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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-.
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:
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.
Ain’t this one helluva hijack?