]

I saw the title, and that's exactly what I was gonna post.

They misinterpreted the rules.

REPEAT!

[Dukes21]

That may very well be and I addressed that. If the content of the tests needs to be updated, that's fine. But that doesn't dismiss the need for standardized testing in general (in my opinion).

See, I don't. I think they are a more reliable tool for testing knowledge than someone's grade in a class. You either learn it and are comfortable applying it or you don't and are not.

Getting an A in a high school class can happen any number of ways that has little to do with how well you've permanently learned the subject matter (class participation, nice teacher, extra credit, group assignments, inflating your grade with mandatory homework, etc.). Getting a good score on a test comes one way...knowing the subject that's being tested.

Of course, there can be bad tests. There can be tough questions on tests. All in all though, if the subject matter being taught is in line with the subject matter on the test AND the teachers do their job in relying it to the students, then there is no better way to gauge how well that subject has been taught.

As for your cousin, I would agree that there are rare cases when people just freeze up but I would have to assume that this is a pretty rare thing. I don't think you can invalidate the need for standardize tests because some good students are not strong test-takers.

The best teacher I ever had recommended a book to me about this subject. "The Schools Our Children Deserve" by Alfie Kohn. Great book. It'll make you think twice about the effectiveness of state-wide standardized tests (and a lot of other things).

[PeterMP]

True, but it could be the curriculum is out of whack too. Either way, I just think standardized tests are more about your ability to take tests than anything.

My cousin graduated HS and college with a 4.0. Yet her SAT scores were no higher than a 1000. She also had to take the PRAXIS 3 or 4 times. Yet she knew her stuff, just couldn't pass the tests. She would freeze up during the tests and forget everything. You don't get a 4.0 without knowing your stuff.

I just want to point out that these cases can essentially be taken into account by the system.

SHE isn't being judged based on how she does, but the school is being judged based on how it DOES.

On average, over lot's of people and especially over time, you expect these sorts of things to average out so that no school should be singled out as being bad.

(Now to acknoledge mcsluggo's point, it is possible demographical situations might have some affect (e.g. some sets of parents might better prepare their kids to take standardized tests better than others) that have some affect, but we could even come up with ways to correct for that.)

[RedskinsFan318]

The problem comes from the fact that a lot of kids/parents just don't care. You could have the best teacher in the world, but if none of their kids care to learn anything, and their parents don't hold them to any sort of standard, then it doesn't matter anyway. The test will show the teacher is under performing when in reality they just can't do anything. Then, the teacher gets held accountable for something totally out of their control.

Also, elementary/middle schools spend about half the year now doing strictly MSA practice questions, which is ridiculous. Also, since the question came up before, a lot of it is about how you do something, not the answer you get. There are "BCR" sections which basically the student has to get their answer and then explain how they got it in a paragraph. More than once, my brother has been marked down on the practice tests for not doing it the "right way" even if he gets the right answer.

[MattFancy]

TD - Standardized tests don't test knowledge primarily. They test reading comprehension and test-taking skills.

Most of what you are taught in school is not important to real life anyway. When's the last time you heard a kid taking a life skills class. Is my knowledge of the citrus cycle vital to getting by? They are a waste of time and force teachers to take away valuable time studying around 50 random questions, some of which won't even be counted if too many people get it wrong.

That's the point I was trying to make. Standardized tests are about how well you can take a test, not if you know the material.

And I agree that most of the stuff I learned in school is useless to me. That's why I think college should only be 2 years. You can graduate from your major in 2 years, but you have to take all those filler classes. I'm a business major, do I really need to know the oxidation number for iron?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

TD - Standardized tests don't test knowledge primarily. They test reading comprehension and test-taking skills.

Can you illustrate that buzz phrase you're using? I guess I still have yet to read anyone actually refuting my point...which is:

If students are supposed to learn X for a given subject and are testing on X during a standardized exam, why isn't it a fair test?

Your reading comprehension example isn't relevant. In those cases, all the information you need to answer a question is given to you. So, those are pretty straight-forward as well.

I think some of you are under the impression that I'm blaming students. I'm not. I'm blaming either the content of the tests (not the concept of the tests) or the teachers who aren't preparing their classes.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

That's the point I was trying to make. Standardized tests are about how well you can take a test, not if you know the material.

How? How is a question about geometry or history not testing your knowledge of geometry or history?

And I agree that most of the stuff I learned in school is useless to me. That's why I think college should only be 2 years. You can graduate from your major in 2 years, but you have to take all those filler classes. I'm a business major, do I really need to know the oxidation number for iron?

Wow, I'm really cutting against the grain today...I completely disagree with that too. Though, I would agree that much of what we learn will never come up in our day-to-day professional lives, is it bad to get a well-rounded education?

Hell, I spend hours per week seeking out knowledge on subjects I don't apply each and every day. I watch documentaries, read articles and papers, etc.

Also, I think using college simply as a trade school would be an awful idea. Again, I'm not saying you'll need to walk into a client meeting and know the date the Magna Carta was signed...but taking a well-rounded course load helps you learn how to learn. Believe me, I know it sounds cheesy and I was looking for a different way to explain that...

Even the stuff you learn within your major is, many times, irrelevant by the time you've been in the workforce for a couple years. So, the biggest thing college does for someone is teaches them how to continue learning and adapting. Cutting it down to 2 years so that you can cram in a bunch of Accounting/Marketing/Biology/Insert Major Here classes would be a horrible idea (in my opinion).

[Sticksboi05]

Can you illustrate that buzz phrase you're using? I guess I still have yet to read anyone actually refuting my point...which is:

If students are supposed to learn X for a given subject and are testing on X during a standardized exam, why isn't it a fair test?

Your reading comprehension example isn't relevant. In those cases, all the information you need to answer a question is given to you. So, those are pretty straight-forward as well.

I think some of you are under the impression that I'm blaming students. I'm not. I'm blaming either the content of the tests (not the concept of the tests) or the teachers who aren't preparing their classes.

Do you realize the amount of questions missed because someone didn't read the word NOT. I miss questions because I swear to God I read them right taking the test but when reviewing I'm like wow I read that completely wrong.

Some people aren't good at narrowing down answers. Some second guess themselves etc. etc.

[PeterMP]

Do you realize the amount of questions missed because someone didn't read the word NOT. I miss questions because I swear to God I read them right taking the test but when reviewing I'm like wow I read that completely wrong.

Some people aren't good at narrowing down answers. Some second guess themselves etc. etc.

Again, unless you think that there is a concentration of people that aren't good at narrowing down answers in a particular school, it is irrelevant when analyzing data on a schoolwide basis.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Do you realize the amount of questions missed because someone didn't read the word NOT. I miss questions because I swear to God I read them right taking the test but when reviewing I'm like wow I read that completely wrong.

Some people aren't good at narrowing down answers. Some second guess themselves etc. etc.

Not trying to be an ass, but are you now blaming the test because someone doesn't read a question correctly/can't eliminate obviously incorrect choices/are unsure of the correct answer?

[MattFancy]

How? How is a question about geometry or history not testing your knowledge of geometry or history?

Just because you learned about those things doesn't mean you know how to apply them. I might know that the area through a circle is the diameter, but if I don't know how to find that, what good does that do me?

Wow, I'm really cutting against the grain today...I completely disagree with that too. Though, I would agree that much of what we learn will never come up in our day-to-day professional lives, is it bad to get a well-rounded education?

Hell, I spend hours per week seeking out knowledge on subjects I don't apply each and every day. I watch documentaries, read articles and papers, etc.

Also, I think using college simply as a trade school would be an awful idea. Again, I'm not saying you'll need to walk into a client meeting and know the date the Magna Carta was signed...but taking a well-rounded course load helps you learn how to learn. Believe me, I know it sounds cheesy and I was looking for a different way to explain that...

Even the stuff you learn within your major is, many times, irrelevant by the time you've been in the workforce for a couple years. So, the biggest thing college does for someone is teaches them how to continue learning and adapting. Cutting it down to 2 years so that you can cram in a bunch of Accounting/Marketing/Biology/Insert Major Here classes would be a horrible idea (in my opinion).

But isn't that what HS is for? To become a more well-rounded student? Once you get to college it should be about setting you up for your major and your career. I took chemistry in college, I don't remember much about it, why? Because I'll never have to use that stuff again in what I do daily. I remembered my stats classes, management class, and accounting because I need those skills for my job. So why waste my team making me take classes that I don't need?

[PeterMP]

Just because you learned about those things doesn't mean you know how to apply them. I might know that the area through a circle is the diameter, but if I don't know how to find that, what good does that do me?

So you ask a multiple choice question about how to find the diameter of a circle. It isn't that hard.

[MattFancy]

So you ask a multiple choice question about how to find the diameter of a circle. It isn't that hard.

Hey if life were a multiple choice test things would be easier lol

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just because you learned about those things doesn't mean you know how to apply them. I might know that the area through a circle is the diameter, but if I don't know how to find that, what good does that do me?

Who said that a teacher should have stopped at defining the diameter of a circle? Again, I think you're missing who I'm blaming here. If, however, you are taught how to find the diameter (like almost every geometry class I've ever heard of), shouldn't it be "fair game" on a test?

But isn't that what HS is for? To become a more well-rounded student? Once you get to college it should be about setting you up for your major and your career. I took chemistry in college, I don't remember much about it, why? Because I'll never have to use that stuff again in what I do daily. I remembered my stats classes, management class, and accounting because I need those skills for my job. So why waste my team making me take classes that I don't need?

We got much further into general education classes in college than we did in high school. So, no, I don't think it should stop right there. I also don't agree that college's only purpose is to coach you up for your career. You're describing a trade school. I think the goal of college should be to prepare you for the rest of your life (career included).

Isn't it helpful to have taken a PoliSci class if you find yourself in a discussion revolving around current events? Isn't it helpful to have SOME science background when you're reading an article about the ecosystem being impacted by this oil spill in the Gulf? Isn't it helpful to have some knowledge of art history when you read the DaVinci code? I know that individually, each thing seems pretty minor, but when you add it all up, I'd bet you use your general education foundation in day-to-day life more than you think.

[MattFancy]

Who said that a teacher should have stopped at defining the diameter of a circle? Again, I think you're missing who I'm blaming here. If, however, you are taught how to find the diameter (like almost every geometry class I've ever heard of), shouldn't it be "fair game" on a test?

We got much further into general education classes in college than we did in high school. So, no, I don't think it should stop right there. I also don't agree that college's only purpose is to coach you up for your career. You're describing a trade school. I think the goal of college should be to prepare you for the rest of your life (career included).

Isn't it helpful to have taken a PoliSci class if you find yourself in a discussion revolving around current events? Isn't it helpful to have SOME science background when you're reading an article about the ecosystem being impacted by this oil spill in the Gulf? Isn't it helpful to have some knowledge of art history when you read the DaVinci code? I know that individually, each thing seems pretty minor, but when you add it all up, I'd bet you use your general education foundation in day-to-day life more than you think.

All valid points. But I just feel like in the grand scheme of things, I would've been better suited taking more classes in my major than taking gen-eds. Yes I learned some things that were helpful, but the majority of it I've forgotten already.

What we both seem to agree on is that education in this country needs some type of overhaul. We just don't seem to agree on how to get there.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

All valid points. But I just feel like in the grand scheme of things, I would've been better suited taking more classes in my major than taking gen-eds. Yes I learned some things that were helpful, but the majority of it I've forgotten already.

Fair enough. I would point out that I've forgotten most of what I learned in my major too (and I did about 18 months after I graduated). I don't think that invalidates taking those courses though. We retain what is relevant but have the ability to recall something if needed.

What we both seem to agree on is that education in this country needs some type of overhaul. We just don't seem to agree on how to get there.

Agreed!

[Elessar78]

Maybe there was just a typo in the headline?

Maybe it was supposed to read: Widespread teaching found at city elementary school.

Which might actually be newsworthy in the city of Baltimore.