Sentences with phrase «teaching to the test means»

Teaching to the test means even skills are not truely evidenced in such a false situation.

Teaching to the test means those students are not taught to be engaged readers, motivated writers, critical thinkers, and thoughtful questioners as their peers in schools of the more privileged are taught to be.

Not exact matches

Whether that means not participating in an organized religion but still studying its teachings, proposing a new mathematical theory to explain the origin of the universe that can't easily be tested experimentally, taking the notion of a personal God and trying to have an actual personal, and not a corporate, herd - instinct, everyone - else - is - doing - it, relationship?

This means that we must pay profound attention to the way in which the apostolic witness is formulated and test our own teaching against it.

Scientific method, as taught in the UK, means that we first propose a hypothesis, then find ways of testing it, then try it out sufficient times to demonstrate what we need to know.

It also means that school administrations, teachers, and school boards must be held accountable for student learning and performance without «teaching to the test» or being over-burdened with repeated standardized testing.

I am in the process of teaching myself how to use all of the amazing features Lightroom has to offer (this is definitely an on - going project... there is simply so much to learn) plus testing out some fun presets from Dreamy Presets (I mean how could they not be awesome when they were created by a blogger?!).

However, he admitted that there are challenges to teaching vocabulary such as teachers not having the time to sit one on one with a student to review words and meanings, difficulty testing vocabulary, and determining what words to teach.

Smith sees teaching as a means to overcome some of the challenges facing special education in today's world of standardized tests.

NAPLAN test items will reflect the Australian Curriculum in English and mathematics, meaning that the best preparation for NAPLAN is for teachers to focus on teaching the curriculum.»

NCLB's emphasis on testing means he has to pace his teaching differently.

What would American education look like if we had shunned IQ tests as a means of sorting children, used higher salaries to attract more able recruits to teaching, adapted the kind of engaging cooperative inquiry among both teachers and pupils that Dewey favored, and expected all children to do rigorous mathematics and science beginning in elementary school?

They are under pressure to teach according to some script meant to increase performance on standardized tests.

We were also glad to see the recent expansion of the New York Performance Standards Consortium, which use performance assessments as a means of breaking the monotony of traditional multiple - choice tests without losing the critical data that assessments provide to inform teaching and evaluate performance.

Adherence to standard textbook - based teaching means that nothing is being done to challenge this perception when it's all too clear that unlocking curiosity and wonderment across all academic disciplines is not only essential to the mastery of tests, but also key to ensuring that more students are inspired enough to pursue further study and even pursue teaching as a career later in life.

Shute argues the approach means schools no longer have to interrupt their teaching and learning to carry out testing - rather the stealth solution is a way of continuing to support «real - time, just - in - time instruction'to students.

A drop in proficiency rates on the new tests could mean that students are still getting used to the new test format, or that schools are still adjusting to teaching new material, or it could mean that states set higher cut points on the new tests than on their old ones.

It is frightening to think what «teaching to the test» would mean, given the nature of the test.

Educators are concerned because so much is still unclear about the implementation of the tests, and whether the resources being created to align with the new standards will truly teach what students are meant to learn.

It takes us back to the starting point of trying to define the outcome we want, but just because the MET study did not validate observation scores should not mean that teaching and test scores now are equivalent.»

Embracing «slow teaching» does not mean I have to settle for lower test scores; in fact, to me it's somewhat ironic that highly interactive projects and classroom practices promote academic rigor and excellence.

«The pressure to show high test scores and get kids into college, combined with the broad leeway given to charter schools to suspend and expel students, means the «difficult to teach» kids have been effectively abandoned,» said investigative reporter Andrea Gabor.

Get it right the first time by determining the vision for using technology to teach (not test), and figure out the proper funding and other mechanisms instead of dipping into facilities bonds meant for other purposes.

In an interview with my colleague Liana Heitin, she called testing «the most corrupting influence over what it means to teach and what it means to learn.»

However, expanding educational options should mean more than just which school best teaches to the Common Core tests.

These claims are meant to signal to the public that at last «we» are holding our teachers and students accountable for their teaching and learning, but thereafter, again, proficiency cut scores are arbitrarily redefined (among other things), and then five or ten years later «new and improved» tests and standards are needed again.

The study focuses on trends in mean scores for those who pass the Praxis II tests, as these are individuals who are eligible to enter teaching.

Just because kids are poor, doesn't mean they aren't smart and these brightest children are bored out of their minds by the non-stop test prep that serves «data - driven instruction» but fails to actually teach smart kids anything.

Although educators would agree with these lofty goals, they often balk at the idea of teaching for meaning, citing lack of time and pressure to teach to the test.

The LSG teachers acknowledged the possible harmful effects of having students learn a procedure without meaning, but at the same time were charged with having students produce correct answers to a narrow selection of systems of equations to be included on tests that would be used by administrators to judge the quality of their teaching.

«This new test will mean that children are again taught the skills they need to understand our language, and to use it properly, creatively and effectively.»

This does not mean that teachers should exclusively teach to the test and tell students when to circle A and when to circle D, for example.

High - stakes testing for every course means a narrowing of curriculum and requires teaching to the test

It also means that teachers should teach standards - based content to mastery and prepare students to demonstrate their knowledge on a test accurately.

One hypothesis on how this links to primary assessment is that reading and writing tests might start to include knowledge from other subjects, such as history and geography, to avoid a narrowing of the curriculum (which may be what is meant by «teaching to the test»).

So ask yourselves — is this the same Governor Malloy who said, «I'll settle for teaching to the test» if it means raising test scores?

Who can forget Gov. Dannel P. Malloy «s repugnant words, «I'll settle for teaching to the test if it means raising test scores?»

That means that there is more time for test prep each year which means more testing prep materials will be bought, more specialists hired from companies to tell teachers how to teach to test...

«Teaching to the test» takes on an entirely new meaning here.

The problem here is that with a Common Core «teach to the test» mentality, it is less likely that Precalculus will be offered in high schools in the future meaning that students will not be ready to take Calculus during their first year of college.

What this means is that all of the hype and stress and teaching - to - the - test is really just focused on a few «borderline» kids in an effort boost the score of the school.

Here in Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy even went so far as to state that he'd «settle for teaching to the test» as long as it meant raising test scores.

Probably the fact that most teachers abroad do not «teach to the test» means that instructional time is better utilized.

Meaning, within hours of each other, Education Secretary Duncan said the President believes that «No teacher should have to teach to the test,» while the Governor of Connecticut, who said he has no problems with teaching to the test as long as the scores go up, is named chair of the committee developing education policy for governors and their states.

Along with their other sins, value - added evaluations would mean collective punishment of some teachers merely for teaching in schools and classes where it is harder to meet dubious test score growth targets.

Incredibly, the textbooks that Paul Vallas purchased aren't the only ones to fail the review, which means public school children across Connecticut and the nation are being taught with textbooks that don't prepare them for the Common Core testing program.

Yes — this means that teachers are not to speak negatively about the tests or say anything negatively about these tests in their classrooms or in public; if they do they could be found in violation of their contracts, that they themselves signed or had to sign to get or hold their teaching position.

The example suggested that if students do not know the meaning of a particular word in a test item, they would be taught to replace it with an «X» and focus instead on grasping the logic of the question phrasing that will give them a better chance of selecting the correct answer.

This pressure forces otherwise well - meaning school officials to throw out what they know about teaching and learning and replace it with test prep.

The bill, which Gov. Haslam signed much to the chagrin of Huffman, meant teachers and students in Tennessee would once again be responsible for teaching to the Common Core's more difficult standards while preparing students for the old state tests based on the old state standards.