How do you define literate?

Several threads in the last few days have raised questions about the literacy level of high school graduates. We have castigated school administrators and some teachers for "teaching the test" and deplored standardized testing as "forcing" schools to resort to such practices.

We have bemoaned the necessity of "remedial" classes for college freshmen, or boldly asserted such remedial classes are not needed.

We have laughed at the geographical ignorance of travelers and cursed the lack of advanced mathematics.

Many of us have touted the benefits of home schooling, private schools, and/or parental involvement as remedies for the failings of the public school system.

In the not so distant past, we have discussed the relevance of "literary classics" on reading lists for college and high school levels and suggested numerous alternatives for those required reading lists.

So, Just how to we define a "good education?"

What level of reading speed and comprehension qualifies as literate?

What level of mathematical or arithmetic ability is required to be considered literate?

What level of Geography, Literature, Rhetoric, Computer Skills, Music, History, Chemistry, Physics, General Science, Logic, Etc, is required to be considered an "educated person?"

Last, but not least, how do we determine when a student has met the minimum requirements to be considered "educated?"

It is patently obvious that the current method of allowing each teacher and school district to make the determination isn't working. Aside from the fact that students are being graduated from many schools without meeting the requirements of that school, the wide disparity in what is considered "literate" in different school districts means there is, effectively, no standard at all.

It is also becoming clear that standardized testing isn't the whole answer either. The current tests are culturally biased, incomplete, and unfairly applied.

My personal opinion, is that there must be some minimum level of knowledge that anyone can agree qualifies as "literate." There is some level of reading ability, mathematical skill, and general knowledge, that is greater than "semi-literate" and "functionally illiterate" that will enable someone to function in the 21st century.

Until society can define where that line is, define the goal of our educational system, there can be no progress towards teaching our children what they need to know to survive.

some thoughts ...

You mention that "current tests are culturally biased, incomplete, and unfairly applied", and I think that this is a crucial point. It's a relatively short time ago that the idea of being 'literate' pertained to a small fraction of the populace, and that social class in most cases decided whether or not one had the opportunity to be 'literate' or not. In this historical context, cultural competency wasn't an issue, because the canon was located within a fairly limited set of articulations which were the preserve of the dominant (white) class [I'm using Western English speaking countries as an example here of course]. The idea of what constituted worthy study material and the access to such was fairly limited.

The ball park has changed. The working population is more flexible and less fixed. 'New technologies' (in the widest sense of the term) mean that older ways of life - which did not require what would now be described as average literacy levels - have more or less vanished. With an emphasis on features such as lifelong learning and flexible skills which increasingly need to be updated, not to mention the fact that education is a big business in its own right, more and more people are taking advantage of the opportunities which further education promises: "Education is a right, and not a privilege" is a common mantra in student circles.

The massification of higher education must ultimately mean that standards 'drop'. To adjust educative standards to suit a burgeoning student populace (at all levels) must mean that standardisation is no more than a misnomer. For standardisation read 'dilution'. Perhaps we are seeing mass education levelling the idea of literacy to what is in fact nearer to an accurate picture of the national average than we'd like to admit? Perhaps the present statistics portray an actual rather than 'average' picture of literate abilities? This raises the question of why the educative process can't keep pace with increasing and diverse student bodies.

It's a complicated scenario which could be rationalised to some extent by identifying factors such as location. The outcome of this is that funding and initiatives are put in place to raise standards of particular areas (usually poor neighbourhoods) to that of areas which have better educational success rates and higher levels of accomplishment. Again, this is another example of standardisation! But given your whole point, could it therefore be said that standards in general aren't that high in the first place? Does everyone have the capability to excel, or is there an essentalist factor which no amount of guidance can account for? Is it feasible to expect everyone to achieve 'excellent' levels of literacy? If not, then there will always be a literate 'elite', regardless of what standards are implemented.

I'm not saying that certain parts of the population are and will forever be 'dumb', and that schooling is wasted on them; just in case I'm coming across as being elitist myself! The various disciplines which you mention are a good example of the problems faced. It's entirely possible to have two specialist academics standing at the same laboratory table, or sharing a computer terminal who have little knowledge of what the other is studying. Knowledge is becoming increasingly specialised, so 'old' ideas of what it means to be literate are fairly redundant. I therefore think that "a good standard of literacy" can nowadays be defined in relation to specific fields of interest and study. It's impossible to expect anyone to be an authority on everything, but I don't think it's impossible for people to have a fair grasp of whatever it is that they have chosen as their area of expertise or interest. This assumes that people in fact have an area of specific interest. If at the end of their education they arrive at an intellectual junction where they possess no more than a generalistic set of knowledge protocols, then it's perhaps unwise to expect literacy levels to be 'high'. Knowledge has become so compartmentalised, while simultaneously being so accessible, that literacy as you describe it, might never resurface in an 'ideal form'.

I'm sorry if I haven't provided 'answers', but this is quite a complex subject with lots of competing issues. Thanks for raising it though, as I believe that active written and spoken debate can't do any harm when trying to raise literacy levels. I'm going back to less challenging threads for the moment! Thanks again.



[Edited by Ally C on 05-16-2001 at 04:47 AM]

What level of reading speed and comprehension qualifies as literate?

Click to expand...

Short answer - my journalism class taught us that most mainstream newspapers are written on a ninth grade level. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal hover between eleventh and twelfth grade. Though a person can be functionally literate at below the ninth grade level, I use that as my standard for an average literate person.

As for the rest of your questions, I'll get back you.

Ally and Harold are obviously very well educated, or at least naturally smart as hell.

My question is, why is this so tough?

What is so hard about coming up with basic minimum standards for learning and then writing a fair test to evaluate a students level of knowledge?

Can it really be that much of a chore for teachers to get together and decide, OK, we want students to know algebra and geometry, to have read Mark Twain and be able to string a coherent sentence together, to know that water freezes at 32 dgrees fahrenheit and a hydrogen atom has one electron, etc., etc.?

Could it be that schools that are not achieving what everyone knows are not minimum standards are just graduationg students anyway in order to get their share of whatever federal or state money they need to keep the payroll fat?

It seems to me these are not tough questions. The problem lies more with schools that have bloated administrations at the expense of their teaching staff. It lies with teachers unions that would rather protect jobs even if that means keeping unqualified teachers and unnecessary administrators on staff.

Maybe the first step is to have a national standard for teachers, and see how many of them pass in the subjects they are teaching. Keep the ones that actually know what they're doing and cut the rest loose. Then take the money saved and give the good ones a raise. Then decide on a national standard and test equally and fairly to it in each subject. Geometry hasn't changed much in the last two or three thousand years. Shakespeare is still a pretty damned good writer. Let Bill Gates cut loose some of his 100 billion or so bucks to keep us current on how his operating system works this year (or doesn't).

Come up with a standard and if some schools fail for a while, so be it. They need to be identified, and then take whatever measures are necessary in order for them to make the grade. I have a feeling a lot of teachers and schools are against any standard because it would only show what a crappy job they are doing.

I don't think the things people really need to know in order to have a basic understanding of how the world works really changes all that much. The only thing getting in the way of kids learning is the politics of teaching.

That would be a hell of a start PC.

Bravo.

So, Just how to we define a "good education?"

I define a good education as one that prepares the student for living in the real life world. Not only must it have taught them basic reading, writing and math skills, but it should also have shown them how to find the answers when they don't know it. Hopefully instilling in them a desire to keep learning, as the world is not a static enviorment and they will have to learn even after leaving the "safety" of the schoolroom. To me a good education means that the student was exposed to ideas and thoughts that were outside their "normal" surrounding. An example would be taking the ghetto (do we still call it that?) kids to the country for a bit and vice versa. You remember the Fresh Air kids? Is that program still around? I grew up in the country and we, every summer for 10 years, had kids from Brooklyn, New York City and once even Harlem come and stay for a week or so. They were exposed to a life they could only see fictionalized on television. And I learned from them. Yes, at one time I could double dutch! Not anymore, at least not without an ambulance and emergency crew standing by.
It is not the facts and figures that we cram into our skulls that we remember, it is the way the person was taught. The habits we made while learning that carry through the years.

We should also teach them to write short, consise, non rambling responses. But you cannot teach this old dog a new trick.

How do we determine when a student has met the minimum requirements to be considered "educated?"

Good grief. Is there a minimum? I don't know this one. Let me think on this one. Not sure. We are such a diverse culture that a standardized test will always be biased in one way or another. So for now that's out.
Maybe I should go back to school, my brain has suddenly gone dead, stuck on the sight of me trying to double dutch and not do permanent damage no doubt.

Problem Child said:

Can it really be that much of a chore for teachers to get together and decide, OK, we want students to know algebra and geometry, to have read Mark Twain

Click to expand...

Not Mark Twain! He's been banned in most school systems. Along with Mother's Day, Father's Day, Christmas, Flags, Songs, Tweety Bird key chains, and arguments against social promotion.

Ban Mark Twain? Why?
Where the hell have I been lately?

Problem Child said:

The only thing getting in the way of kids learning is the politics of teaching.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid it isn't that simple, PC. I volunteered at an elementary school for a year, teaching math to two fifth graders. At the beginning of the year, they didn't know basic addition and subtraction, and couldn't even comprehend the idea of multiplication. By the end of the year, they were able to pass the state skill assessment test for their grade level. I was incredibly proud of them.

Their sub-par performance at the beginning of the year had nothing to do with the politics of teaching, inadequate funding, or an apathetic teacher. They attended a truly invigorating school, one that inspired the students to learn and to be proud of their academic accomplishments. However, these two boys had just transferred to this school. It was their fourth in five years. Their parents were recent immigrants, with little to no formal education. They were forced to move to wherever they could get a job, and the kids suffered for it.

Public schools are forced to juggle these kinds of kids every day. Their programs may work for students who are educated only in their system, but when new, below average students are introduced, it takes an incredible amount of resources to bring them up to speed. Fortunate for this school, they had strong community support and a consistent supply of volunteers (thanks to large employers that allowed us to volunteer on company time).

Maybe the first step is to have a national standard for teachers, and see how many of them pass in the subjects they are teaching. Keep the ones that actually know what they're doing and cut the rest loose. Then take the money saved and give the good ones a raise.

Click to expand...

Do you propose increasing the budget along with this suggestion? There is an immense teacher shortage, at any level of skill. Cutting all underqualified teachers exponentially increases the burden on the remaining ones, easily doubling their class size in some districts. They get paid pennies compared to so many other fields, and with that kind of added burden, I'm afraid that many of the best teachers would burn out.

I agree that teachers should be qualified, and I like the idea of national standards. However, I do not think this is feasible until we rethink the current budgetary goals. I would prefer a bare bones administrative structure with far more the budget devoted to teacher salaries.

WriterDom said:

Not Mark Twain! He's been banned in most school systems. Along with Mother's Day, Father's Day, Christmas, Flags, Songs, Tweety Bird key chains, and arguments against social promotion.

Click to expand...

Where do you get this information? I'm still relatively young, and everyone I know read at least one Twain novel in school. In fact, we even had a speaker that explained why misguided people banned the book in the past, and the lessons Twain conveyed in his novels. Twain remains one of my favorite authors to this day in part because of that lesson.

As for Christmas, most schools are now recognizing the diversity of their student bodies, and celebrate all major religions. I've volunteered in several schools across the country, and all of them have had decorations for Christmas, Channukah, Kwanza, etc. The kids seemed genuinely fascinated about the other religions and celebrations, and the kids that would formerly have been outcasts under a Christian-only scheme were now happily explaining their heritage.

Merelan said:

Ban Mark Twain? Why?
Where the hell have I been lately?

Click to expand...

Yep, poor huck was #5 on the bad list for the 90s

Most Challenged Books of the 1990s
The American Library Association's list of the 100 most frequently challenged books of 1990-1999.



Scary Stories (Series), by Alvin Schwartz


Daddy's Roommate, by Michael Willhoite


I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou


The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier


The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain


Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck

Ban Huck? I still don't get it. Oh, it's the racial thing? Or did I miss something else? Damn it. I want a good education now. I want to read all those books just to see whay they were banned. Maybe they banned the Twain because, at least when I read it, I have a tendacy to laugh out loud. Then forcing people to listen while I read them the parts that are hysterical. Of course, 9 times out of 10 they don't get the funny part.

Wonder if Literotica should be linked to all the schools so they can taste that variety of life I was talking about?

The American Library Association listed a total of 5,718 challenges to all books, and compiled the list of the top 100 challenged books. This does not translate to Twain being banned in "most school systems." Rest assured, Merelan, you can still find Twain in most school systems.

Too late. I have hidden my entire collection where they will never find it. Got my shotgun out and will use it on the first person that tries to take it.

Before I back away slowly from you and your shotgun, Merelan, I realized that no one explained why Huck has been banned from schools. Some people misunderstood Twain's mockery of Southern prejudice and thought he was promoting a racist attitude. Other schools found the book too mature for young readers, and feared they would not understand the message. Most copies today come with a forward that explains Twain's intent, so I think the problem has been cleared up in most places.

Lots of interesting perspectives here. I'll reply to Problem Child for the moment as this post stated several issues which caught my attention.

Problem Child said:

What is so hard about coming up with basic minimum standards for learning and then writing a fair test to evaluate a students level of knowledge?

Click to expand...

Perhaps education has been spread too thin? When I was at school class sizes were just as large as they are today, but the curriculum was a lot more concise and focused on fundamentals. Now all ages are being targeted with new strategies, ever wider reading lists, and subjects which appear to offer possibilities for inclusiveness and thought provocation, but which actually blow any idea of a standard level of education out of the water.

Problem Child said:

Can it really be that much of a chore for teachers to get together and decide, OK, we want students to know algebra and geometry, to have read Mark Twain and be able to string a coherent sentence together, to know that water freezes at 32 dgrees fahrenheit and a hydrogen atom has one electron, etc., etc.?

Click to expand...

Perhaps education is a victim of being too 'democratic', for want of a better word. Everyone gets a say, and all persuasions are catered for; but in a world where 'Harry Potter' books are deemed by some to carry pagan undertones [I remember this example from an old thread about books kids should read], then it's unlikely that a hard and fast curriculum will be arrived at. I see no harm in promoting a firm and 'back to basics' [primary] education, but the way things have gone of late would appear to signify that I'm part of an ignorant minority.

Problem Child said:

Could it be that schools that are not achieving what everyone knows are not minimum standards are just graduationg students anyway in order to get their share of whatever federal or state money they need to keep the payroll fat?

Click to expand...

This can't be ignored. Higher education is fast resembling a factory-line, where the concept of 'over-production' has been overlooked. This fact is obliterated by the weight which 'having an education' purports to carry. Being educated for the sake of it is fine. Being educated to get a job is good also. But I can't help feeling that the case for the virtues of education (as a desirable goal in itself) fails to hide the fact that many educational institutions put profit ahead of function. Students are a necessary inconvenience it seems.

Problem Child said:

The problem lies more with schools that have bloated administrations at the expense of their teaching staff. It lies with teachers unions that would rather protect jobs even if that means keeping unqualified teachers and unnecessary administrators on staff.

Click to expand...

This is the case with many organisations today. I've commented elsewhere about the way bureaucracy continues to grow disproportionately in relation to the organisations which 'it' administers. I wonder if there is such an actual shortage of jobs that bureaucracy is kept to a maximum in order to sustain economic growth? It's a false economy if this is the case, as something which produces next to nothing in relation to the resources it uses must outwear its use at some point. There's obviously a lot of money to be made going by all the bodies that govern, file, create strategies and initiatives, collate information, publish results, sit in judgment, create 'standards', administer resources, monitor proceedings and generally intervene in every detail of the educative process. The information age has seemingly taken on a meaning which doesn't necessarily 'inform' those in the classroom.

Problem Child said:

Maybe the first step is to have a national standard for teachers, and see how many of them pass in the subjects they are teaching. Keep the ones that actually know what they're doing and cut the rest loose. Then take the money saved and give the good ones a raise. Then decide on a national standard and test equally and fairly to it in each subject. Geometry hasn't changed much in the last two or three thousand years. Shakespeare is still a pretty damned good writer.

Click to expand...

I won't say too much about the first part of this paragraph, as I'll wait for someone in the profession to offer an answer. In England financial incentives are being given to new teachers, but I do wonder if this will entice people into the job for the money, rather than for the importance of the job in hand. Your point about how certain knowledge has remained the same is very pertinent. Curious how it no longer seems to suffice in schools today. Like I said above, the basics worked fine in my day.

Problem Child said:

Come up with a standard and if some schools fail for a while, so be it.

Click to expand...

I'm sure most people would like to see a less complicated and more clear cut approach to schooling. This viewpoint which you express is relevant for so many topics. I get tired with organisations (such as local councils) setting up sub-committees to tell us what the committee will be spending its money on and when, and then setting up a committee to select a sub-committee to decide which new project to implement, and then publishing glossy brochures to tell us about how good a job they're doing, and then proudly publicising the fact they have been given an award for doing what they are paid to do in the first place, and then awarding themselves bonuses for such good public service because they got an award which says so, and, and, ... well, you get the idea I'm sure! Why can't schools and whoever else just go ahead and do what they are supposed to do? It would save on so much finances which are constantly drained by the present regime.

Problem Child said:

I don't think the things people really need to know in order to have a basic understanding of how the world works really changes all that much. The only thing getting in the way of kids learning is the politics of teaching.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Don't forget the politics of self-serving interests who can hide behind the fact that education is a necessity. This being the case 'they' must be seen to be a necessity too. As all of this red-tape is so important to the running of the educative machine, any fool will tell you that it stands to reason that more money is needed to improve the mechanisms which exist. I'm not a fool, so I beg to differ ...

I thought it was due to the fact that he used the 'language of the era' when describing african americans.

Explain further please.

Problem Child said:

What is so hard about coming up with basic minimum standards for learning and then writing a fair test to evaluate a students level of knowledge?

Click to expand...

Who defines what's "fair"? A committee? Then you get horses that look like camels. A government agency? You get horses that eat twice as much and only have three legs. How do the "test makers" eliminate their own cultural bias from the test? *Should* it be eliminated? I live in Texas, the home of the evil TAAS. I have a friend that's a fourth grade teacher, and she's constantly being hammered by the administration for not teaching to the test. She's an incredibly talented, creative, teacher. Many of her former students have come back years later and said she had a profound influence on their lives, but she still gets hammered by "da man". All because she would rather teach students how to learn. The test scores for her students are among the highest at her school, but her methods are still questioned.

Keep the ones that actually know what they're doing and cut the rest loose.

Click to expand...

Congratulations, you just bumped the student:teacher ration to 40:1. That means that no one has the time to give the amount of individual attention to problem students that's required. What about truly gifted students? That may sound elitist, but so be it. It's foolish to pretend that everone has the same intelligence. Some people are smarter than others. Some are gifted in different ways, artistically, musically, etc....

I don't think the things people really need to know in order to have a basic understanding of how the world works really changes all that much. The only thing getting in the way of kids learning is the politics of teaching.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... worked on a new car lately? How about an older model? Any change? How about using the Internet for research vs digging through a card catalog at a library? The world is changing, faster and faster. Geometry hasn't changed much, but basic life skills certainly have.

It just isn't that simple.

More responses ...

... but I don't have time to reply right now. I'll be back tomorrow to add more to this thread, as I can see a few key themes developing.

Expertise said:

I thought it was due to the fact that he used the 'language of the era' when describing african americans.

Explain further please.

Click to expand...

Argh, I was digging into the dusty archives of my brain as it was trying to give an overview. A further explanation may cause overload, but I'll try. Yes, the use of the 'language of the era' was the main sticking point. Twain is a master of satire and sarcasm, but that didn't translate in many people's minds. They read the words at face value, and thought he was promoting those ideas instead of mocking them. Twain wrote a small forward explaining that he used four or five distinct dialects in Huck Finn. The book has been banned in some places because they were offended by the use of these dialects, or conversely, that the students would not understand the book because of the dialects and 'language of the era.' It really is a book for more mature readers - I didn't fully appreciate it until my second reading several years after it was assigned in school.

Thank you. Apparently my fears of early onset Alzheimers were unwarranted.

Mischka said:

What level of reading speed and comprehension qualifies as literate?

Click to expand...

Short answer - my journalism class taught us that most mainstream newspapers are written on a ninth grade level. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal hover between eleventh and twelfth grade. Though a person can be functionally literate at below the ninth grade level, I use that as my standard for an average literate person.

Click to expand...

This is almost the kind of answer I was really looking for.

The USAF standard is that everything should be written to a seventh grade reading level if at all possible. Thus I have been indoctrinated by 21 years service to consider that as "literate." That does beg the question of "just exactly what is a seventh grade reading level?"

Reading assessment tests are the most prone to cultural bias, because different words mean different things in different regions. The selection of what text to test a reader's ability with will have a great deal of effect on how that reader scores.

(FWIW, Word 97's readability statistics rated my original post on this thread at a grade level of 11.2 with a reading ease rating in the mid 60's. Mostly, that rating is the result of the number multi-syllable words I used.)

I don't think that "seventh grade level" is actualy a good line for defining "literate" as far as reading skills.

My granddaughter is in First Grade, but her reading group is working at a 3.5 grade level. She regularly chooses books for outside reading that are rated as GL 4.0 and higher, and has tackled a few (The Wizard Of Oz in the original version) which are rated at GL 7.0. The only thing that prevents her from meeting my standard for being "literate" is her vocabulary, and that is improving fast.

I think that to be "functionally literate", a grade level of around fifth grade is sufficient to be able to read and understand simple instructions and warnings, follow written directions to get from one place to another, Read street signs and business names, Fill out a job application, and do the basic things that require some reading ability to accomplish without assistance.

I'm sure that there are things I left off the list of things that reading is required for in our technological society. Being able to follow the step by step instructions to set the clock on your VCR is something I think should be within the ability of a "literate" person, but ...

There are similar things in everyday life which require simple math skills. Making change without a cash register or calculator is a lost art. Balancing a checkbook is a skill that can easily be learned but is often cited as an example of how math education is failing in the US.

Simple physics concepts like mass and momentum would make better drivers out of many who don't understand how such things apply to stopping distances when it is raining.

There was a time in the US when not being able to name the seven continents and seven seas and being able to point them out on a globe was considered grounds for holding a Thrid grader back for another year. Is that knowledge still needed? If not, why not?

What I was looking for, is each person's opinions on specifics of what a "literate" person should be capable of.

Some people don't have minds that can grasp the concepts of math, or don't have the ability to relate general concepts to specific realities.

If a person can read, do basic math, and point to the seven continents and seven seas on a globe, but can't relate Newtons three laws to why "the car won't go after I knocked down that telphone pole" are they still literate?

Problem Child said:

Ally and Harold are obviously very well educated, or at least naturally smart as hell.

My question is, why is this so tough?

What is so hard about coming up with basic minimum standards for learning and then writing a fair test to evaluate a students level of knowledge?

...

Maybe the first step is to have a national standard for teachers, and see how many of them pass in the subjects they are teaching.

...

Come up with a standard and if some schools fail for a while, so be it. They need to be identified, and then take whatever measures are necessary in order for them to make the grade.

...

I don't think the things people really need to know in order to have a basic understanding of how the world works really changes all that much. The only thing getting in the way of kids learning is the politics of teaching.

Click to expand...

One reason it is hard, is because the literacy skills that YOU need to survive are different from those others need to survive in their daily lives.

I don't know what educational level Ally C. has acheived. I'm a high school graduate with technical training courtesy of the USAF that is (nearly) the equivalent of an Associate's Degree in Electrical Engineering.

Writing a "fair test" is much harder than most people realize. There are people who can't deal with tests simply because they are tests and any test written to cater to their disability is far too easy for someone who doesn't suffer from "testing anxiety." Multiple choice tests are easier to grade, but have an inate bias that favors people (like me) who can see patterns in the answers. Essay tests are biased against people who aren't eloquent. Reading tests are biased against those who speak a slightly different dialect.

There is no such thing as a "fair test" because every form of testing caters to someone's natural ability and is biased against other's.

I started this thread because there is a lot of talk about "set a standard and then see if people meet it" but I see very little about what that standard should be.

Give me an example of what a "literate" person should be able to read. How about an example of what a person with minimum acceptable math skill should be able to do?

Consider this:

In the 19th century, knowing the practical application of Newton's three laws of Motion most probably centered around windage adjustment and recoil when hunting with a muzzle loading, black powder rifle.

Today, the practical aspects include knowing how much space to leave between your car and the car in front of you, and whether or not to wear your seatbelt or helmet.

The basic knowledge hasn't really changed, but the impact on our personal lives has.

A ninteenth century farmer had no real reason to understand why a satelite doesn't just fall out of the sky, but today the fact that they don't makes a big difference in everyday things like communications, and weather reports.

Knowing WHY still doesn't make much difference to you and I on a personal level, but I would expect "an educated person" to have some understanding of the concepts involved.

Merelan said:

So, Just how to we define a "good education?"

I define a good education as one that prepares the student for living in the real life world. Not only must it have taught them basic reading, writing and math skills, but it should also have shown them how to find the answers when they don't know it.

Click to expand...

I think this is the best answer so far, but it's still less specific than I was looking for.

Are Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, and Logorithms, "basic math skills" or are they "advanced mathematics". Do we stop at the equivalent of a four function calculator, or is there more to "basic math skills" than Arithmetic?

Is teaching "how to learn" as important as teaching mere facts? Can "how to learn" even be assessed quantitatively? Does it need to be?

Which is more basic to reading: Vocabulary or sentence structure?

What is more basic to writing: Penmanship or grammar?

These are the kind of basic questions that are being argued over in the attempt to establish standards to test against.

These are the concepts that are blithely blown over by those who say "everyone knows what literacy is, just test to see iff'n the yougun are literate an' be damned with it."

BubbaRednek said:

How do the "test makers" eliminate their own cultural bias from the test? *Should* it be eliminated?
...
It just isn't that simple.

Click to expand...

This is a very good point that needs to be expanded upon.

If the goal of education is to prepare students for "the real world" (which, in the USA means a White Male Dominated society,) are we doing minorities a disservice by catering to their cultural limitations?

I don't believe that a student's culture should be ignored, but failing to teach them to understand the predominant culture simply ignores the fact that they will need to live and work in a culture other than their own.

If the language of the dominant culture is Russian, then every student should be able to communicate effectively in Russian. Teaching a student in China to master his native Tibetan isn't going to prepare him for dealing with a culture dominated and managed in Chinese. Likewise, teaching a Mexican Immigrant in Spanish does nothing to prepare him for a society that does everything in English.

Even working in McDonald's is going to require that enough English be spoken to deal with the majority of customers. Failing to require a minimum profiency in English (or the dominant language,) will hamper the ability to make even minimum wage no matter what a person's native tongue is.