Education and common core, comparative understanding, the bell curve.
Not all should enter
Education is not a noun and it is not a book.
Why oh why are people graded comparing them “against” others? Education should be a way of life not a business model. Education is right here and right now. Common is not a word we use to promote excellence. Education is poorly done when trying to make it common. Is the notion of comparative understanding as a competence level correct?
We ran a forum by folk and learned much about views on education. I may quote some here and so here is the link to the forum: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/118754
I have never seen a corporation that evaluates performance across divisions and departments using a common matrix. I suppose you could do it but why would you compare an accountant with a salesman?
Sometimes a blank page speaks volumes
A common problem or a standard problem.
Is standardization and common the same term? Apparently to the governments of this world the terms are synonymous. Here is a seldom understood fact. In the USA all children go to what we call high school or at least nearly all. That would be about people from the age of 14 years old to 18 years old for four years in that age group. It seems we still use the term mandatory.
Now in many eastern/oriental/Asian jurisdictions or venues children do not go mandatorily to the equivalent “high school”. In fact for most of the population, passing tests to get into high school is required.
We don't need no education
In other words, the equivalent of high school is not a right/mandatory through the world.
So along come these world test scores for determining the education throughout the world. In other words we like to compare nations against each other in determining the level and quality of educational systems. So you take 250 nations and compare them to each other to determine which nations students are the “best” educated. (even the sentence hardly makes sense)
Well do you test the 70% of non-high school “students” in China --- no, of course not. You see if a country only educates the top 30% of young people through the high school level then those are all of the children that are included in the evaluation.
Well along comes the USA and every child must go to high school and so we test every child.
See the problem with comparative based evaluations?
Here is where we learn
Now use the same logic in comparing student to student.
Sorry but it does not work either
Children raised in cornfields in Iowa and children raised in inner cities in New York speak different languages and have different frames of reference. At least I think we should all hope so. Standing in lines and taking subways and living in apartment buildings is a whole other world than a farm home where the lines are rows of crops the transportation is a truck or horse and books are read instead of computer screens.
Here is another fun fact about these ratings
Private schools in the USA are not necessarily factored into the numbers. So that from China only the top 30% are tested, and here in the USA about 20% percent of our top students are not tested and included.
So what we are really seeing in these statistics ranking countries regarding the quality of education is really slanted and not helpful at all if used in comparative analysis. We include and they exclude. They test only their best while we test all of the rest.
Now about these teachers
Some teachers are making a big fuss against our common core educational agenda. They claim that the standardization notions require them to teach for testing and not for learning. They suggest that the common notions being required leaves no time for other activities, teaching and learning.
The more we look into that the more a stack of garbage it becomes.
I suppose we can have slow learners in school. Well if that is true we can also have slow teachers in school. It just is a fact. Some teachers are not up to the challenge of being a good teacher. Just because someone got a degree, diploma and certificate does not make them a qualified teacher. Just think about it, all it means is that they are good test takers. Because someone taught them how to take tests it does not mean they learned how to teach.
Did you learn anything?
Are you competent in common knowledge?
Common core is just that.
It really is just about being commonly competent. The Iowa farm boy and the inner city slicker should all know common facts and core concepts. What is most scary is that there are educators that cannot reach that base level and not have time to inspire creativity and global approaches.
It would appear that taxpayers have a right to demand that our school systems produce young people with a decent knowledge of the common core.
Now with that said, not all children are capable.
Some young people just are not that bright. We have got to devise a system that separates our youth by capacity. That may sound harsh but it is not in the long run. What is wrong in the long and short term is making teachers teach all students to be equal. Why should smart Jody be handicapped by dumb Johnny? I know that sounds just too mean and cruel but it is a reality.
America does not have the resources to make all students equally knowledgeable. It is not up to the government to hold Jody back so that Johnny can catch up. And it is equally not up to our government to force Johnny to be as knowledgeable as Jody. If you think about it that system is and will always be insane.
Truly I hope this hub raised more issues than it solved.
We are not bound to all end up equal. We are all born equal in the eyes of the creator but we are not made equal in the sense that we are all common. There is not commonality of intellect. So why try to force that false reality onto the citizenry?