This is the blog section of the PURE Reform website. Please leave your thoughts and comments here.
PURE Reform has created this blog as a forum for parents, teachers and community members to share information and voice concerns regrading the reform process in the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Although we would like to foster constructive dialogue, PURE Reform does not edit content. The views expressed by bloggers in this forum are not necessarily views held by PURE Reform.
To comment on an existing topic, go to the line at the bottom of the post for that topic that begins "Posted by..." That line will list "1 comment," "2 comments," etc. Click on "comments," then leave your comment in the box provided. To post as Anonymous, no registration is required, OR you can choose an identity.
To suggest a new topic, go to this month's post labeled "Start a New Post" and add your comment (as described above) about the new suggested topic. PURE Reform will use these comments to start new posts.
The success of the Shanghai students is attributed to an amazing work effort and the fact that they spend less time than students elsewhere on sports and other activities not related to core subjects. Another factor is that Shanghai probably attracts top students.
In the article, my favorite part is the fact that no matter how the US scored, it was going to be an argument for more reform.
We did poorly compared to China so we must need more reform. Had we done well, it would have been proof that reform was working.
This is the same argument that's been made here over and over. If kids do well it's reform working. If kids do poorly, it must mean the teachers aren't following the curriculum hard enough.
We've seen that same thing in Pgh w/ HS reform- the fact that kids didn't do well was an argument for immediate reform, but if they had done well that would have been taken as a sign that reforms over the past 5 years were working and should be expanded.
Anonymous submitted the followipost, which is not showing up on the website:
"I'm sure also that China is smart enough to do a couple of (smart) things.
First off, they downloaded the sample questions. Teachers aligned classwork to those skills and types of problems and made sure that problems like this were included all year.
Secondly, they gave it in the city and schools most likely to score well.
Their students were motivated to take and do well on the test. Those that aren't motivated most likely are not in these schools.
I don't have any problems with any of these practices. However, I do think that the same results (or better) can be accomplished while still offering enriching activities.
Despite the comment in the article, I see nothing in the math section that screams "creative problem-solving" abilities being measured. They are standard, pretty straightforward math concept questions. The dreaded "rote" learning (also can be known as having basic skills and knowledge of content) combined with practice solving related word problems would easily suffice to get a student through this exam well.
Posted by Anonymous to PURE Reform at December 7, 2010 10:08 AM"
Start with this fact: Every city kid in China is an only child.
There might be a few with siblings that are in there -- but -- they are VERY RARE.
I am more worried about the news (heard on the radio today) that the % of those with Ph.D.s has dropped from 79% to 77%. More people with advance degrees are NOT staying in the USA after they are done with their studies.
These numbers are what they are. For some who might need a wake up call, let it ring. Macro economics folks might care too.
That's an interesting thought. For those interested in comparing scores, should Shanghai's scores be compared only to those of only children in the US? Do only children in the US score much higher than those with siblings?
I really don't think there is a difference between an only child and a child wih siblings, at least in US.
Interesting fact is, Shanghai joined testing just now - in my opinion they were preparing for it and now they showed the world, who's the king here. Nothing wrong with that, though.
7 comments:
The success of the Shanghai students is attributed to an amazing work effort and the fact that they spend less time than students elsewhere on sports and other activities not related to core subjects. Another factor is that Shanghai probably attracts top students.
In the article, my favorite part is the fact that no matter how the US scored, it was going to be an argument for more reform.
We did poorly compared to China so we must need more reform. Had we done well, it would have been proof that reform was working.
This is the same argument that's been made here over and over. If kids do well it's reform working. If kids do poorly, it must mean the teachers aren't following the curriculum hard enough.
If you want to look at released questions:
http://www.oecd.org/document/25/0,3343,en_32252351_32235731_38709529_1_1_1_1,00.html
We've seen that same thing in Pgh w/ HS reform- the fact that kids didn't do well was an argument for immediate reform, but if they had done well that would have been taken as a sign that reforms over the past 5 years were working and should be expanded.
Anonymous submitted the followipost, which is not showing up on the website:
"I'm sure also that China is smart enough to do a couple of (smart) things.
First off, they downloaded the sample questions. Teachers aligned classwork to those skills and types of problems and made sure that problems like this were included all year.
Secondly, they gave it in the city and schools most likely to score well.
Their students were motivated to take and do well on the test. Those that aren't motivated most likely are not in these schools.
I don't have any problems with any of these practices. However, I do think that the same results (or better) can be accomplished while still offering enriching activities.
Despite the comment in the article, I see nothing in the math section that screams "creative problem-solving" abilities being measured. They are standard, pretty straightforward math concept questions. The dreaded "rote" learning (also can be known as having basic skills and knowledge of content) combined with practice solving related word problems would easily suffice to get a student through this exam well.
Posted by Anonymous to PURE Reform at December 7, 2010 10:08 AM"
Start with this fact: Every city kid in China is an only child.
There might be a few with siblings that are in there -- but -- they are VERY RARE.
I am more worried about the news (heard on the radio today) that the % of those with Ph.D.s has dropped from 79% to 77%. More people with advance degrees are NOT staying in the USA after they are done with their studies.
These numbers are what they are. For some who might need a wake up call, let it ring. Macro economics folks might care too.
That's an interesting thought. For those interested in comparing scores, should Shanghai's scores be compared only to those of only children in the US? Do only children in the US score much higher than those with siblings?
I really don't think there is a difference between an only child and a child wih siblings, at least in US.
Interesting fact is, Shanghai joined testing just now - in my opinion they were preparing for it and now they showed the world, who's the king here. Nothing wrong with that, though.
Post a Comment