Principal Tells Teachers To Dumb-Down Standards - Page 2 - Political Fever

Jesus H. Lincoln · #11 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumara

That is how I interpreted it as well.

Yet there has definitely been a dumbing down of educational standards in the public school system. That is one reason that cash registers today tell the cashier how much change to give; many people no longer can figure it out. :idiot:

I saw the hard evidence of this dumbing down effect when I home-schooled my son and was preparing him to pass the GED. I checked out GED books from the local library that were published in different years. The questions in the older books were much more difficult, and as the books became more recent, the questions became noticeably easier each year.

The same is true of the SATs. An SAT score of 1200 now doesn't mean what it did 20 years ago. The questions have become easier to answer as an inspection of SAT prep books printed through the years will show, and I heard that a student now is granted 100 points just for putting his or her name on the test! The purpose of this is to make it appear that students today can do just as well as students of yesterday. Yet if the tests had the same of difficulty as those from 20 ago or less, scores would be noticeably lower.

I also saw how stupid some teachers were when my son was in elementary school. One example was when my son brought home some worksheets his teacher had prepared. In trying to impart to her students that "st" could stand for an "s" sound, she had a picture of a toothbrush with the word "bristols" beside it. :idiot: Concerned that students were being taught incorrect spelling, I called and asked the principal if this was a school-wide worksheet or one created by that one teacher. The answer was that the teacher created it; the principal didn't care about the misspelling.

The same school held a rummage sale. Posters were plastered all over the neighborhood that announced RUMAGE SALE. When I pointed out to the principal that students seeing these might think that is the correct spelling, once again the principal didn't care.

A teacher who cannot spell cannot teach proper English to students, and a dumb populace is more easily controlled.

An SAT score of 1200 now means considerably less than a score of 1200 used to, because the total score is now out of 2400, not 1600. You get 600 points as the weighting base just for filling out your name and all correctly, but that still leaves 1800 points to be earned. A 1200 out of 1800 is like a 1067 out of 1600. Also, admissions standards have become more stringent, so that although scores are routinely higher (for better or, more likely, for worse due to possibly laxer standards) so are the requisite scores to get anything.

It's true that standards are sliding in many places, but at my high school, we needed 13 more credits to graduate than my parents did.

Lumara · #12 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 11:58 AM

Thanks for explaining that, but giving someone 600 points just for filling in their name is ridiculous. I thought giving them 100 points for that was bad - but 600! :wacko:

miriya · #13 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 12:03 PM

being a bad spellier doesnt mean one is dum or a bad teacher, it depents on what the teacher is supose to teach

Jesus H. Lincoln · #14 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumara

Thanks for explaining that, but giving someone 600 points just for filling in their name is ridiculous. I thought giving them 100 points for that was bad - but 600! :wacko:

In one sense I completely agree, but I believe the entire point for doing it is as a weighting due to something with the scale. It's a freakish scale anyway, and it confuses everybody who deals with it.

At any rate, I agree with you that standardized testing is becoming all about pushing up those scores to compensate for stupid kids. After suffering through eight takings of Indiana's standardized test, the I-STEP, I've taken the position that most standardized testing is inherently flawed anyway and shouldn't be the standard of a student's success. The SAT and ACT and such are somewhat different, but they are getting easier.

Jesus H. Lincoln · #15 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miriya

being a bad spellier doesnt mean one is dum or a bad teacher, it depents on what the teacher is supose to teach

When you have an English teacher who spells "nature" as "natur," like I had in seventh grade, I think there's a problem.

miriya · #16 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 12:56 PM

or one who mix danish with english

Lumara · #17 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miriya

being a bad spellier doesnt mean one is dum or a bad teacher, it depents on what the teacher is supose to teach

When elementary school teachers are teaching children letter sounds and spelling, they are incompetent and shouldn't be in that position if they cannot spell correctly themselves. If someone has graduated after four years or more of college and cannot spell common words in their own language, they ARE pretty stupid.

Jesus H. Lincoln · #18 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumara

When elementary school teachers are teaching children letter sounds and spelling, they are incompetent and shouldn't be in that position if they cannot spell correctly themselves. If someone has graduated after four years or more of college and cannot spell common words in their own language, they ARE pretty stupid.

True, but should the same apply for, say, a high school chemistry teacher, where the spelling isn't quite as important in, say notes? The meaning is still perfectly clear if the teacher misspells 4-chloro-5-amino-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone (which is actually a bad example, because, since that's so formulaic, it's very easy to spell if you know what each part is).

Lumara · #19 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 01:32 PM

I think proper spelling is important for any teacher. Spelling is a sign of literacy and if someone cannot do it correctly after four years of college, well, I'm not impressed with their education nor ability. Sometimes people make mistakes which is understandable but if they do it constantly due to an inability to spell correctly, there is a problem. Literacy should be a requirement to teach.

So you'll understand better where I'm coming from, I'll say this: when I was in the Army I worked for Military Intelligence translating Russian technical documentation into English and at that time could translate four other languages into English as well. (I haven't done it in years so am rusty now.) In elementary school I received a grade of 100% on every spelling test I took except one. In addition, my Mom was a college English professor so we are sticklers when it comes to spelling.

So I'm hard core when it comes to teachers who teach children spelling when they cannot spell themselves. I also believe someone graduating high school should know how to spell and that there's no excuse for someone to graduate from college without having that ability.

miriya · #20 (**permalink**) 12-15-2007, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumara

When elementary school teachers are teaching children letter sounds and spelling, they are incompetent and shouldn't be in that position if they cannot spell correctly themselves. If someone has graduated after four years or more of college and cannot spell common words in their own language, they ARE pretty stupid.

Well thank you, just call me stubit then, though I understand most bussiness taktic,and is fluent in english speaking, I have deep understanding for politcs and I am well verst in the lore of this world.

But I cant spell for ****

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name		Remember Me?
Password