jackofallgeeks | More to the article than she meant, I think.

Entry tags:

More to the article than she meant, I think.

There's a lot in Here that peaks my interest: that schools may be geared in such a way that favors one gender over the other; that 'learning disability' may often just mean the child isn't fitting the educational mold we expect them to; considering how culturally-influenced gender roles are, and whether they might not be hard-wired in some way. that's a lot to think about. Unfortunately, I can't take the time to think about it here at work and as I'm going to The Beach for the weekend this afternoon, probably won't be able to look at it until Monday or so...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Did you see this article in the Washington Post?

A study to be released today looking at long-term trends in test scores and academic success argues that widespread reports of U.S. boys being in crisis are greatly overstated and that young males in school are in many ways doing better than ever.

Using data compiled from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a federally funded accounting of student achievement since 1971, the Washington-based think tank Education Sector found that, over the past three decades, boys' test scores are mostly up, more boys are going to college and more are getting bachelor's degrees.

Although low-income boys, like low-income girls, are lagging behind middle-class students, boys are scoring significant gains in elementary and middle school and are much better prepared for college, the report says. It concludes that much of the pessimism about young males seems to derive from inadequate research, sloppy analysis and discomfort with the fact that although the average boy is doing better, the average girl has gotten ahead of him.

"The real story is not bad news about boys doing worse," the report says, "it's good news about girls doing better.

That's a much nicer article, and generally more along the lines of how I'd look at it -- though it makes me a little bit concerned about (1) schools possibly teaching-to-the-test or dumbing down exams for 'better' scores and (2) the chilling implications of what it means that special-ed and learning disability diagnosis are on the rise if we're doing comprable-or-better than we always have been.

I mean, it would be if I believed in the devil. Although, this isn't new. I mean, even old fogies of our school years were being taught-to-the-test so we could show-off-for-the-county, a method that does not help to retain information but merely how to do well on the test. Somewhat like SAT classes.

Or rather, Re: would be if I believed the devil actively caused human suffering. (But that's a WHOLE 'nother' conversation.) that it isn't new doesn't forgive anything; it just means we haven't learned. i'm not concerned that education be "good enough" or "no worse than anyone else" or "as good as we've ever been." Education should have an objective standard of what one ought to know and how well one ought to know it -- not that everyone must necessarily meet the standard, mind (again, another conversation), but that we should have some concrete way of determining who is and isn't 'succeeding' and whether or not our schools are doing as they should -- and by that I mean educating our children, not performing daycare or keeping kids off the street (those are accidentals, not primary goals).

Firstly, I would like to civilly point out that actually, it's "if I believed in the devil", because I do not. None of the other things, such as what the devil wears and eats, whose suffering he/she causes, and so on and so forth, matters one whit if you do not believe in the existance of said devil. As you said, though, another time.

It's a difficult dilemna: how can we measure quality of education without some sort of standard measuring tape? How can we work to achieve quality education and score well on these tests without simply focusing on the tests themselves?

-laughs- Yes, yes, you don't believe in the devil at all. I on the other hand do believe in his existence, but I'm not so sure he's the great orchestrator of evil he's made out to be. That, my thoughts on devil and his place in reality, is the other conversation. Whether or not you believe in him, and the why behind it, would be a third conversation. Amusingly, about religious subject matter.

I believe I misread you. I thought you were nitpicketly correcting my phrasing and therein changing the meaning. But yes, here we go again. :P*

-smiles- Oh no. I only ever speak for myself. If I ever think you mean something else, I'll be careful to ask you to clarify. After all, I wouldn't want someone else mangling my implications and meaning.

go get a tan or something. :P*

I'm not exactly sure how to take that, but... i'm at work. Noting but fluorescent lighting here.

I thought you said you were going to the Beach? I dunno.

Not until after work, circa 4:30-ish. Gotta punch the clock, y'know?

why doncha beat up on someone your own size?!

because someone my own size can punch back. this is the only exersize I get: 'girly' doesn't even begin to cover it.
:p

That was so cute I don't even have anything mean to say!

-laughs- It's a lie. I imagine I could hold my own in a fight.

Maybe. Not against ME, though. I'd kick your ass!

Bring it.

This is where you suddenly get all supersecretninja on me

All computer guys who work for the government know Crane-style martial arts.

The EEs get Leopard-style.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

More to the article than she meant, I think.

Oh, and another thing

no subject

Standardized testing is the devil's work

Re: Standardized testing is the devil's work

Objective standards

Re: Objective standards

Oh dear

no subject

hrm

Re: hrm

work?

Re: work?

don't punch the clock!

Re: don't punch the clock!

awww, Andrew

Re: awww, Andrew

Ha!

no subject

Heheh

no subject