The problem with this is that if the child's English is bad, the parent's is likely to be bad too. How is the parent supposed to help. The kid is screwed eitehr way.

You'd be right if post-secondary education was actually about education. It''s not. It's a business. They don't care how well you do as long as they get your money.

Which is why that piece of paper at the end of it all isn't even worth the paper it's printed on. Far too many people have one. Or at least in Canada they do. The entire educational system from ECE to post-grad needs to be revamped.

Lady Pi Phi, I'm not sure if you read an article that was in the National Post a few years ago about an elementary school in Markham, Ontario. The school profiled is made up mostly of first generation Canadians and immigrants who speak another language at home. Yet, that school scored above provincial standards in the Grade 3 and Grade 6 tests.

http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/.../nclbworks.htm

But perhaps that is a whole other topic.

Anyway, I've seen some of the work kids do in school and it's a joke. I got to college and I saw a lot of people struggling because they had barely any exposure to high level math and science.

I think France's education system where everyone follows the same curriculum is best. And yes, of course, students in special ed should not have to do it.

-Rudey

I'm sorry, but you're horribly pessimistic about the education system. I mean, some areas need to be revamped but for many people their education is more than a piece of paper, and the distinction of a degree/diploma is definately worth the money, time and effort.

Sorry if it wasn't for you.

No, I did not read that article. I can't explain it either. Perhaps those kids are an exception to the rule. Perhaps that's just a very good school. It would be interesting to see how other schools with a majority of first generation and immigrant kids from other areas measured up.

You're right, it wasn't for me. But maybe that's because I got a B.A and I've worked with so many people who have B.A's that are stuck in crappy dead end jobs and feel the same way about it as I do. I found that community college has helped me a lot more than my B.A has. But maybe if I had majored in business or science I would feel differently.

Well, in terms of high school results, 73% of AY Jackson SS (Grades 10-12...some North York schools are JK-6 for elementary, 7-9 for middle school (called junior high if 7-9) and 10-12 for high school) students speak another language at home. Here are their Grade 10 literacy test results from last school year:


Total % of Toronto students passing both reading and writing: 58%

Total % Ontario: 70%

Total at Jackson (including those who deferred the test/didn't take it): 65%

More results from a few other Toronto schools. All schools listed have more than 50% speaking another language at home:

Jarvis Collegiate is the oldest academic high school in Ontario, founded in 1807. The student body is very diverse and 66% speak another language at home. The results for 2003-04 aren't available online, but here are the results for 2002-03:

Total % of Toronto students passing: 56%

Total % in Ontario: 67%

Total at Jarvis: 67%

Another school that serves the Jarvis area is Central Commerce. The school was originally founded as a business focused high school, but now offers courses in all academic areas. Today, 64% of the students speak another language at home. The results at this school differ greatly from Jarvis

Toronto and Ontario passing rate: Same as above

Central Commerce Total: 23

This is likely because the exam is more "academic" (university prep) centred rather than "applied". Central Commerce has more "applied" students than at Jarvis, which has close to none, if any at all.

Earl Haig SS: This Grade 9-12 school not only has an excellent academic program, but also houses the high school division of the Claude Watson School for the Performing Arts. At Earl Haig, 65% of students speak another language at home. Results from the 2002-2003 literacy tests are as follows:

Toronto and Ontario passing rates see Jarvis

Earl Haig: 78%

Agincourt CI: Grades 9-12

% of students who speak another language at home: 53

Toronto and Ontario passing rates: see Jarvis

Agincourt passing rate: 83%


Georges Vanier SS: Grades 10-12

% of students who speak another language at home: 75

Toronto and Ontario passing rate: See Jarvis

Vanier: only 32%

Toronto District School Board website: www.tdsb.on.ca

My theory is this: Schools called "Collegiate Institutes" are historically more academically focused, with most students intending to enter university. Schools called "secondary schools" are mostly general high schools, and are actually "newer" (I can only think of two high schools in the old city of Toronto that are "secondary schools"...Northern and Rosedale Heights.) Students used to be streamed to different divisions, with collegiates preparing students for university matriculation and other schools for the work force. While non-collegiates are required to offer university prep courses today, collegiates offer few work force prep programs.

That's the problem. So many people have B.A.s that they are becoming worthless. Basically a lot of people go to college, rack up a huge debt, and then get a minimum wage job anyway. If colleges were a lot more difficult to get into it would save those people money, and the people that did earn their degree would have something worth their trouble.

We wouldn't need the standardized tests if more schools were up-to-par. Unfortunately, they're not, and as Rudey said, I've been exposed to a lot of students who quite frankly had minimal education up to college.

For very selfish reasons, with things as they are, I think standardized tests work reasonably well. Not every kid who gets A's in high school is created equal; some kids worked for them, and some kids were handed them.

Are standardized tests the answer? I hope not long term, because there are too many problems.

Either way though, U.S. public schools need some serious changes.

Amen.

I do have a couple of issues with our education system and one of those issues is the standardized test. I understand their purpose and the reason behind them but I don't think they are accurate or advantageous.

Standardized tests are the way in which we compare students to other of a like age and grade. Schools, Administrations, teachers and parents can take this information and ultimate decided funding, effectiveness and ability. Colleges use Standardized tests to test both current knowledge and the potential to obtain new knowledge. For students who are on a college bound track, maybe they are useful but think of all the students that never get schooling past high school, these exams mean nothing.

Standardized tests force teachers to teach to the tests and not to the curriculum and needs of their students. In California this year they are testing the 5th graders on their knowledge of Science. Since the teachers have not been accountable in the past students are lacking basic Science skills and this year teachers are scrambling to teach 5th grade science and more so they don't loose funding. It has also been found that multiple choice tests don't reinforce the concepts being taught but only test if the student can pick an answer out of a bunch. For students that are not continuing on to college, they need a better understanding of the basic skills being taught. Having a student regurgitate their understanding of a concept is one way to ensure understanding of a subject.

Finally, Standardized tests are only effective on those students that excel at multiple-choice tests. Some students can tell you the answer but can’t pick the right one in the teacher’s terms. In these instances the test is only finding out what students are good at tests and not which ones know the knowledge.

I sympathize with the lamentation of people that "don't test well."

But that isn't necessarily the fault of the test itself. The tests are designed to test your knowledge or aptitutde . . . under exam conditions.

Otherwise you would be able to take it home with you.

Its like saying you run well, except when people are watching on Race day. ITs all well and good but a coach looking to win races you to perform at the right time.

I think that children will take out of an education system what they and their parents put into it, just like anything else. To say the problem is our schools is a stretch. Are there some unmotivated, burned out teachers? Sure, but in my experience so far, they are few and far between. Most of them love kids and want to help kids learn and are creative in achieving those goals. A family that holds high value in education will almost always have children who succeed in school. In my Wechsler IQ testing course in grad school, they talked about predictors of IQ. They included: parental education levels, number of books in the environment, how often children were read to and other things like that. Standardized tests are supposed to be standardized against IQ tests so that if you scored in the 99th percentile on the local standardized test, you would also be expected to score in the 99th percentile on the Stanford Binet or Wechsler. They also emphasized that all an IQ predicted was the person's ability to succeed in a formal education setting.

That said, there are kids in the Detroit Public School system (which may qualify as the most screwed up school system in the country these days, having been taken over by the state, a real mess) who excel and make it into some of the magnet schools offered. There are students in some of the worst high schools who still get a good education, because they care about their education and they get support from their parents. It is more difficult for them though.

I had an excellent education in my public school, partly because I was in all AP classes with other students who were highly motivated to do well, and parents who placed high expectations on me without me realizing it. There was never a question of whether I would go to college, it was a question of where I would go! It was just an assumption that I was going. It was the step after highschool. There are people who went to my same school who probably got nothing out of their education. They were in the basic classes, high a lot of the time, skipping classes, etc. I was lucky to grow up in a solid middle/upper middle class area.

Some kids face such obstacles in daily survival that most of us cannot fathom. If the only meal they get is the free school lunch that day, they won't be successful in school. When I worked with 5-12 year old kids in the inner city of Southwest Detroit, some of them told stories of dodging bullets on the way to school. Do you think they were mentally ready to focus on learning? Some of them lived in areas where the police and EMS won't go, because the gangs were setting them up to shoot them with false calls for help. They would shoot EMS who were trying to help a rival gang member who had been shot. They lived in houses that had no windows or heat. They have a whole lot of street smarts that most of us don't need to have, but they suffer educationally. They are simply focused on survival. You can't blame teachers for those kids being unsuccessful.

I can even say that I think my kids are getting a better education than I did. I floated through my first two years of college because my high school courses were much harder than my lower level college courses. But, my kids learn in so many ways. When I went to school, we learned multiplication by rote memory. They teach the kids now why the answer is what it is, they teach them patterns (who knew that the 9's times tables answers added up to 9 or that you could quickly do this trick with your fingers to figure out the 9's answers? They didn't teach us those things!), they teach them in many ways, through songs, not just through flash cards. They learn to read in a different structure and read at their own levels, not at the level that the rest of the class is reading. They do units in social studies or science that they turn into English lessons and math lessons too. I'm certainly impressed with all the different ways each topic is addressed. They really reinforce learning.

My point to a really long post is: The education system isn't that screwed up, our society has some major issues that are being ignored, which show up as symptoms in the education arena.

Dee

I cannot argue against the proposition that we as a nation have some staggering issues which must be addressed and delt with. AGDee's post was a real eye opener and points out the truth of that old saying that it is difficult to remember that your object is to drain the swamp when you are up to your butt in aligators! There are no easy fixes. However, one consideration regarding standardized tests might be to look at how tests are done in England. Over there the school you attend doesn't test you or assign a grade to you. There is a National Curriculum which establishes a syllabus and learning objectives and then tests all students to the same standard. There is effectively no difference between an "A" earned by a kid from Eton and an "A" earned from the so-called worst inner city state school. Same standards across the board. The difference is how well the school prepares you to take the national tests. Since we all know that over here standards can vary widely and an "A" from XYX High might only equate to a "D" at ABC High we might want to take a hard look at the way the Brits do it. In the time I spent over there I got the definite impression that the average Brit was better and much more broadly educated than the average American, a situation which annoyed the hell out of me. I met people from the so-called Top Schools and people from the very bottom of the heap, and even the ones who were just plane bad students seemed to have been exposed to and to have retained much more than their "Yank" counterparts. I understand that most European countries use a similar system and get demonstrably solid results. Anybody with exposure to the British or European system, please comment on how you saw this approach in practice.