Thirsty Conversations

Welcome Guest 

Show/Hide Header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.









Pages: First << 6 7 8 [9] 10
Author Topic: Testing, testing.
Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 20, 2012, 08:27

Replica Watches
Tissot replica watchesreplica Omega watches
replica LV watches
Replica ORIS WATCHES
discount Panerai Historic Collection watchesdiscount Baume & Mercier Hampton watches saleReplica Tag Heuer watches online
Replica Tag Heuer Autavia watchescheap Montblanc Sport watches

Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 20, 2012, 09:29

nike sale
nike outlet
nike store
cheap nike shoes
buy nike boots
buy Nike Shox R4
dicount Nike Shox Monster
Discount Nike Shox Turbo 4 IV
Nike Shox Turbo 4 IV For Sale
discount nike shox r4 torch

Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 21, 2012, 18:29

watches on sale
replica watches
wholesale watches
cheap watchesbuy watches
Hublot Watchesbuy Ebel Watches
fake Amorosa WatchesChopard Watches storeHermes Watches online

Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 21, 2012, 18:49

north face
north face jackets
buy the north face
northfacenorth face outlet
the north face outletrealization jackets
cheap 3 in 1 jacketsnorth face realization jackets
north face gore tex pro

Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 21, 2012, 19:47

prom dress
cheap prom dresses
prom dress sale
Plus Size Evening Dress
Evening Dresses Online
Red Prom Dress
Black Evening Dress
Wedding Dress
[Prom Dress Cheap]
backless wedding dresses

Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 21, 2012, 20:53

uggugg boots
ugg boots storteugg storteugg
ugg wholesale
ugg gissella bootsmens ugg boots outletugg felicity bootsugg boots on sale

Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 22, 2012, 00:02

Nike ShoxCheap Nike Shox shoesNike Shox Shoes On Sale
nikenike outletMens Nike Shox NZmens nike shox r4Mens Nike Air Max 91 CheapMens Air Max 2009 III Cheap
Nike Turmoil Shox

Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 22, 2012, 13:37

ugg
ugg boots
ugg boots outlet
ugg boots onlineugg boots cheapugg gloves
ugg storeugg boots australiaugg outletugg adirondack tall boots

james-lebr-
on
Newbie
Posts: 1
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: April 9, 2012, 05:20

Image

A year ago, the idea of setting national education standards was a lot like the idea of legalizing marijuana: Despite all common sense, it just wasn’t going to happen. It didn’t matter that No Child Left Behind proved that when states are allowed to define their own standards, most dumb them down. The thinking was that states’ rights types would never agree to let the feds mandate what kids should learn about sexual health or evolution. Unions would resent any imposition on the autonomy of classroom teachers. Anti-testing advocates would decry the narrowing of curricula.

Yet on June 1, the National Governors’ Association announced that 49 states and territories have signed on to an agreement, called the Common Core Standards Initiative, to develop national standards in math and English. For education reformers across the political spectrum who have long urged that the United States join its developed world peers in articulating national standards, the news is a major victory.

What changed? Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has made clear that in awarding stimulus money, his department will favor states with internationally benchmarked education standards. Republican social conservatives, who stymied Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton when they tried to move toward national standards, are today a disorganized minority. And recent polls show that Americans are more anxious about layoffs than about sex ed. What’s more, Randi Weingarten, the most influential national teachers’ union leader, now vociferously supports national standards.

At this point, however, the initiative is vague, and its outcome uncertain. The state education departments have simply agreed to work together to develop the standards, not to actually implement them. And beneath the feel-good press releases announcing the initiative lie some real, unresolved policy differences among standards supporters, in part over testing.

The problem is that the initiative’s co-signers aren’t just state governments–they are also testing groups: Achieve, a nonprofit that advocates for more effective standardized tests; the College Board, maker of the SAT; and ACT, which administers a competing college-entrance exam. Right now, the College Board and ACT have little engagement with the K-12 education sector. They do, however, have ample experience creating and administering national exams. And there is little doubt that one goal of this national-standards process is to create standardized tests–not one single national test but perhaps two or three options from which states can choose.

As oligopolists, it makes total sense for the College Board and ACT to be eyeing, together, expansion into the immense K-12 assessment market. But given these testing companies’ track records, it is worth asking if this is a wise idea. A number of studies have found SAT scores are far less effective than high school grades in predicting how well students will perform in college, and professors say standardized-test prep does little to teach students the research and critical thinking skills they will need at the college level. Because of these shortcomings, an increasing number of colleges–led by the giant University of California system–have made standardized test scores optional for admission.

There is no reason to assume that the overdue move toward federal standards must lead to national standardized tests administered by the college-admissions giants. In Finland, whose schools are ranked best in the world, there are detailed national curriculum guidelines but no mandated testing regime to go along with them. If past American efforts are any guideline, what we’re likely to come up with is the exact opposite: vague standards and high-stakes tests. For example, 35 states participate in the Achieve-led American Diploma Project, in which states agreed to roughly align their education standards. Under that system, high school students are required to write a six- to 10-page research paper. In Finland, though, the national curriculum calls for research papers to be part of every subject course, from the life sciences to history and philosophy.

A major disadvantage of the states and testing giants leading the push toward national standards is that without Washington’s involvement, the issue is less likely to register on the mainstream media’s radar. But the public ought to be paying close attention. It would be a shame if national education reform further cemented a system in which passing standardized tests is the goal of learning. That would discourage creative teaching and push affluent families looking for more flexibility into the private system. And that simply isn’t in the public’s common interest.

aikenclay
Newbie
Posts: 1
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: May 14, 2012, 06:31

Image

A year ago, the idea of setting national education standards was a lot like the idea of legalizing marijuana: Despite all common sense, it just wasn’t going to happen. It didn’t matter that No Child Left Behind proved that when states are allowed to define their own standards, most dumb them down. The thinking was that states’ rights types would never agree to let the feds mandate what kids should learn about sexual health or evolution. Unions would resent any imposition on the autonomy of classroom teachers. Anti-testing advocates would decry the narrowing of curricula.

Yet on June 1, the National Governors’ Association announced that 49 states and territories have signed on to an agreement, called the Common Core Standards Initiative, to develop national standards in math and English. For education reformers across the political spectrum who have long urged that the United States join its developed world peers in articulating national standards, the news is a major victory.

What changed? Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has made clear that in awarding stimulus money, his department will favor states with internationally benchmarked education standards. Republican social conservatives, who stymied Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton when they tried to move toward national standards, are today a disorganized minority. And recent polls show that Americans are more anxious about layoffs than about sex ed. What’s more, Randi Weingarten, the most influential national teachers’ union leader, now vociferously supports national standards.

At this point, however, the initiative is vague, and its outcome uncertain. The state education departments have simply agreed to work together to develop the standards, not to actually implement them. And beneath the feel-good press releases announcing the initiative lie some real, unresolved policy differences among standards supporters, in part over testing.

The problem is that the initiative’s co-signers aren’t just state governments–they are also testing groups: Achieve, a nonprofit that advocates for more effective standardized tests; the College Board, maker of the SAT; and ACT, which administers a competing college-entrance exam. Right now, the College Board and ACT have little engagement with the K-12 education sector. They do, however, have ample experience creating and administering national exams. And there is little doubt that one goal of this national-standards process is to create standardized tests–not one single national test but perhaps two or three options from which states can choose.

As oligopolists, it makes total sense for the College Board and ACT to be eyeing, together, expansion into the immense K-12 assessment market. But given these testing companies’ track records, it is worth asking if this is a wise idea. A number of studies have found SAT scores are far less effective than high school grades in predicting how well students will perform in college, and professors say standardized-test prep does little to teach students the research and critical thinking skills they will need at the college level. Because of these shortcomings, an increasing number of colleges–led by the giant University of California system–have made standardized test scores optional for admission.

There is no reason to assume that the overdue move toward federal standards must lead to national standardized tests administered by the college-admissions giants. In Finland, whose schools are ranked best in the world, there are detailed national curriculum guidelines but no mandated testing regime to go along with them. If past American efforts are any guideline, what we’re likely to come up with is the exact opposite: vague standards and high-stakes tests. For example, 35 states participate in the Achieve-led American Diploma Project, in which states agreed to roughly align their education standards. Under that system, high school students are required to write a six- to 10-page research paper. In Finland, though, the national curriculum calls for research papers to be part of every subject course, from the life sciences to history and philosophy.

A major disadvantage of the states and testing giants leading the push toward national standards is that without Washington’s involvement, the issue is less likely to register on the mainstream media’s radar. But the public ought to be paying close attention. It would be a shame if national education reform further cemented a system in which passing standardized tests is the goal of learning. That would discourage creative teaching and push affluent families looking for more flexibility into the private system. And that simply isn’t in the public’s common interest.

Pages: First << 6 7 8 [9] 10

Mingle Forum by cartpauj

Version: 1.0.33.2
;
Page loaded in: 0.102 seconds.

Welcome Guest 

Show/Hide Header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.









Pages: First << 6 7 8 [9] 10
Author Topic: Testing, testing.
Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 20, 2012, 08:27

Replica Watches
Tissot replica watchesreplica Omega watches
replica LV watches
Replica ORIS WATCHES
discount Panerai Historic Collection watchesdiscount Baume & Mercier Hampton watches saleReplica Tag Heuer watches online
Replica Tag Heuer Autavia watchescheap Montblanc Sport watches

Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 20, 2012, 09:29

nike sale
nike outlet
nike store
cheap nike shoes
buy nike boots
buy Nike Shox R4
dicount Nike Shox Monster
Discount Nike Shox Turbo 4 IV
Nike Shox Turbo 4 IV For Sale
discount nike shox r4 torch

Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 21, 2012, 18:29

watches on sale
replica watches
wholesale watches
cheap watchesbuy watches
Hublot Watchesbuy Ebel Watches
fake Amorosa WatchesChopard Watches storeHermes Watches online

Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 21, 2012, 18:49

north face
north face jackets
buy the north face
northfacenorth face outlet
the north face outletrealization jackets
cheap 3 in 1 jacketsnorth face realization jackets
north face gore tex pro

Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 21, 2012, 19:47

prom dress
cheap prom dresses
prom dress sale
Plus Size Evening Dress
Evening Dresses Online
Red Prom Dress
Black Evening Dress
Wedding Dress
[Prom Dress Cheap]
backless wedding dresses

Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 21, 2012, 20:53

uggugg boots
ugg boots storteugg storteugg
ugg wholesale
ugg gissella bootsmens ugg boots outletugg felicity bootsugg boots on sale

Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 22, 2012, 00:02

Nike ShoxCheap Nike Shox shoesNike Shox Shoes On Sale
nikenike outletMens Nike Shox NZmens nike shox r4Mens Nike Air Max 91 CheapMens Air Max 2009 III Cheap
Nike Turmoil Shox

Guest
Pro
Posts: 343
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: February 22, 2012, 13:37

ugg
ugg boots
ugg boots outlet
ugg boots onlineugg boots cheapugg gloves
ugg storeugg boots australiaugg outletugg adirondack tall boots

james-lebr-
on
Newbie
Posts: 1
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: April 9, 2012, 05:20

Image

A year ago, the idea of setting national education standards was a lot like the idea of legalizing marijuana: Despite all common sense, it just wasn’t going to happen. It didn’t matter that No Child Left Behind proved that when states are allowed to define their own standards, most dumb them down. The thinking was that states’ rights types would never agree to let the feds mandate what kids should learn about sexual health or evolution. Unions would resent any imposition on the autonomy of classroom teachers. Anti-testing advocates would decry the narrowing of curricula.

Yet on June 1, the National Governors’ Association announced that 49 states and territories have signed on to an agreement, called the Common Core Standards Initiative, to develop national standards in math and English. For education reformers across the political spectrum who have long urged that the United States join its developed world peers in articulating national standards, the news is a major victory.

What changed? Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has made clear that in awarding stimulus money, his department will favor states with internationally benchmarked education standards. Republican social conservatives, who stymied Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton when they tried to move toward national standards, are today a disorganized minority. And recent polls show that Americans are more anxious about layoffs than about sex ed. What’s more, Randi Weingarten, the most influential national teachers’ union leader, now vociferously supports national standards.

At this point, however, the initiative is vague, and its outcome uncertain. The state education departments have simply agreed to work together to develop the standards, not to actually implement them. And beneath the feel-good press releases announcing the initiative lie some real, unresolved policy differences among standards supporters, in part over testing.

The problem is that the initiative’s co-signers aren’t just state governments–they are also testing groups: Achieve, a nonprofit that advocates for more effective standardized tests; the College Board, maker of the SAT; and ACT, which administers a competing college-entrance exam. Right now, the College Board and ACT have little engagement with the K-12 education sector. They do, however, have ample experience creating and administering national exams. And there is little doubt that one goal of this national-standards process is to create standardized tests–not one single national test but perhaps two or three options from which states can choose.

As oligopolists, it makes total sense for the College Board and ACT to be eyeing, together, expansion into the immense K-12 assessment market. But given these testing companies’ track records, it is worth asking if this is a wise idea. A number of studies have found SAT scores are far less effective than high school grades in predicting how well students will perform in college, and professors say standardized-test prep does little to teach students the research and critical thinking skills they will need at the college level. Because of these shortcomings, an increasing number of colleges–led by the giant University of California system–have made standardized test scores optional for admission.

There is no reason to assume that the overdue move toward federal standards must lead to national standardized tests administered by the college-admissions giants. In Finland, whose schools are ranked best in the world, there are detailed national curriculum guidelines but no mandated testing regime to go along with them. If past American efforts are any guideline, what we’re likely to come up with is the exact opposite: vague standards and high-stakes tests. For example, 35 states participate in the Achieve-led American Diploma Project, in which states agreed to roughly align their education standards. Under that system, high school students are required to write a six- to 10-page research paper. In Finland, though, the national curriculum calls for research papers to be part of every subject course, from the life sciences to history and philosophy.

A major disadvantage of the states and testing giants leading the push toward national standards is that without Washington’s involvement, the issue is less likely to register on the mainstream media’s radar. But the public ought to be paying close attention. It would be a shame if national education reform further cemented a system in which passing standardized tests is the goal of learning. That would discourage creative teaching and push affluent families looking for more flexibility into the private system. And that simply isn’t in the public’s common interest.

aikenclay
Newbie
Posts: 1
Post Re: Testing, testing.
on: May 14, 2012, 06:31

Image

A year ago, the idea of setting national education standards was a lot like the idea of legalizing marijuana: Despite all common sense, it just wasn’t going to happen. It didn’t matter that No Child Left Behind proved that when states are allowed to define their own standards, most dumb them down. The thinking was that states’ rights types would never agree to let the feds mandate what kids should learn about sexual health or evolution. Unions would resent any imposition on the autonomy of classroom teachers. Anti-testing advocates would decry the narrowing of curricula.

Yet on June 1, the National Governors’ Association announced that 49 states and territories have signed on to an agreement, called the Common Core Standards Initiative, to develop national standards in math and English. For education reformers across the political spectrum who have long urged that the United States join its developed world peers in articulating national standards, the news is a major victory.

What changed? Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has made clear that in awarding stimulus money, his department will favor states with internationally benchmarked education standards. Republican social conservatives, who stymied Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton when they tried to move toward national standards, are today a disorganized minority. And recent polls show that Americans are more anxious about layoffs than about sex ed. What’s more, Randi Weingarten, the most influential national teachers’ union leader, now vociferously supports national standards.

At this point, however, the initiative is vague, and its outcome uncertain. The state education departments have simply agreed to work together to develop the standards, not to actually implement them. And beneath the feel-good press releases announcing the initiative lie some real, unresolved policy differences among standards supporters, in part over testing.

The problem is that the initiative’s co-signers aren’t just state governments–they are also testing groups: Achieve, a nonprofit that advocates for more effective standardized tests; the College Board, maker of the SAT; and ACT, which administers a competing college-entrance exam. Right now, the College Board and ACT have little engagement with the K-12 education sector. They do, however, have ample experience creating and administering national exams. And there is little doubt that one goal of this national-standards process is to create standardized tests–not one single national test but perhaps two or three options from which states can choose.

As oligopolists, it makes total sense for the College Board and ACT to be eyeing, together, expansion into the immense K-12 assessment market. But given these testing companies’ track records, it is worth asking if this is a wise idea. A number of studies have found SAT scores are far less effective than high school grades in predicting how well students will perform in college, and professors say standardized-test prep does little to teach students the research and critical thinking skills they will need at the college level. Because of these shortcomings, an increasing number of colleges–led by the giant University of California system–have made standardized test scores optional for admission.

There is no reason to assume that the overdue move toward federal standards must lead to national standardized tests administered by the college-admissions giants. In Finland, whose schools are ranked best in the world, there are detailed national curriculum guidelines but no mandated testing regime to go along with them. If past American efforts are any guideline, what we’re likely to come up with is the exact opposite: vague standards and high-stakes tests. For example, 35 states participate in the Achieve-led American Diploma Project, in which states agreed to roughly align their education standards. Under that system, high school students are required to write a six- to 10-page research paper. In Finland, though, the national curriculum calls for research papers to be part of every subject course, from the life sciences to history and philosophy.

A major disadvantage of the states and testing giants leading the push toward national standards is that without Washington’s involvement, the issue is less likely to register on the mainstream media’s radar. But the public ought to be paying close attention. It would be a shame if national education reform further cemented a system in which passing standardized tests is the goal of learning. That would discourage creative teaching and push affluent families looking for more flexibility into the private system. And that simply isn’t in the public’s common interest.

Pages: First << 6 7 8 [9] 10

Mingle Forum by cartpauj

Version: 1.0.33.2
;
Page loaded in: 0.09 seconds.