|
|
|
This isn't first hand experience so take it for what you will, but one of my best friends lived in Singapore during high school (I'm not sure what it's actually called there, but it was during US high school years), and I think her experience was quite the opposite of what the author of that article believes. It was ALL ABOUT testing, it was extremely rigorous, and if you failed, well, that was too bad, and you had to do it all over again. She had spent time in the US public school system before that, and she kept telling me the equivalent of "You don't know how good you have it there." I live in the US btw.
|
I'm not sure what to make of her claims on the education in the aforementioned Asian countries. From what I hear, they're notorious about standardized testing to the point where it's a given that everyone goes to a cram school starting in the 7th or 8th grade.
|
United States24500 Posts
On May 16 2011 01:04 d3_crescentia wrote:
I'm not sure what to make of her claims on the education in the aforementioned Asian countries. From what I hear, they're notorious about standardized testing to the point where it's a given that everyone goes to a cram school starting in the 7th or 8th grade.
Yea... I kinda need details as to which countries have what country-wide standardized testing... and also how Finland's education system works :p
Singapore might be tricky but I'd figure TL would have people who know this information regarding south korea!
|
Singapore has standardized testing, but not in the way of the federally regulated stuff. It's like SAT testing, on a government basis, to weed out the top. But not necessarily to determine "passing students"
|
United States24500 Posts
On May 16 2011 01:26 Froadac wrote:
Singapore has standardized testing, but not in the way of the federally regulated stuff. It's like SAT testing, on a government basis, to weed out the top. But not necessarily to determine "passing students"
So would you say that the article is basically correct regarding what it says about Malaysia?
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
Didn't read the article, but Japan has yearly(I think) standardized tests for multiple subjects starting from middle school.
And college acceptance is judged purely by a one-shot exam in their 3rd yr of HS.
|
On May 16 2011 01:47 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2011 01:26 Froadac wrote:
Singapore has standardized testing, but not in the way of the federally regulated stuff. It's like SAT testing, on a government basis, to weed out the top. But not necessarily to determine "passing students" So would you say that the article is basically correct regarding what it says about Malaysia?
Yeah, for the most part. There is testing, but not like the no child left behind stuff.
|
United States24500 Posts
On May 16 2011 02:30 thedeadhaji wrote:
Didn't read the article, but Japan has yearly(I think) standardized tests for multiple subjects starting from middle school.
And college acceptance is judged purely by a one-shot exam in their 3rd yr of HS.
Do you know how those yearly standardized tests are used? Also, do you know to what extent teachers are accountable for either the standardized tests or the entrance exams?
|
Ontario, Canada has standardized tests, EQAO, for every third grade (except grade 12). They say it's so assess the level of education of the students. Every teacher hates it because it's meaningless and is just a giant waste of time and financial resource. It doesn't determine your grades nor does it determine school funding.
To be honest, I like standardized testing. Public schools vary in quality. For example, my high school is notorious in mathematics and English as mark rapists. University admissions and recruitment officers that come to our school always emphasize that they know that and bump up our marks. Standardized testing would even out the playing field for us at least.
|
CA10824 Posts
one of the main differences with the korean system vs american system is the homeroom. in general, korean students stay in the same classroom all day while the teachers rotate to teach the different subjects.
this leads to some pretty intense competition for class "pride", and the homeroom teachers really care about the average scores for their homeroom class compared to the other classrooms.
|
United States24500 Posts
On May 16 2011 06:58 LosingID8 wrote:
one of the main differences with the korean system vs american system is the homeroom. in general, korean students stay in the same classroom all day while the teachers rotate to teach the different subjects.
this leads to some pretty intense competition for class "pride", and the homeroom teachers really care about the average scores for their homeroom class compared to the other classrooms.
Are the groupings heterogenius, meaning weak students and strong students in the same homeroom?
|
16940 Posts
I'd imagine it's randomized, so asymptotically yes.
I've never gone to a Korean public school, though. Just a guess.
|
CA10824 Posts
On May 16 2011 07:11 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2011 06:58 LosingID8 wrote:
one of the main differences with the korean system vs american system is the homeroom. in general, korean students stay in the same classroom all day while the teachers rotate to teach the different subjects.
this leads to some pretty intense competition for class "pride", and the homeroom teachers really care about the average scores for their homeroom class compared to the other classrooms. Are the groupings heterogenius, meaning weak students and strong students in the same homeroom?
i would imagine so, but i also think that there are different tiers of high schools based on your high school entrance exam you take at the end of middle school (i am not 100% sure on this, but i believe it is the case)
also i forgot to mention, although it may be obvious, that students also have pride in their homeroom class as well.
|
Same as Korea for Romania. You get into high school with a set of exams after 8 grades (nation wide, math, Romanian and either history or geography I think). Results from that and I think nowadays grades 5-8 marks are used for getting into a high school of your choice.
Classrooms are set for the entire high school, everyone gets taught the same things, if you want extra it's up to the teacher outside of normal hours (our math teacher taught 2 extra hours of math/week to the entire class bringing it up to 8, for contests I would get to work after school and the closer the contest, passes from most of the other classes). Teachers move from classroom to classroom and for each classroom there's a head teacher responsible. Can say that there is indeed a bit of a competition between and inside classrooms.
Usually you get into classrooms based on your entrance grades so there is a bit of a layering but it is not that great seeing as the exams are reasonably easy if you do bother to learn for them and people's attitudes towards learning change in time. It is mostly up to the quality of the teachers you get and how much the head teacher cares to fight for the better teachers.
High schools have core set of stuff and a bit of specialization (up to 6 extra hours/week in the specific specialization, f/e CS which is mostly programming specialization has 4 hours of extra lab work and 2 extra of other programming related stuff plus being science based, more math than a let's say linguistics specialization).
Each semester you take exams in math, Romanian and 2 more subjects based on specialization (teacher chooses what the test is like and grades them).
At the end of high school there is a nation wide exam in math, Romanianx2 (written and verbal), one foreign language (verbal), one specialization and one of your choice.
As a clarification most tests do not include selecting an answer from a list. You get graded for writing the entire way you solved a problem and the correct result is just a part, there are no calculators allowed ever afaik. For language exams, essay(s) (a larger one on a known book possibly a smaller one on first view text) and grammar/vocabulary stuff. Commenting on a text/style after 5-10 minutes of thinking for the verbal ones.
|
She missed the most important thing of all: the value (or lack thereof) of education in the states. There is none for a lot of families. Without going into depth, it's evidencd by the fact that you're a nerd and a loser if you do good in an American high school, whereas the losers in a place like Korea are the people who can't keep up.
That starts at home with the parents. That's always been flimsy for years in the states with so much of the last two generations being made up of a lot of non-educated or HS educated people doing blue collar jobs, and it got worse with the uptick of divorces leading to single parent homes. Look at us ghettos. A ton of single parent homes. Most parents there dont care about education for one reason or another, and the ones that do are probably working three jobs to ensure that their kid can get it.
That is by far the biggest and most important difference between the US and anywhere. Education is stressed elsewhere around the world. It's not as high of a priority for everyone in this country.
Going beyond that in the article, the standardized testing argument is lame. I agree that tying them to teacher salaries is stupid as shit, but standardized testing gives a pretty damn accurate view of whether or not the kid in question is a good student.
|
United States24500 Posts
On May 16 2011 23:48 Hawk wrote:
She missed the most important thing of all: the value (or lack thereof) of education in the states.
I'm not sure if I'd say she missed it. The point of her article was about the problem with the crap being imposed on education for the wrong reasons.
There is none for a lot of families. Without going into depth, it's evidencd by the fact that you're a nerd and a loser if you do good in an American high school, whereas the losers in a place like Korea are the people who can't keep up.
That starts at home with the parents. That's always been flimsy for years in the states with so much of the last two generations being made up of a lot of non-educated or HS educated people doing blue collar jobs, and it got worse with the uptick of divorces leading to single parent homes. Look at us ghettos. A ton of single parent homes. Most parents there dont care about education for one reason or another, and the ones that do are probably working three jobs to ensure that their kid can get it.
That is by far the biggest and most important difference between the US and anywhere. Education is stressed elsewhere around the world. It's not as high of a priority for everyone in this country. I pretty much agree with most of what you said although again just to be clear the point wasn't simply to compare the USA to other countries... even though she did in fact do that.
Going beyond that in the article, the standardized testing argument is lame. I agree that tying them to teacher salaries is stupid as shit, but standardized testing gives a pretty damn accurate view of whether or not the kid in question is a good student.
The situation is a lot more complicated than this... I'm not sure exactly what argument it is that you are finding 'lame.'
|
I dislike how the results of those tests are trivialized or dismissed for one reason or another. Stuff like the high school proficiency exams in the US schools give you a pretty good idea if a kid is a sharp student or not. And on a larger scale, you can pretty easily determine if that is a good school or not when you look at several years worth of tests and see if there is a marked improvement.
Those tests determine if that kid will end up in enrichment programs the following year to bolster math, reading or whatever subject scores.
I certainly do not like tying those scores to teachers salaries. It's an easy way to ensure that the ghetto shitholes will continue to be just that.
"The countries that consistently top the rankings—Finland, Singapore and South Korea—emphasize teacher preparation, mentoring and collaboration. They de-em- phasize standardized tests, and each has a well-rounded curriculum that can be tailored to meet the needs of individual students."
since when isn't reacher preparation, mentoring and collaboration not used in American schools?? And as others have pointed, many countries have standardized testing. And most schools have large elective programs which can give kids a jump on their interests heading into college.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
While the "look at how bad American education is compared to X" is often used by both conservatives and liberals to demagogue, I'm not sure the claim is all that valid.
I recall offhand that if you break down the performance of students by race then the disparity between America and foreign countries mostly disparities. In other words, Asian-Americans generally perform on par with Asian countries, Caucasians on par with European ones, African-Americans with African ones, etc. Unfortunately, pointing this out in public will invite cries of racism.
(Obligatory statement: I do believe that the racial disparities are due to culture and not genetics.)
This isn't to say that there are awful schools in the United States...but the system as a whole is not an unmitigated disaster.
|
United States24500 Posts
On May 17 2011 04:44 Hawk wrote:
I dislike how the results of those tests are trivialized or dismissed for one reason or another.
Can you give examples of this?
Stuff like the high school proficiency exams in the US schools give you a pretty good idea if a kid is a sharp student or not. Is that a state of Washington test? I can't comment on it if it is as I know nothing about it.
What do you mean by 'sharp'? Is it possible for a school to educate a student to be sharper?
And on a larger scale, you can pretty easily determine if that is a good school or not when you look at several years worth of tests and see if there is a marked improvement. A school is good if its results on a standardized tests increase? That doesn't make sense to me as a school doesn't have to show a significant improvement in test results to be a good school, necessarily. Do you just mean the schools is good if the results are high? If so, how do you determine what is good or good enough?
Those tests determine if that kid will end up in enrichment programs the following year to bolster math, reading or whatever subject scores. How exactly do they determine this? I want to be clear on these things since some of them are possibly inherent only to the specific school system/region that you attended and are not universally applicable to the USA (I'm assuming we are discussing the USA as a whole).
I certainly do not like tying those scores to teachers salaries. It's an easy way to ensure that the ghetto shitholes will continue to be just that. I don't like tying scores to teach salaries either although I do see the issue as a bit more complicated. The problem shouldn't be that ghetto schools don't be able to compete with affluent districts... thus rewarding teachers who get into richer schools... the problem would rather be that there's no fair way to tell how much to 'handicap' the results when comparing the results of the teacher in the ghetto with the teacher in the affluence district. I am of course assuming that the affluent school is performing better overall than the ghetto school which isn't always true.
"The countries that consistently top the rankings—Finland, Singapore and South Korea—emphasize teacher preparation, mentoring and collaboration. They de-em- phasize standardized tests, and each has a well-rounded curriculum that can be tailored to meet the needs of individual students."
since when isn't reacher preparation, mentoring and collaboration not used in American schools?? And as others have pointed, many countries have standardized testing. And most schools have large elective programs which can give kids a jump on their interests heading into college.
I think the author meant the degree to which these things are emphasized and the role they play. Many countries have standardized tests. Many countries encourage mentoring, collaboration, etc... but the amount that each of those things is influenced by federal legislation instead of locally established guidelines varies a ton depending on the country.
I also think what she meant by "and each has a well-rounded curriculum that can be tailored to meet the needs of individual students" is that the way standardized tests work in the USA often work to reduce the ability of school systems to do just that... even though there are of course some ways in which the curriculum of the school diverges from just the courses that are dictated by standardized tests. More and more schools are being given less freedom in creating programs for their students as the federal government mandates more and more, and of course this is unsuccessful... so the government mandates more hoping to turn things around ._.
By the way, one other important thing to mention about standardized tests is that they are not necessarily well designed. Rather than just discussing the inherent problems with using standardized tests as a tool for accountability, etc, what is the accountability for the standardized tests being good? Standardized tests are poor at accomplishing most of their goals (which we haven't even clarified yet in this discussion... what are the exact purposes of standardized tests and exactly when and how should they be used?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
