NC social studies teacher - who lets idiots like her teach?

[etv78]

Originally Posted by Voyager

The tests are given long before graduating from high school is a worry. I live across the street from an elementary school, and they have banners up about testing. And they are hardly at risk of getting funding cut because of bad scores.

Passing MCAS is madatory for a diploma in MA.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Terr

The teacher was suspended. Too bad she wasn't fired and the suspension is with pay.

Wow. Y'know, I'm no big believer in tenure at all; I tend to think the arguments in its favor are overblown, and I've advocated on these boards for its abolishment. I've not really encountered this argument before (i.e., without tenure, right-wing blowhards could kick liberal teachers out of the school without any sort of due process or investigation, based on an incomplete sample of a video a student took). You may have just made me a believer in tenure. Are you some sort of double agent or something?

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by etv78

How is "graduating from HS" NOT incentive to pass the tests?

The tests I'm talking about have no effect on whether or not the kid graduates from high school. They have no effect on the kid's standing or grades at all. That's why he has no incentive to do well.

For example, my wife is a sixth grade teacher. In sixth grade the kids are required to take a series of standardized tests which somehow determine how good the school is doing, and might someday be used to determine teacher's pay. Yet the kids themselves are totally unaffected by the results of theses tests. They could blow them off completely, and many do.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Wow. Y'know, I'm no big believer in tenure at all; I tend to think the arguments in its favor are overblown, and I've advocated on these boards for its abolishment. I've not really encountered this argument before (i.e., without tenure, right-wing blowhards could kick liberal teachers out of the school without any sort of due process or investigation, based on an incomplete sample of a video a student took). You may have just made me a believer in tenure. Are you some sort of double agent or something?

Yes, of course. It's because she's liberal. Not because she is an ignorant idiot who doesn't know the subject she's supposed to teach.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Terr

Yes, of course. It's because she's liberal. Not because she is an ignorant idiot who doesn't know the subject she's supposed to teach.

Perhaps, or perhaps it's because she's a racist, not because she's a liberal.

I'll absolutely support her removal from the profession after an investigation shows that there's no relevant context (for example, some student who hates her has filmed her modeling terrible debate tactics or something else--I don't know exactly what, but that's why I'd want an investigation). But I'm not a credulous rightie willing to believe any edited video that comes along besmirching a liberal, and I would hope, after having had that particular trick pulled on you so many times, you wouldn't be either.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I'll absolutely support her removal from the profession after an investigation shows that there's no relevant context (for example, some student who hates her has filmed her modeling terrible debate tactics or something else--I don't know exactly what, but that's why I'd want an investigation). But I'm not a credulous rightie willing to believe any edited video that comes along besmirching a liberal, and I would hope, after having had that particular trick pulled on you so many times, you wouldn't be either.

The video was edited? Can you point to any evidence that it was?

And sure - she was "filmed modeling terrible debate tactics". That's just funny. Grasping at straws?

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Heh--I almost wrote about the same teacher (was his name Mr. Hicks, by any chance?) I never had him, but given my anti-war tabling in the high school cafeteria during the first Gulf War, I had my share of run-ins with him. And he subbed for the truly incompetent social studies teacher I did have at one point, and I had run-ins with him then, too.

When I say he was far to the right, I mean he said things like, "Slavery is the best thing that ever happened to black people, because it introduced them to civilization and Christianity." That's not hyperbole; that's as close to an exact quote as I can get, two decades removed.

But the awesome thing was how open he was to discussion. He taught in a highly liberal school, and he delighted in provoking us liberal kids into fits of apoplexy. And when one of us made a solid argument, he'd compliment it. I remember when my girlfriend of the time wrote a paper for his class in which she talked about being lesbian (long story, don't ask); he gave her an A on it, despite his loudly-professed belief that homosexuality ought to remain a felony.

I'm not sure that I approve of his approach. In fact, I'm pretty sure I don't. But there's a massive difference between his approach and the teacher's in the OP.

And Shodan, I'm all about merit pay if you can propose a strategy for measuring it that's less soul-crushing than EOG tests (I've spent the last two months crushing souls instead of teaching; it's thoroughly miserable for all parties concerned, and I desperately hope I can get in a few days of actual teaching before the school year ends instead of just endlessly drilling kids on multiple choice test strategies). I'm pretty arrogant about my teaching and I want money for it, to be totally blunt, and I think merit-pay would favor me.

But I have stories from college about folks going into the profession. When you've got folks willing to get four-year degrees for a profession, and when the pay for the profession is so meager compared to that for other four-year degrees, you'll get some folks who are in it for the benefits; some folks who are in it for the passion; and some folks who are in it because it's the best money they can make given their brains, work ethic, and personality.

THe first group? Meh. The second group? Yay. The third group? Oh hell no, you don't want them teaching your kid. But they're out there; they're in the schools. If the profession paid better, principals wouldn't hire them, because there'd be such better competition for the jobs.

Not Hicks, Ferraro. And I guess compared to Hicks he was not quite as out there as I thought. :-)
When my kids got to HS there were exposed to several teachers that put forth various position and they were expected to research that position and put forth why they agreed or disagreed. Positions like one teacher was a communist, another a libertarian, another a right winger. Agreeing with the teacher was NOT a guaranteed good grade. Whatever your position you had to back it up. It was the backing up of your position that made your grade. IOW the teachers actually wanted these kids to [gasp] think.
I was very happy with that school.

[Gyrate]

I had a high school teacher (Senior Honours [sic] English) who was a good teacher in general but on rare occasion would turn her podium into a pulpit when a particular bee got into her bonnet. Some of us complained to the principal who was sympathetic but since her worst infractions were basically wasting the occasional fifteen minutes of class time to harangue us collectively she never got more than a quiet talk with the principal (AFAIK). We all learned to ignore her little moods.

Also, she's responsible for my lifelong loathing of Thomas Hardy novels.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Terr

The video was edited? Can you point to any evidence that it was?

And sure - she was "filmed modeling terrible debate tactics". That's just funny. Grasping at straws?

No, I can't point to any evidence that it was. That's why I want an investigation.

And no, I'm not grasping at straws; on the contrary, I've said that if everything is accurate, I want her out of my profession. I, however, do care about the truth, and there's a well-known tactic of lying character-assassinating gonzo journalism that's reared its ugly head especially on the right in the last couple of years; I want to be sure that's not what's going on here.

You, however, appear to be upset that there's going to be an investigation. Seems very Soviet, but whatever.

[Shodan]

Isn't it interesting that, as long as nothing is happening to this idiot teacher, some posters are eager to talk about how teachers should get raises. The instant it is suggested that something more than a paid vacation should happen, the minds instantly slam shut and the name-calling starts.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Rick

Not Hicks, Ferraro. And I guess compared to Hicks he was not quite as out there as I thought. :-)
When my kids got to HS there were exposed to several teachers that put forth various position and they were expected to research that position and put forth why they agreed or disagreed. Positions like one teacher was a communist, another a libertarian, another a right winger. Agreeing with the teacher was NOT a guaranteed good grade. Whatever your position you had to back it up. It was the backing up of your position that made your grade. IOW the teachers actually wanted these kids to [gasp] think.
I was very happy with that school.

A relevant Doonesbury.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Terr

The video was edited? Can you point to any evidence that it was?

And sure - she was "filmed modeling terrible debate tactics". That's just funny. Grasping at straws?

No. He's pointing out that there's a possibility, small or not, that there is some context that would explain or mitigate the issue.

If, for example, you were to learn that twenty seconds before the video began, she had said, "Kids, let me tell you something: when I was your age, I had a teacher that acted crazy in school, and she got away with it, because no one ever said anything."

"Crazy how?"

"Crazy like... OK, I'll give you an example. Say we were discussing current events like we always do, and I did this:"

If you were to learn that this segment preceded the recorded portion you heard, would it change your mind?

[ManiacMan]

A couple of questions...

1.) The "teacher" said that during Dubya's presidency people were arrested for disrespecting him while president. I paraphrased some so not a direct quote but that was the gist of it. Is this true?

2.) I was wondering about the whole recorded conversation itself. AFAIK or can tell it would seem like she didn't know she was being recorded. Does this violate any wiretapping law, or some other law?

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by ManiacMan

A couple of questions...

1.) The "teacher" said that during Dubya's presidency people were arrested for disrespecting him while president. I paraphrased some so not a direct quote but that was the gist of it. Is this true?

I don't recall one specifically about Bush, but a guy was arrested in Colorado for telling Dick Cheney that the Administration's policies in Iraq were reprehensible.

The US Supreme court heard arguments on the case a couple of months back. We discussed the case here when it originally happened.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Bricker

No. He's pointing out that there's a possibility, small or not, that there is some context that would explain or mitigate the issue.

If, for example, you were to learn that twenty seconds before the video began, she had said, "Kids, let me tell you something: when I was your age, I had a teacher that acted crazy in school, and she got away with it, because no one ever said anything."

"Crazy how?"

"Crazy like... OK, I'll give you an example. Say we were discussing current events like we always do, and I did this:"

If you were to learn that this segment preceded the recorded portion you heard, would it change your mind?

Yes, it would. It would also change my mind if it was revealed that a UFO was hovering over the school, controlling her mind, forcing her to spew ignorant inanities as she was.

Yet there are dozens of witnesses to this class, and a bunch of students defending the teacher, saying how wonderful she is in general and how the evil student who was questioning her "set her up" and no one mentioned anything like what you said.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by ManiacMan

A couple of questions...

1.) The "teacher" said that during Dubya's presidency people were arrested for disrespecting him while president. I paraphrased some so not a direct quote but that was the gist of it. Is this true?

There was also the couple who were arrested in West Virginia in 2004 for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts to a public presidential appearance. Those wearing pro-Bush and pro-Administration garb were not removed.

It was, somewhat paradoxically, a July 4 speech which included the following:

On this 4th of July, we confirm our love of freedom, the freedom for people to speak their minds, the freedom for people to worship as they so choose. (Applause.) Free thought, free expression, that's what we believe.

It's another incident that we discussed on these boards when it happened.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Isn't it interesting that, as long as nothing is happening to this idiot teacher, some posters are eager to talk about how teachers should get raises. The instant it is suggested that something more than a paid vacation should happen, the minds instantly slam shut and the name-calling starts.

I can't tell if you're lying or just having trouble understanding the thread. If you'd clarify, I can respond. You may want to reread my posts before you clarify, though.

Terr, a simple yes or no will suffice: do you think the school ought to complete an investigation before firing her?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Terr, a simple yes or no will suffice: do you think the school ought to complete an investigation before firing her?

Yes. Should the investigation take more than a couple of days? No.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Terr

Yes. Should the investigation take more than a couple of days? No.

Cool. Unless something odd comes up in the investigation (and I just saw that Breitbart broke the story, so my suspicions just went through the roof), I think we agree. Your original post about the investigation bemoaned that it was even happening, and that's what I objected to.

That said, my suspicion is that she won't be fired, because we've got a system in which low pay is mitigated by hard-to-break contracts for teachers. I personally hate that system; I want teachers to keep their jobs because the pay is awesome and the teachers are awesome, not because it's crappy pay that you're guaranteed to keep forever. But our state in its wisdom has gone the crappy-pay-with-job-security route, and that's going to make it hard to get rid of bad teachers.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

That said, my suspicion is that she won't be fired, because we've got a system in which low pay is mitigated by hard-to-break contracts for teachers. I personally hate that system; I want teachers to keep their jobs because the pay is awesome and the teachers are awesome, not because it's crappy pay that you're guaranteed to keep forever. But our state in its wisdom has gone the crappy-pay-with-job-security route, and that's going to make it hard to get rid of bad teachers.

There's also that pesky "bunch of students defending the teacher, saying how wonderful she is in general" factor. I know we shouldn't let a person's overall job performance influence our decision over whether or not to fire a person when we've got a bright shiny video dazzling our eyes but some people are going to argue that things like that matter.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Yeah, I dunno. That's a fair point, and ability to teach should be considered. Just being loved by students should not, however: it's possible for a teacher to be loved by a lot of students, and be totally horrible to a few, and if that teacher is behaving in such a manner, I still want the teacher gone. You don't get to bully students, full stop.

[HMS Irruncible]

nm

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Your original post about the investigation bemoaned that it was even happening, and that's what I objected to.

Huh? I don't see any "bemoaning". Can you quote me on that?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Yeah, I dunno. That's a fair point, and ability to teach should be considered. Just being loved by students should not, however: it's possible for a teacher to be loved by a lot of students, and be totally horrible to a few, and if that teacher is behaving in such a manner, I still want the teacher gone. You don't get to bully students, full stop.

I don't really care about her being "wonderful" or "horrible" to students. She demonstrated utter ignorance of the very subject she's supposed to teach. She should not be teaching.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Terr

The teacher was suspended. Too bad she wasn't fired and the suspension is with pay.

Originally Posted by Terr

Huh? I don't see any "bemoaning". Can you quote me on that?

There you go.

[Rysdad]

Okay...what's so bad about "teaching to the test?"

I'm serious here. I don't know what's on the test.

I mean, "teaching to the test" is exactly what all of my teachers did throughout my schooling, including college. If you learned how to do math, you passed the math test. If you memorized names and dates, you passed the history test. If you learned, oh, how to play the clarinet, you passed music. Etc.

So, really, what's so bad about it?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

There you go.

You said my "original post about the investigation bemoaned that it was even happening". Yet in the stuff you quoted there is not one word about the investigation. Try again.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Terr

You said my "original post about the investigation bemoaned that it was even happening". Yet in the stuff you quoted there is not one word about the investigation. Try again.

You said that it's too bad that she was suspended rather than fired.

But the reason that she was suspended was to allow the investigation to proceed.

If you argue that she should have been fired without an investigation—which is what your posts seemed to be arguing—then it is reasonable to infer that you were bemoaning the investigation.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Rysdad

If you memorized names and dates, you passed the history test.

Speaking for my own field, which is history, the problem is that memorizing the names and dates is not learning history. History is about investigation, analysis, synthesis, and a level of critical and independent thinking that should, ideally, be transferable to any area of life, and that should produce active and engaged and intelligent citizens.

Being able to list the presidents in order, or match up dates and events, does not demonstrate any of those skills. Sure, a certain amount of factual knowledge is a necessary precursor for doing history. If you think that the 13th Amendment came before the start of the Civil War, or that Texas joined the United States after California, that's going to mess up your larger understanding of the significance of these events. But getting the names and dates right is, for most historians, simply a first step in a process of understanding that is far more complex and nuanced.

So, if you want your kids to pass the test, there's nothing wrong with teaching to the test. The problem is that the tests themselves often reflect distorted priorities and problematic assumptions about the nature of the subject itself, and about the purpose of education.

[Rysdad]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Speaking for my own field, which is history, the problem is that memorizing the names and dates is not learning history.

Um, yes, it is. At least it's a start.

Anyway, I was speaking in rather broad terms. To clarify a little...what's wrong with "teaching to age/grade appropriate tests?" You might learn about Hernan Cortes in third grade. You might learn about the Weimar Republic in 8th grade.

History is still dates, names and places. Who did what where. The why of what happened can, of course, be part of the teaching, but that part is often subjective, and I've never been a supporter or being graded on someone's opinion.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be snarky. Not at all.

The problem is that the tests themselves often reflect distorted priorities and problematic assumptions about the nature of the subject itself, and about the purpose of education.

This is what I'm asking about. Who determines that the priorities are distorted, and what are the problematic assumptions? What are the questions? Why aren't they applicable? Specifically.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Rysdad

History is still dates, names and places. Who did what where. The why of what happened can, of course, be part of the teaching, but that part is often subjective, and I've never been a supporter or being graded on someone's opinion.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be snarky. Not at all.

I'll take your word for that. All i can say is that, if you think that looking beyond names, dates and places (who did what where) leaves us in a situation where we do nothing but grade someone's opinion, you have a very depressing and anti-intellectual view of history.

Originally Posted by Rysdad

This is what I'm asking about. Who determines that the priorities are distorted, and what are the problematic assumptions? What are the questions? Why aren't they applicable? Specifically.

To be honest, given your apparent view of what history is, i'm not sure that answering this part of your question would be at all productive.

[Rysdad]

Originally Posted by mhendo

I'll take your word for that. All i can say is that, if you think that looking beyond names, dates and places (who did what where) leaves us in a situation where we do nothing but grade someone's opinion, you have a very depressing and anti-intellectual view of history.To be honest, given your apparent view of what history is, i'm not sure that answering this part of your question would be at all productive.

Hm. Well, then.

I'll try again.

I've heard, over and over again, that "teaching to the test" is counter-productive. You've stated that there are "distorted priorities and problematic assumptions" on/in the tests.

What. Are. They.

And, as I said, there is a Why involved with history. I said that that part of history is often subjective. They Why can vary from professor to professor--because it's their opinion. I may disagree with their opinion. I don't like to be graded as to their opinion. Does that clear that up?

I don't think I've ever been told that I have a depressing and anti-intellectual view of anything. That's a first.

Now, can you answer my question, or simply state that you don't know?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Rysdad

Hm. Well, then.

I'll try again.

I've heard, over and over again, that "teaching to the test" is counter-productive. You've stated that there are "distorted priorities and problematic assumptions" on/in the tests.

What. Are. They.

1) Many hours spent teaching students such strategies as how to identify distractor answers in a multiple-choice test, that they should read the questions before reading the test passage, that the phrases "main idea" and "author's purpose" and "another good title" and so on mean the same thing when they show up on the test, that they should underline "how many more" on a test problem and treat the problem as subtraction, etc.. Some of these skills have a bit of crossover to other areas of life, but they're really not the best use of a teacher's time or a student's time.
2) If something is part of our standard course of study, but it doesn't show up on the test (either because the test is poorly designed, or because it's a concept difficult to reduce to multiple choice), teachers get told to neglect it, focusing all their attention on what's on the test.
3) Social studies isn't tested. It gets shafted in the curriculum therefore.

THat'll start us off.

[Rysdad]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

1) Many hours spent teaching students such strategies as how to identify distractor answers in a multiple-choice test, that they should read the questions before reading the test passage, that the phrases "main idea" and "author's purpose" and "another good title" and so on mean the same thing when they show up on the test, that they should underline "how many more" on a test problem and treat the problem as subtraction, etc.. Some of these skills have a bit of crossover to other areas of life, but they're really not the best use of a teacher's time or a student's time.
2) If something is part of our standard course of study, but it doesn't show up on the test (either because the test is poorly designed, or because it's a concept difficult to reduce to multiple choice), teachers get told to neglect it, focusing all their attention on what's on the test.
3) Social studies isn't tested. It gets shafted in the curriculum therefore.

THat'll start us off.

That's what I was looking for. Thanks.

I don't have any problems with the phrasing. I mean, tests have been written like that since I went to school. I don't see why teachers need to devote any additional time to that area at all. Kids either understand how to read and comprehend a question, or they don't. Whether the fault lies with the student or the teacher depends on those individuals themselves--not the test--in my view.

The second item you mention is, indeed, problematic in several ways. Since this is a hijack of the original thread, I won't try to delve into it further. But it bugs me.

Re: social studies...why isn't it tested?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Rysdad

I don't have any problems with the phrasing. I mean, tests have been written like that since I went to school. I don't see why teachers need to devote any additional time to that area at all. Kids either understand how to read and comprehend a question, or they don't. Whether the fault lies with the student or the teacher depends on those individuals themselves--not the test--in my view.

I'm not clear on what you're saying. I think you believe me when I say that kids reach my classroom not knowing about how to interpret such phrases. From that it follows that I'll either not spend a lot of time teaching them how to interpret the phrases, and then they'll fail the test and our school will fail under NCLB and suffer sanctions, or I'll spend a lot of time teaching how to interpret those phrases, to the detriment of teaching other subjects.

The fault may lie with the student, or with the teacher, but rectifying this situation is a Hobson's Choice imposed on our educational system by the requirements of high-stakes testing.

[Wild Packanig]

I'm real sorry for jumping off of topic, and I don't mean to hijack at all, but could the comprehension of questions be injured by going home, getting stoned, and playing video games? NCLB might only be allowing this behavior to continue. If you realize this behavior gets you bad grades, and bad grades make weak salary employees, wouldn't a student think they need to pick up on their personal studies?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Wild Packanig

I'm real sorry for jumping off of topic, and I don't mean to hijack at all, but could the comprehension of questions be injured by going home, getting stoned, and playing video games? NCLB might only be allowing this behavior to continue. If you realize this behavior gets you bad grades, and bad grades make weak salary employees, wouldn't a student think they need to pick up on their personal studies?

I'm not sure I'm following: bad grades occur in addition to poor EOG scores, not instead of them.

But overall, yeah, there's a lot of stuff that's parent issues, not school issues. Research shows that teachers are the single in-school factor that makes the most difference between a good education and a bad education; but a child with a terrible home life and a great teacher is probably going to learn a lot less than a kid with a great home life and a terrible teacher.

[MsRobyn]

Originally Posted by Rysdad

Re: social studies...why isn't it tested?

I can answer this one, and what it comes down to is, it just isn't. This is changing; Pennsylvania, for example, is getting ready to roll out the Keystone Exams, one of which covers history. But it's always been a bastard child of contemporary education.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Rysdad

I've heard, over and over again, that "teaching to the test" is counter-productive. You've stated that there are "distorted priorities and problematic assumptions" on/in the tests.

What. Are. They.

In addition from what LHoD said, the tests themselves are, in many cases, written in such a way as to test memory rather than understanding. Their formats are also, in many cases, so standardized that students are taught how to recognize certain questions and answer them correctly, rather than being taught a level of understanding that would allow them to answer the questions using their own reasoning.

This distinction might seem unimportant—after all, if they can answer the questions, doesn't that mean that they know the material?—but the problem is that some studies suggest that this sort of teach-to-the-test pedagogy results in lower long-term retention rates and understanding among the students. They get drilled enough so that they can pass the tests, but don't get taught in a way that actually makes them smarter or more knowledgeable.

But the biggest problem with testing is precisely what LHoD suggested: it forces a dramatic realignment of priorities, so that teachers are encouraged to teach only to the tests, at the expense of other important material. The idea of "teaching to the test" is not counter-productive if you assume that passing the test is, in and of itself, the measure of quality education. There are too many problems with that assumption, and too much money riding a limited set of tests.

In California, by the way, we do test history/social science.

Originally Posted by Rysdad

And, as I said, there is a Why involved with history. I said that that part of history is often subjective. They Why can vary from professor to professor--because it's their opinion. I may disagree with their opinion. I don't like to be graded as to their opinion. Does that clear that up?

Not really, because it's basically an exact restatement of what you said before.

What you seem to miss, in this formulation, is that analysis and understanding in history is not merely a matter of opinion, as the term is commonly understood. "Vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate ice cream" is an opinion. "I prefer Picasso to Monet" is an opinion. "The Bourne Ultimatum was the best of the three Jason Bourne movies" is an opinion.

While there is subjective judgment involved in an understanding of history, the level of mere opinion involved is quite different. To the extent that opinion is involved, it should not be the mere expression of aesthetic or even political preference; it should involved systematic research, evaluation of sources, analysis of evidence, and logical conclusions. Historians differ in their interpretations, but their differences are not (or, at least, should not be) mere differences of opinion without evidence and analysis and reasoning. And these are the sort of things we evaluate when we grade students' history work; we don't simply grade their opinions.

Unfortunately, a lot of my college freshman history students come into the classroom thinking that history is mainly about dates and opinion, and that as long as they say something is their opinion, i cannot give them a poor grade because everyone is entitled to an opinion. But that's not how it works.

If students are asked to read some sources and to evaluate why Californians were so hostile to Chinese immigrants in the 1870s and 1880s, the answers will likely produce a variety of different reasons, and some students will argue that certain reasons were more important than others, while other students will see different reasons as being more important. And there is room in historical interpretation for both answers to demonstrate a good understanding of history, as well as strong analytical ability.

If one student writes an answer arguing that cultural factors were more important than economic factors in explaining anti-Chinese sentiment, and another student gives priority to economic factors, it is not simply a matter of marking one student right and another student wrong. Both of these factors were important, and which one you give more weight might depend upon which sources you happen to find most compelling. But, if you read a bunch of sources and argue that economic factors were not at all important, then your teacher is going to ask why it is that you ignored the arguments that labor unions made against hiring Chinese workers, and why you ignored all the calls to save jobs for Americans.

On this subject, i don't care very much if a student forgets that the first Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882, followed by the Geary Act in 1892. If they're off by a year or two, big deal. I'm far more interested in them understanding the reasons behind the passing of those Acts, and the consequences for the people of the United States.

Similarly, in any discussion of the Monroe Doctrine, i'm far more interested in whether a student knows why it was promulgated in the first place, and what its long-term consequences were for American foreign policy and for development in the western hemisphere, than in nailing them for forgetting that it was promulgated in 1823, and writing 1820 or 1821 instead.

I worked recently on a federally-funded Teaching American History grant, designed to improve the teaching of history in schools. I worked with a bunch of high-school history teachers, acting as a sort of facilitator and guide, as they put together some lessons designed to improve historical thinking in their students. One of the lessons was about increasingly restrictive immigration legislation in the early 1920s.

It's not enough, in writing a lesson like this, to simply say who wrote the legislation, what the legislation said, and where they did it. Understanding why this particular legislation was passed, in this particular form, and at this particular time, is crucial to a proper historical understanding of the issue. For example, the legislation of 1924 was more restrictive than that of 1921, and the quotas it imposed were based on the 1890 census instead of the 1910 census. The "why" is absolutely central here, because they didn't change which census they used arbitrarily; they changed it based on very particular ideas about what types of immigrants were preferable for America to accept.

None of this understanding relies on mere opinion. It is, in some measure, subjective, but it relies on evaluation of evidence, and on analysis, and on reasonable inferences and conclusions. While most historical events and issues may be amenable to more than one interpretation, that doesn't mean that some interpretations aren't better than others, and it also doesn't mean that some interpretations aren't flat out bad or wrong or misguided. It's the process, and the ability to read, analyze, synthesize, and argue, that constitutes the real work of history. The who, when, and where, is the basic starting point, but that's all it is.

[fluiddruid]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Isn't it interesting that, as long as nothing is happening to this idiot teacher, some posters are eager to talk about how teachers should get raises.

Well, the question in the OP is "who lets idiots like her teach?" It's relevant that low wages for teachers affect the number of talented people willing to take the job.

I would love to have been a teacher, but after mentioning my aspirations to several teachers I trusted back in high school, I was persuaded otherwise. I'm quite happy working in the private sector with considerably less general heartache and hassle (and I work in technical support, go figure). I'd still love to do that kind of work, but the time pressures can be quite severe -- summers off sound nice until you hear about what many teachers have to do after school, on weekends, etc. for various extracurriculars or even just for basic classes, and taking off personal time during the year is basically impossible -- and dealing with the bureaucracy is not easy.

My sister actually did go into teaching, and got out after a few years. She loved the actual work, but the working conditions -- even in a nice town -- were just too much. The stress was enormous and the pay not great, with no real sign of either of those changing no matter how hard she worked nor how much time she put in. Between administrators willing to toss you under the bus, kids who are smart enough to put teachers in potentially compromising situations, and incredibly demanding parents with insane expectations of teachers, it's just not worth the hassle to scrape to get by. I deal with challenging people sometimes, but they don't call my personal cell at 10pm on a Saturday night to threaten a lawsuit because Little Timmy didn't make an audition or is getting a C-.

[Rysdad]

mhendo,

Thanks for the cogent reply.

What I draw from it is that, in your view (and as supported by some studies) rote memorization isn't as effective in promoting long-term learning as understanding a dichotomy of historical viewpoints or justifications .

Well, sure. But I'm speaking specifically about the NCLB test--not one given to college freshman.

Isn't there a place, particularly earlier in a child's schooling, that rote memorization is entirely applicable? Frinstance: What were the dates of Columbus' voyages? What was he looking for when he made that voyage? How does that differ from what Ponce de Leon was looking for (and don't say the Fountain of Youth!) Did Magellan actually circumnavigate the globe himself?

I think these are appropriate questions for 5th or 6th graders, maybe earlier. Understanding that de Leon and the grandson of Columbus were political adversaries, and that's what probably led to de Leon sailing for Florida, might not be.

And, I'm perfectly fine with the examples you listed regarding the Chinese in California and the Monroe Doctrine. They're appropriate for high schoolers. But I infer from what you said that these areas aren't covered on the NCLB test. I'm guessing that the reason they aren't is because they don't lend themselves to multiple choice questions, like LHoD said. I agree; that's a problem. How would you resolve it, though?

So, where does that leave us? Are the NCLB tests so off-the-mark as to make what they test for irrelevant? Shouldn't there be at least some sort of statewide (or national) test standard that states, "You must know this at least in order to graduate high school."? Do you think each individual school board should set their own standards? Does preparing students for those tests take up so much time as to make additional supportive instruction "cost prohibitive?"

I've said all that to say two things:

1) I think that NCLB is ridiculous. Passing an ambiguous law that requires 100% compliance but sets no standards is absurd. If you're going to do that, you have to set the bar at some level.

2) Ain't this one helluva hijack?