Just a few steps away from complete government control.

[Enoch the Red]

vouchers give more money to the "passing" schools that attract more students. Leading to the idea that schools that are passing, currently based on broken testing concepts forced on states by the NCLBA, are doing something right and therefor do not need to be intervened in, while the schools that are failing are automatically punished with lower funding and attendance and will adopt the policies and/or procedures of the passing schools in an attempt to replicate their success. Even if those policies have nothing to do with the success.

No need for anyone to step in and correct a wrong as long as the testing scores somewhere appear to look good.

Okay, even if we accept that the voucher program can be gamed and students are being taught for the test, (topics that I have very limited knowledge of and no strong feelings about) I'm still not sure what logical connection that has to what you've said in this thread regarding vending machines and school lunches. Are you somehow trying to say that voucher schools would advertise the fact that they have vending machines and unhealthy lunches, and that that will somehow sway more students to attend with them? If so, do you have any numbers to back those claims up?

[Ominous Gamer]

Are you somehow trying to say that voucher schools would advertise the fact that they have vending machines and unhealthy lunches, and that that will somehow sway more students to attend with them? If so, do you have any numbers to back those claims up?

No I'm saying that any sweeping changes like this would become extremely rare because the intervention, such as meddling in school lunch menus, would be seen as interfering with a working formula, even if it had nothing to do with the success.

not that i'm downplaying the memory of high schoolers having access vending machines being a huge thing for an 8th grader, or middle schoolers getting ala carte options being a big thing for a 5th grader.

[Enoch the Red]

No I'm saying that any sweeping changes like this would become extremely rare because the intervention, such as meddling in school lunch menus, would be seen as interfering with a working formula, even if it had nothing to do with the success.

As opposed to the sweeping changes in public schools which are happening all the time?

[Ominous Gamer]

slight changes are made all the time. the example in this thread is an extension of previous change. most just aren't headline grabbing.

even ignoring that, one correction is better than none.

[RandBlade]

Well that's just backwards logic. State control leads to monolithic, glacial changes, it doesn't lead to rapid change.

We don't quite have a full voucher system yet, but in recent years more and more of our schools have been freed from state control in a similar system and the independently ran schools are free to innovate with successes getting discussed publicly and copied.

Or I forget, is success a dirty word?

[Ominous Gamer]

Well that's just backwards logic. State control leads to monolithic, glacial changes, it doesn't lead to rapid change.

We don't quite have a full voucher system yet, but in recent years more and more of our schools have been freed from state control in a similar system and the independently ran schools are free to innovate with successes getting discussed publicly and copied.

Do you have any research explaining or documenting these successes? Rapidly experimenting with a nation's education based on extremely small sample sizes that are buried under all sorts of variables seems....hazardous.
The UK isn't mentioned in Wiki's school voucher article so I'm curious how far towards it your system has moved, or if its evolving into a unique system you haven't noticed the important differences in yet.

[Lewkowski]

Excellent arguments, I never realized that a kid being able and willing to complete a purchase is the sole requirement to make something available to him in school. (oh and value creation but that's sort of unavoidable with any purchase). It is so much simpler rule then all the age restrictions and restriction to certain goods and marketing in public places, great thing about it, is you don't need to enforce this rule because if someone manages to buy something he has the right to and that will save good deal of tax money. I think we can improve on the value added by replacing the coke machines with beer, joints and some porn.

On a more serious note some parents do take their children health and diet seriously and I think they should be able to count on the schools not acting to subvert their efforts, the children will have enough opportunity to eat whatever they want outside of school setting.

Sarcasm aside we are talking about potato chips not illegal drugs. What's next requirements outside of schools that only 18+ can use vending machines? I mean after all think of the children! We can't allow them to be harmed by the horrors of fast food and snacks without parental consent!

[Lewkowski]

vouchers give more money to the "passing" schools that attract more students. Leading to the idea that schools that are passing, currently based on broken testing concepts forced on states by the NCLBA, are doing something right and therefor do not need to be intervened in, while the schools that are failing are automatically punished with lower funding and attendance and will adopt the policies and/or procedures of the passing schools in an attempt to replicate their success. Even if those policies have nothing to do with the success.

No need for anyone to step in and correct a wrong as long as the testing scores somewhere appear to look good.

If they have the knowledge to pass the test then something is working... not that everything done by those schools is helpful but something is clearly working.

I often wonder why people are opposed to testing. Do people who score better on SATs do better or worse in college and their careers? If they do better then clearly testing is predictive to a certain degree.

[Ominous Gamer]

Do people who score better on SATs do better or worse in college and their careers? If they do better then clearly testing is predictive to a certain degree.

The dean of admissions at Harvard has admitted that SATs are a poor indicator of performance in college and beyond. Google has used their data to show that their famous brainteasers, GPAs, and test scores are also "worthless".

so much for being predictive

[Loki]

The dean of admissions at Harvard has admitted that SATs are a poor indicator of performance in college and beyond. Google has used their data to show that their famous brainteasers, GPAs, and test scores are also "worthless".

so much for being predictive

Define "poor". There's a decent correlation between those indicators and the likelihood that someone would graduate from college within 6 years (the usual success criterion). Those factors by themselves obviously don't explain all (or even most) of the variation in that variable. On the other hand, most of the factors that have a stronger effect - parental education, socio-economic status, and gender - are probably factors you don't want colleges to be discriminating on the basis of.

[Ominous Gamer]

Define "poor".

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/ed...er&st=cse&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/bu...pagewanted=all

[Loki]

None of that says what you claim. The closest quote is that the test is "an imprecise measure". No disagreement there.

From what I've read, there's a pretty clear consensus that there is a link, albeit a weak-to-moderate one:

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/9/1000.short
http://research.collegeboard.org/pub...raduating-1980
http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-13-09.pdf (see page 4)

There are a handful of studies that argue otherwise, but you always get those.

[agamemnus]

no its a lazy idea, so officials don't have to make decisions on subjects like vending machines and healthy food.

Compared to free markets (lazy!), socializm is a drag.

[GGT]

Sarcasm aside we are talking about potato chips not illegal drugs. What's next requirements outside of schools that only 18+ can use vending machines? I mean after all think of the children! We can't allow them to be harmed by the horrors of fast food and snacks without parental consent!

The new guidelines don't prohibit vending machines in schools.

They're replacing a few junk food items with healthier options: "Some of the standards for schools include having food that is more than 50 percent whole-grain by weight, or food that has whole grains, fruits, vegetables, dairy or protein as the first ingredient." Popcorn instead of potato chips, granola bars instead of candy bars, etc. That doesn't preclude students from bringing their own junk food snacks from home.

Your slippery-slope concern about vending machines is pretty far-fetched, and conflates public schools' responsibility for nutrition with private access to junk food. We all know kids won't lose access to donuts or sodas from the convenience store across the street, or the fast-food joint at most every intersection. Hell, they can even buy that stuff in big-chain Drug Stores.

I think this measure is aimed at helping students living in "food deserts". Those families who don't have easy access to fresh, whole, or healthy foods from grocery stores, are limited to bodegas or corner stores, and their best nutrition of the day may be from school breakfast or lunch. People can disagree if that's the right/best way to approach the problems of childhood hunger, nutritional deficits, obesity, health problems, but I'm not seeing many other ideas floated around.

[Lewkowski]

The dean of admissions at Harvard has admitted that SATs are a poor indicator of performance in college and beyond. Google has used their data to show that their famous brainteasers, GPAs, and test scores are also "worthless".

so much for being predictive

Oh wow a liberal bashing tests - shocker.

[littlelolligagged]

Oh wow a liberal bashing tests - shocker.

Standardized tests are nothing more than a demonstration of an ability at rote memorization. Kids aren't encouraged to learn to think anymore, just to learn the exact content of a test - and since they are multiple choice they also reward guessing.

Yippie!

[Loki]

Being able to memorize is a valuable skill, and shows evidence of perseverance. Considering that the grading criteria on the writing portion of the test are a complete joke, I'm not quite sure I'd want the same standards being applied to an even larger portion of the test.

[Aimless]

Oh wow a liberal bashing tests - shocker.

It is, considering how most people at Harvard are probably liberals

[Lebanese Dragon]

It is, considering how most people at Harvard are probably liberals

I hate how IE whatever version I have is not compatible with being able to press "enter" to create a new line. Anyway, I think our tests are useful, and what needs to change are not the tests (or at least not just the tests) but how we're teaching kids. Honestly memorizing some dates in history is not important, understanding is. We can have computers do all the memorizing we want. We need to encourage imagination, criticial thinking, and understanding of events. Let them understand the political nuances that happen throughout history (Why did person A start this war, what do you think the response was, what do you think the mother's of the soldiers thought, what do you think this nation who was selling them guns thought of the war?) Make them understand the motives and thoughts of each player, and realize it's the exact same situations today. You can do the same in math and science, and in reading, and in writing. You have to have a new approach to teaching. On the test you can still do multiple choice, just word the problems strangely or offer them pictures to interpret, to test understanding and not regurgitation.

[Lewkowski]

Standardized tests are nothing more than a demonstration of an ability at rote memorization. Kids aren't encouraged to learn to think anymore, just to learn the exact content of a test - and since they are multiple choice they also reward guessing.

Yippie!

Design a test that requires your "thinking" (in quotes because knowledge is part of standardized tests). Take a simple math problem the test will determine if the kid knows the info or not. If they do know it... GREAT! Knowledge has been successfully transferred to the student. Huzzah! Whats the problem?

[Aimless]

Design a test that requires your "thinking" (in quotes because knowledge is part of standardized tests). Take a simple math problem the test will determine if the kid knows the info or not. If they do know it... GREAT! Knowledge has been successfully transferred to the student. Huzzah! Whats the problem?

For starters mathematics is not usually what libruls are thinking of when they claim standardized tests emphasize rote memorization.

[Loki]

The SAT is math, English, and writing. I don't see how the first two can be tested in a manner that does not emphasize memorization.

[Ominous Gamer]

I don't see how the first two can be tested in a manner that does not emphasize memorization.

someone is starting to see the light.

[Lewkowski]

For starters mathematics is not usually what libruls are thinking of when they claim standardized tests emphasize rote memorization.

Ah so they are good with standardized tests for math classes along with the added benefit of using their results to determine teacher performance? Man if that's true maybe I'll have to rethink my stance on liberals!

[Loki]

someone is starting to see the light.

Someone doesn't seem to understand that without solid knowledge of math and English, the other subjects aren't of much use.

[Aimless]

Ah so they are good with standardized tests for math classes along with the added benefit of using their results to determine teacher performance? Man if that's true maybe I'll have to rethink my stance on liberals!

What do you measure with a test?

[RandBlade]

someone is starting to see the light.

He never said that was a bad thing. Being able to learn and memorise is a good thing.

[Ominous Gamer]

Someone doesn't seem to understand that without solid knowledge of math and English

which is not achieved via memorization

He never said that was a bad thing. Being able to learn and memorise is a good thing.

no, no he didn't. which is why I said he was starting to see the light. emphasizing memorization is the problem. It encourages teaching to a specific set of test restraints over learning how to apply an individuals understanding of a given subject.

the fact that we are entering a world of immediate access to almost unlimited information, memorization is becoming less important. hence recent data showing the lack of connection between testing and career performance.

[Loki]

I still fail to see how one can learn math theorems, rules of grammar, and vocabulary without memorization. Each of those is a precondition toward deeper learning...

[GGT]

Huh? Yeah, kids need to 'memorize' the alphabet in order to read and write, and move onto higher learning with conceptualization, but that's not what OG has been talking about.