I'm reading two different documents now which are both, in a way, about testing, but at opposite levels of thinking. The first is the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Technology Literacy Framework, aimed at higher order thinking skills. The second, a brilliant new book called Teach Like a Champion, focuses on teaching literacy and math skills to underprivileged students. Though both worth discussing in their own right, at the moment some contrasts between them have got me thinking.
I wrote a few weeks ago about a math teacher and professor that was profiled in the NY Times magazine for showing that teachers who know and are comfortable with math are better able to teach it (as measured by how well their students do). The magazine article highlighted an example of a discussion in that teachers' class of 3rd graders
Every state has a set of science standards that are supposed to guide what is taught at different grade levels in their schools. Many of these are modeled after the national science standards put out by the NSTA. Do they make a difference to what is actually taught in classes? An article
It takes some highly developed interviewee skills to make a respectable showing on late night talk shows, and most scientists (me included) don't have it in us. But check out this video I stumbled on (while I was doing real work - honest) of biologist and author Ken Miller who managed to