Posted on 05/18/2023 8:40:41 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
It shouldn’t be a secret that the public education system in the United States is collapsing, although a vast number of people don’t appear to notice that fact. This is a testament to mental inertia. It takes a steady drumbeat of evidence and perhaps the bravery of a few in the MSM to say the quiet part out loud.
There has been a modest decline in Americans’ approval of the execrable system, but 42% of Americans still approve of the system either completely or mostly. COVID did enormous damage to the prestige of the system, as has the descent into ideological grooming, but far too many people approve. Of course, it is no surprise that the approval rating of the system closely mirrors that of Joe Biden.
Make of that what you will.
What most Americans don’t know is that the rather poor state of public education is not limited to the United States, where teachers’ unions seem to run the schools in the way inmates would run an asylum. It seems that the sorry state of public education is spreading into the entire Anglosphere (a new obsession of mine, the decline in the sanity of the home of classical liberalism). I am ignorant of what is going on in the non-English speaking world, although I suspect that the damage is less severe. One day I will look into that question.
A great example of this fact comes from a story in The Telegraph, a newspaper far superior to anything published in the United States.
📝 Some Year 6 pupils were left in "tears" by this year's Sats reading test, according to parents and teachers.
Try the questions yourself here 👇 https://t.co/hjVL0E4L3c
— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) May 18, 2023
The story is about how 10-11-year-old students can’t do a basic reading comprehension test. It is disturbing in the extreme because it not only reveals how we are raising a generation of whining idiots but also how many parents are more concerned with the affirmation of their children’s genius than the actual development of basic skills.
Sixth-grade students, apparently, cannot read and understand things. At all. Worse, when confronted with this fact they break down in tears, offended that they are required to read and understand a few hundred words. Even worse, some teachers complained that even they couldn’t understand the questions.
Apparently, emojis are the only language they understand.
Some Year 6 pupils were left in “tears” by this year’s Sats reading test, according to parents and teachers.
The paper was sat by 10- and 11-year-old children across the country on May 10, with the marks being used to inform their target grades and sets at secondary school from September.
It has 38 questions, based on three texts in a 12-page reading booklet, with Year 6 pupils expected to understand words such as “hotspot”, “vulnerable” and “eradicated”.
But parents have lambasted exam chiefs for making it “too hard for children”. Kerry Forrester, the head at a Cheshire primary school, warned about the “negative impact” on her pupils and she said some were reduced to tears.
The National Association of Head Teachers said some staff also struggled “to understand the questions”.
How difficult were the questions? I won’t post many of them, but a few should give you an idea.
Now perhaps the students haven’t heard the expression, but the context is clear enough. Nobody literally HIT her, and for God’s sake, the answer was literally right next to the turn of phrase. Rustlers!
All right, maybe getting this wrong is understandable. I was a serious reader in my youth and remain one today, so perhaps my recollection of what it means to be a sixth grader is off. I was reading hundreds, perhaps thousands of pages a week by then.
How about this one? After reading that piece of text, in which Austin is referred to as the capitol of Texas, could you answer “In which American state is the bridge?”
I hope so. It says “the capital city of the state of Texas” right there. If you are crying after that question perhaps you can’t read at all, or reading two paragraphs is beyond your attention span.
You get the idea. Every answer is glaringly obvious. You don’t have to understand every damn word to figure out the answer. You just have to have the ability to pay attention for 30 seconds. That is it. The only requirement is basic reading skills and the ability to pay attention.
Now let’s go back to the quote from the article. “The National Association of Head Teachers said some staff also struggled “to understand the questions”.”
In what possible universe is it acceptable for “Head Teachers,” who are the equivalent of principals in the United States, to be so incapable of understanding these questions and answering them?
Granted, my IQ is above average, but I am pretty sure that it is not so extraordinary that I am incapable of recognizing what an average person should be able to do. This isn’t theoretical physics. It is being able to discern that being the capitol of Texas pretty much means that Austin is in Texas.
See the problem?
The Anglosphere is dying, and it is doing so because our Elite class is apparently happy enough to have it happy. They want us fat, stupid, and compliant. And a vast percentage of our population is just as happy to let it happen, apparently. They kick, they scream, they throw tantrums, and sic the FBI on us if we complain about the obvious decline of our basic institutions.
Some brilliant social scientist, of which there are far too few, needs to do research on why the Anglosphere, in particular, is becoming so decrepit. Is this just a normal imperial decline? Is the infiltration of cultural Marxists?
Why is this happening, and happening so rapidly? The roots go back decades, of course, but the trajectory is just like the joke about bankruptcy: it happens slowly, then all at once. There is a tipping point where the accumulated rot leads to sudden collapse.
We are, it seems, at that tipping point.
This ping list is for the other articles of interest to homeschoolers about education and public school. This can occasionally be a fairly high volume list. Articles pinged to the Another Reason to Homeschool List will be given the keyword of ARTH. (If I remember. If I forget, please feel free to add it yourself)
The main Homeschool Ping List handles the homeschool-specific articles. I hold both the Homeschool Ping List and the Another Reason to Homeschool Ping list. Please freepmail me to let me know if you would like to be added to or removed from either list, or both.
Insanity such as this was why we homeschooled.
In the first question, students are being giving ground rules by the example itself which are then violated by the grading standard. The original source author communicates to the reader the protagonist's realization that rustlers were trespassing with a literal "Rustlers!" instead of "She realized it must be rustlers", thereby establishing that "Rustlers!" represents and expresses the idea that the character realized it must be rustlers. Indeed, correct reading comprehension on the part of the test taker REQUIRES the acceptance that "Rustlers!" contains "she realized it must be rustlers" to even continue in the exercise. Any test taker accepting this rule and proceeding to write "Rustlers!" in the provided answer space is likewise intending to express the idea that she realized it must be rustlers with the prepackaged linguistic label they were given by the testing authority itself. Students answering "Rustlers!" aren't trying to claim that the protagonist was actually being struck by rustlers, they're trying to express the presented idea with the presented language, which seems, superficially, to the damned objective.
Not only is the given problem not well prepared, the grading guideline is ambiguous. There is an an unmarked difference between writing "Rustlers!" (full quotes) and simply writing rustlers. One carries on in the immediate tradition conditionally accepted by the reader, that she realized it must be rustlers whereas the other only allows the misinterpretation that the test taker believes that rustlers were striking the protagonist.
All of this could have been avoided by simply representing the question: "In the above text appears the phrase "Then it hit her". In your own words, explain what the author means by this." As presented, the standard is asinine in its petty requirement for verbosity.
The error of the second problem compounds that of the first by demanding that which was previously denied. It reduces the exercise to a game of word-finding in a test which otherwise punishes such a procedure. Heaven help the poor student who overthinks this apparently shallow exercise for something like a logic problem and attempts to appease the testing gods with a modus ponens argument (if A, then B; if Austin, then Texas), or assumes that state test graders can be expected to know that Austin is in Texas (who is testing whom).
Again, the grading guideline is poorly conceived, as it presents the grader with an incredibly badly-written ambiguity: "Do not accept reference to both Austin and Texas without indicating that Texas is the state, e.g. Austin, Texas". "Without" in formal logic, means "and not", and is a type of conjunction which can be broken down into two different terms using distribution in predicate calculus: "Do not accept reference to both Austin and Texas"; "And do not accept Austin without indicating that Texas is the state". "e.g. Austin, Texas" is the given example (e.g., exempli gratia, the 'given example') of...something, either what is acceptable ("do not accept...without) or what is not ("do not accept").
The third problem is the worst. Not only is it really just a game of word-find, but it wants the test taker to pretend that it's not. "How can you tell that Innis was familiar with the area". Well, because it plainly says so; "Innis knew this ground", which is just another way of saying that he was familiar with it. Is the test asking the reader if "familiar" is a synonym for "known"? It would first seem to the test taker that this test (supposed, of reading comprehension) is asking to construct an argument for why Innis could be said to be familiar with the island based on extracts which don't expressly say so. "Showing, not telling" being a good writing standard, the reader will probably reread the excerpt over and over looking for Innis to navigate the terrain with pause, to take trail forks without hesitation, or even easily pass foliage to access hidden pathways. But, No! The test actually wants the test taker to just point to where the text clearly the thing for which the question asks.
This is the literary equivalent of that meme in which a student, taking a geometry test, is tasked with finding the hypotenuse of a pictured triangle and the student simply draws an arrow to where the hypotenuse would be found in the graphic, captioned "here it is". When done in the context of a mathematics test, the student know this is inherently incorrect and I'm sure that the student taking this test in THIS context probably thought 'no, wait...this can't really be it'.
If today's students are performing poorly, it's BECAUSE of educrats, not despite them. To suddenly believe that the educational bureaucracy is right and that it is the students who are off requires some real cognitive dissonance. "Am I so out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."
Of course, after a nap, I just noticed all the stupid spelling errors in my last post.
At this level, finding the hypotenuse with an arrow is sufficient.
But please, continue pontificating as I'm sure we are all impressed with your brilliant analysis.
?
Re: “.... its digested treatment “
What?
"Digest" in this context, simply means that material which originated with some first author (the excerpted readings) was reduced as it passed through a succession of writers (in this case, the test preparers and the author of the article) each lending their own treatment of that material as it passed through the, uh, tract.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.