Author Topic: 23 states recieve an "F" in teaching history (Read 1812 times)

Kieran · « **Reply #60 on:** September 23, 2003, 10:03:07 PM »

Quote

Well, are not the classroom sizes larger in the inner city? One liberal teacher per 30 students, vs 20 students in rural area? (Meaning, more teachers outside the city?)Theres gotta be a reason...maybe teachers are coming around in the big cities? (Shrugs)

I don't know what schools you are talking about. 20 to 1? Dreaming. When I taught 5th grade I had 30-33 all the time. Bedford (my home town) is a rural farm town of 13,500.

Moreover, if there are more people in the cities than in the rural areas, there will be more students in the city as well. You're also forgetting rural schools tend to be poorer, so it is highly unlikely your scenario exists anywhere.

lazs2 · « **Reply #61 on:** September 24, 2003, 08:24:17 AM »

Some of the classes I have taken have hundreds of "students" in em and did fine.

So maybe 30 years of lowering standards and "progressive" teaching isn't working out so hot eh?
lazs

midnight Target · « **Reply #62 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:27:38 AM »

Working fine in California.

We got an A

Ripsnort · « **Reply #63 on:** September 24, 2003, 09:43:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Working fine in California.

We got an A

Big WTG! Now, get rid of Davis, get a good republican back into power(Not ARNOLD!), and hopefully your state will pull out of its nose dive.

Kieran · « **Reply #64 on:** September 24, 2003, 10:03:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
Some of the classes I have taken have hundreds of "students" in em and did fine.

So maybe 30 years of lowering standards and "progressive" teaching isn't working out so hot eh?
lazs

Not sure if you're trying to draw a relationship between college and public education, but I'm going to guess most public schools don't have classrooms with "hundreds of 'students' in em". Or are you talking about the army?

AKIron · « **Reply #65 on:** September 24, 2003, 10:07:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Big WTG! Now, get rid of Davis, get a good republican back into power(Not ARNOLD!), and hopefully your state will pull out of its nose dive.

Didja watch Leno Monday night? The quip for Mary Carey had me rolling in bed.

rpm · « **Reply #66 on:** September 24, 2003, 11:44:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
If their "results" were based on state findings rather than their own standardized testing then they are without merit. Just as popeye posted, many states have low standards resulting in higher standings when compared with states with higher standards.

Texas has been fighting an uphill battle to raise academic standards over the last few years. It hasn't been easy going, lotta opposition.

Wasn't GWB and then his hand picked successor the Governor of this state that earned a "C"? What about all the campaigning by them about the better education that we now have thanks to them? Clearly someone was lying, was it the Report or the Republicans?

Sikboy · « **Reply #67 on:** September 24, 2003, 11:54:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
Wasn't GWB and then his hand picked successor the Governor of this state that earned a "C"? What about all the campaigning by them about the better education that we now have thanks to them? Clearly someone was lying, was it the Report or the Republicans?

Did you check the date of the report?
[edit] Nevermind, Misread on my part.
[/edit]
-Sik

Kieran · « **Reply #68 on:** September 24, 2003, 12:02:29 PM »

RPM, try to understand...

If a state attempts to self-regulate and up standards, there will be an immediate drop in standardized test scores. So... even though it looks in the short term like the state is going backward, in actuality they are looking ahead to better scores down the line, scores that actually mean something. This of course will never stop opponents to spending money on education from either intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreting the data. People who are vehemently against public education tend to be so to the point of not listening anymore.

Sikboy · « **Reply #69 on:** September 24, 2003, 12:04:16 PM »

Oh.. found it..

If you check the rankings page, at the very bottom, you can see that Texas was a "B" in 1998 and 2000, but dropped to a "C" in 2003.

-Sik

rpm · « **Reply #70 on:** September 24, 2003, 12:07:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
RPM, try to understand...

If a state attempts to self-regulate and up standards, there will be an immediate drop in standardized test scores. So...

But they are claiming HIGHER test scores and "Blue Ribbon" schools. Bush and Perry both campaigned on this.

lazs2 · « **Reply #71 on:** September 24, 2003, 12:34:28 PM »

kieran... are you saying that the standards have increased dramaticaly and that is the reason that the scores have decreased dramaticaly? If so.... My guess is that the standards are still not up to the standards of 30 or more years ago. I will listen to anything you say but you very seldom say anything.

MT... if CA got an A then they graded on a curve.

Also kieran.. when I am talking about large classrooms I am talking about night school and certification classes for work. If there is a problem with large classes for schools then the problem should be elliminated... if you elliminate enough of the problems the class size will shrink in any case... the end result will be that just as many kids will end up graduating but the ones who do will know one hell of a lot more than the ones who are graduating now...

as for the ones who can't sit through school.... well.. we need janitors and security guards and such too. Nothing wrong with that.
lazs

Kieran · « **Reply #72 on:** September 24, 2003, 12:37:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
kieran... are you saying that the standards have increased dramaticaly and that is the reason that the scores have decreased dramaticaly? If so.... My guess is that the standards are still not up to the standards of 30 or more years ago. I will listen to anything you say but you very seldom say anything.

MT... if CA got an A then they graded on a curve.

Also kieran.. when I am talking about large classrooms I am talking about night school and certification classes for work. If there is a problem with large classes for schools then the problem should be elliminated... if you elliminate enough of the problems the class size will shrink in any case... the end result will be that just as many kids will end up graduating but the ones who do will know one hell of a lot more than the ones who are graduating now...

as for the ones who can't sit through school.... well.. we need janitors and security guards and such too. Nothing wrong with that.
lazs

I am not saying standards have increased everywhere. I am saying (in response to AK's post) raising standards gives people like you ammo to slag public schools, even though they are doing what you ask them to do.

I'd agree with the rest of your post. Too bad parents will never allow that to happen. Oh, and before you feel too good about yourself, you'd have a hard time passing those tests you so roundly criticize for being too easy.

Edit: omitted "ammo"

AKIron · « **Reply #73 on:** September 24, 2003, 12:47:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
But they are claiming HIGHER test scores and "Blue Ribbon" schools. Bush and Perry both campaigned on this.

Who said anything about test scores? The cited report isn't about how well children learn history but rather about the content of the history taught.

You're just proving the point about schools with lower standards comparing more favorably against those with increasing standards. Where would you rather send your kids?

lazs2 · « **Reply #74 on:** September 24, 2003, 02:49:52 PM »

kieran... I did not claim the tests were too easy but that the standards were lower. I passed high school back in the '60's. I don't claim to recall everything I learned. I could however pass any test given high school students with a couple of months study...

Also... I have not punished you for increasing standards or used it as ammo. I would much rather see a return to standards of 30 or more (as many more as you like) years and let as many fail as needed to.

If a student fails then he fails. any parent that claims you should pass him even if he can't pass the test would be laughed out of any reasonable court.

lazs