Hard News: Standards Matter
414 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 17 Newer→ Last
-
Aspies save the bacon
sorry, I seem to be in a teeshirt mood
-
Actually, thinking of Temple Grandin, it's probably more like aspies worry about the bacon and make sure it's all ethical and stuff.
-
Overnight I re-read the biography of Dr Seuss and the incredible way in which "Beginner Books" became, as a series, the world's biggest-selling collection of children's books.
In the process they played an incredible part in helping parents of pre-school youngsters not only develop a love of reading but to actually teach young children to love the joy of reading.
When Seuss's publisher challenged him to write a book with only 50 words, Geisel responded with "Green Eggs and Ham". It went on to become the biggest-selling early-childhood book of all time.
To me that raises a big question:
If "national literacy standards" in primary school is not the answer, what is the question?
The question, I suggest, is simple: what do we need to do to make sure that all New Zealand children can learn to read, and love reading, BEFORE starting school?
And the answer lies in the works of Seuss, Montessori and those parent pioneers who, during the second world war, set up New Zealand's parent-run Play Centre Movement.
With that, I'll bow out of the current "school-standards" online debate,, and start concentrating on the real answer.
-
Islander, I really don't want to be part of any earnest hustling, but there is some truth to Gordon's 2000 word statement.
In my former life as an EFL, TEFLA, EAP, TESOL, CAE, CPE, IELTS, TOEFL, ELF teacher (did I miss anything?) we used University Word Lists, or Academic Word Lists, issued by people like Paul Nation, from Victoria Uni, as a basis for vocabulary lessons, as part of a broader preparation programme for undergraduate, and post-graduate study.
His research back in 1990 [?] established a core lexicon of 2000 words that made up 87% of Academic texts, through analysis of corpus in the Universities. Of course the need is for more, and this is well understood and acknowledged, but to start a programme, where vocabulary is then added as a part of the tertiary curriculum, between 3000-4000 is deemed adequate. In my experience this was the case, as many of our students achieved degree status in a reasonable time frame.
And before we taught the students we held an acronym test to see if they could spot the one that was just made up for the halibut.
All the best.
-
I know we have rights to certain information, but we also have rights to keep certain information private, don't we?
Can anyone view my daughters school results if they wish, under an official information act request?My understanding is that results like this can be made public, if they can't be used to identify individuals.
So universities will post mark lists, for example, using student numbers rather than names to identify the marks. It's a big no no to post anything that has student numbers and names together.
I think it's important to remember that a big philosophical underpinning of nationalised standards is that it has a market running underneath it. If schools take similar tests, and students at one school are doing better, then people will shift to that school. The 'lesser' school will then have to buck up its game or it will be in trouble.
The two requirements for the system to work is that there is a nationalised standard, and there is 'transparency' so parents and families can make those market decisions. So yes, we are looking ahead at schools putting out promotional material talking about how well they do in national standards, league tables (if the newspapers don't do it, someone will do it privately), etc.
The theory is of course crap, as Hattie points out performance of the school is well down the list of what's causing good results. But that's the theory that underlies what we're looking at.
-
I think it's important to remember that a big philosophical underpinning of nationalised standards is that it has a market running underneath it. If schools take similar tests, and students at one school are doing better, then people will shift to that school. The 'lesser' school will then have to buck up its game or it will be in trouble.
But this is the problem. That is emphatically not what the ministry experts believe they're doing with our standards system. Schrager explicitly says that's a failed idea and any attempt to do it would be "damaging".
-
Recordi's comment: Islander, I really don't want to be part of any earnest hustling, but there is some truth to Gordon's 2000 word statement. . . . His research back in 1990 [?] established a core lexicon of 2000 words that made up 87% of Academic texts, through analysis of corpus in the Universities. Of course the need is for more, and this is well understood and acknowledged, but to start a programme, where vocabulary is then added as a part of the tertiary curriculum, between 3000-4000 is deemed adequate. In my experience this was the case, as many of our students achieved degree status in a reasonable time frame.
Gordon adds: The European Community research indicates very similar. The fact that 2000 words make up 87 or 90% of most spoken English, Spanish, French, Italian or German should not be taken as 100%. The other 10% will vary, depending on the specific usage. (ie, tourists visiting England and finding their way around London and English customs, will use different words in the other 10% than, say, a primary school child studying New Zealand geography or the Treaty of Waitangi).
Also, in English, the extensive use of prefixes (un-, non-, dis- etc) and suffixes (-ing, -ed, -ment) greatly increases the 2000 most-used words.
And I am not advocating the mere rote learning of "word lists": the key is obviously to be immersed in the "embedding" of these and other relevant words into the language. (All Swedish children are fluent in English because 60% of all Swedish TV programs are English or American with Swedish sub-titles so the embedding is natural.)
Incidentally, I was surprised when I first learned that James A Michener's books use a total vocabulary of around 33,000 words, while Shakespeare's plays use around 16,000 words. Without research, I would have guessed the reverse.
Also, as one whose joined in your discussions for the first time, apologies if I've come through as an "earnest hustler". I happen to spend much of my time researching some of these issues (at some great international schools), and sharing them in consulting work; and, in answer to some specific questions yesterday, offered to send out some free book chapters in which examples of the answers are given in more detail. Obviously different answers are grouped in different chapters.
-
Uni of Canty has a list of all graduates from about 1980 freely able to be viewed.
No grade averages shown, so a handy device to verify quals or steal identities.
-
Shakespeare's plays use around 16,000 words
Which I remember reading was twice as much as anyone else at the time - no refs though, and as always I'm expecting correction if that's wrong.
-
But this is the problem. That is emphatically not what the ministry experts believe they're doing with our standards system. Schrager explicitly says that's a failed idea and any attempt to do it would be "damaging".
But as you're noting Russell, there's a big story in the chasm between "why we have new national standards", and "what the ministry is trying to make them into". The ministry is having to run with the hospital pass they've been given.
As no matter what the ministry does, I'd be very dubious that quasi league tables and promotion by schools of their standards ratings won't happen. If you're the principal of a good school, only a directive from on high is going to stop you saying "this school achieves X points above the average for standards achievement". And if you don't say it, someone else is going to collate the information and put it online to www.chooseyourschool.co.nz or some such.
Uni of Canty has a list of all graduates from about 1980 freely able to be viewed.
Most universities publish a list of graduates at each graduation ceremony, and their degrees.
Once the information is in the public arena like that, privacy provisions have been circumvented so it can be republished.
-
it has a market running underneath it
Bearing in mind Russell's observation, there is another important problem with this way of thinking about the education system.
To the extent that such a market might exist, it would not be anything like an idealised free market. This is because there is far more to changing school than merely withdrawing from one and enrolling in another.
Apart from the obvious problem of the most popular schools being unable to scale to meet demand, there are huge costs in transportation, time, and strained relationships if a family doesn't move, or in relocation, perhaps to a much more expensive neigbourhood, if it does. Only the most well-off families will have the resources to take advantage of such a market. With or without a zoning system, the poor will effectively be priced out of the acknowledged best schools, except for the most talented students who might be given some scholarship equivalent...
... oh wait, that's what already happens. Well, it'll get worse.
People who want to advocate a market model for school ranking and enrolment choice need to show how such a market will operate, or be laughed off with the mocking they richly deserve.
-
There's a reason Act with its education vouchers languishes within the margin of error in most polls.
Be interested to see what would happen if vouchers were applied to support services for disabled and older New Zealanders, though - closer to a real market, and one in dire need of customer-focus.
-
Thank you for your response Gordon.
Incidentally, I've bought 3 copies of "The Learning Revolution" (1 for self, and others for young family members.) And I truly do admire your promotional energy.A small but important point: according to Melvin Bragg's "The Adventure of English" (tv), Shakespeare's vocabularly was approx. 21,000 words.
The average University graduate today has a similar -or much greater (depending on the discipline)vocabulary (words known and understood.) (I'm still hunting down my ref. for this.)
-
Gordon adds: The European Community research indicates very similar. The fact that 2000 words make up 87 or 90% of most spoken English, Spanish, French, Italian or German should not be taken as 100%. The other 10% will vary, depending on the specific usage. (ie, tourists visiting England and finding their way around London and English customs, will use different words in the other 10% than, say, a primary school child studying New Zealand geography or the Treaty of Waitangi).
That's absolutely true, and you can take advantage of that to learn a language. Sit down with a book in a language you don't understand, a dictionary, and pretty soon you find you're looking up the same words over and over again. Which is when you write those ones down for quick reference, or learn them through repetition and use. Not the only thing to do, but it helps greatly.
The other ten percent varies considerably, and thus requires the dictionary.
-
Shakespeare's vocabularly was approx. 21,000 words
It probably helps if you make some up as you go..
-
Sacha : or* record * -may I call them 'Englishisms'? Words that the non-learned classes used but the educated didnt bother to record? Shakespeare was a word-soak (wordplay intended) but, yep, he was a neologist as well.
And George D - indeed. But it's fairly useless for a lot of everyday conversation, because that will be slangy & colloquial, and have a lot of in-referents. My favourite example used to be "Shy a gooly at that fuckin' kuri" (which I heard on the Coast the first year I was here.) The dog was simply sitting at the end of the yard, yapping at something only it could see/heard/understand.
-
One million words last June, according to The Global Word Monitor.
The millionth word was, wait for it, 'Web 2.0'. Arggghhhh!
The BBC report says, that due to the existence of a review board, French only has 100,000 words. Sacre bleu! That's two down, 99,998 to go.
-
But it's fairly useless for a lot of everyday conversation, because that will be slangy & colloquial, and have a lot of in-referents.
Agreed! Written and spoken language are usually quite different. For speaking I'd advise getting DVDs and wearing out the pause, play, and rewind buttons, and saying the lines of dialogue in the way they are spoken. Children learn their first language by aping others in a non-judgmental setting, why not myself? As a result, my Spanish sounds a lot like a character from an Almodovar film...
And to bring things back on track, this is one of the reasons why standards environments can be such a bad thing. Putting pressure, and associating learning with stress, can harm the learning process.
-
George D - heh! My Spanish-speaking nephew (year in Argentina, speaks with that accent, and 2 years 'Varsity) would love to hear you!
And this is what I love about PAS- as Sacha said earlier, 'we get there'
and your comment is so apposite: we learn best when we love what we are doing (stress/pain teaches us other things, very few of them healthy.) -
OK, gang. You've hooked me in again, away from the initial interest in "national standards":
1. Shakespeare's vocabulary: who knows.? Bill Bryson, one of my great role models for simplicity in writing, in his wonderful book "The Mother Tongue and how it got that way", quotes many sources to show how they claim Shakespeare's written vocabulary ranged from 17, 677 words to 30,000. But, as Sacha says (or implies): the guy's genius was in how many words and phrases he actually invented.
I wonder how many of those made-up words would pass the new standards literacy test? (In my abortive one year at Christchurch West High, in one "science" test: I was asked to define "tissue". In the bodily sense, I couldn't remember, so defined "a tissue of lies". I don't think I passed.
2. No replies to far to my belief that our literacy rate does not depend on tests AFTER you get to school, but what happens BEFORE kids get to school - so we are defining the wrong problem, and therefore the wrong solution.
3. Am I correct in presuming that many of you, at least in the "standards debate", are locked into views that you'd find hard to change? Such as vouchers and "bulk funding" (which I seem cropping back up into the debate)? If you agree that each of us has a different learning style and (hopefully) has a talent to be great at something, why not favour granting vouchers to allow you to c your dream and apply your talents ) whether they be in sport, music, journalism art or whatever? And (for the life of me) I have never been able to justify opposition too "bulk funding: (a horrible new Zealand phrase) which really can mean (in my view) the democratic right of communities to run their own education system .
4. And for those of you in favour of short-word writing, here's my favourite:
From The Economist, October 9, 2004
English
OUT WITH THE LONG"Short words are best," said Winston Churchill, "and old words when short are the best of all."
And not for the first time, he was right: short words are best.
Plain they might be, but that is their strength.
They are clear, sharp and to the point.
You can get your tongue around them. You can spell them.
Eye, brain and mouth work as one to meet them as friends, not foes. For that is what they are. They do all that you want of them, and they do it well.
On a good day, when all is right with the world, they are one more cause for cheer. On a bad day, when the head aches, you can get to grips with them, grasp their drift and take hold of what they mean. And thus they make you want to read on, not turn the page.
And, yes, you may say, that all sounds fine. But from time to time good prose needs a change of pace — a burst of speed, a touch of the brake, a slow sweep, a spring, a bound, a stop. Some might say a shaft of light and then a dim glow, some warp as well as weft, both fire and ice, a roll on the drum as much as a toot on the flute.
Call it what you will. The point is that to get a range of step, stride and gait means you have to use some long words, some short and some, well, just run of the mill, those whose place is in the mid range.
What's more, though you may find you can write with just short words for a while, in the end don't you have to give in and reach for one of those terms which, like it or not, is made up of bits, more bits and yet more bits, and that adds up to a word which is long?
Then there is the ban on new words, or at least a puff for the old. Why? Time has moved on. The tongues of yore need help if they are to serve the way we live now.
And, come to that, are you sure that the Greeks and Gauls and scribes of Rome were as great as they are cracked up to be? Singe my white head, they could make long words as well as any Hun or Yank or French homme de lettres who plies his trade these days.
Well, yes, some of those old folks' words were on the long side, but long ones were no means the rule. And though the tongue in which you read this stole words from here and there, and still does, at the start, if there was one, its words were short.
Huh, you may say, those first "words" were no more than grunts. Yet soon they grew to be grunts with a gist, and time has shown that, add to the length of your words as you may, it is hard to beat a good grunt with a good gist.
That is why short words, when old, are still the tops. Tough as boots or soft as silk, sharp as steel or blunt as toast, these are old, short words to fit each need.
You want to make love, have a chat, ask the way, thank your stars, curse your luck or swear, sold and rail? Just pluck an old, short word at will. If you doubt that, look at what can be done with not much: "To be or not to be?" "And God said, Let their be light, and there was light," "We are such stuff as dreams are made on," "The year's at the spring/And day's at the norm . . ./ The lark's on the wing;/ The snail's on the thorn."
It can be done, you see, if you but try, and you can write well, and say what you want to say, with short words.
And you may not need a lot of them: some words add just length to your prose. That piece of string, the one whose length you all the time have to guess, is no less fine if it is short than if it is long; on its own, its length is not good, not bad, just the sum of its two halves.
So it is with words. The worth of each lies in the ends to which it is put. Tie your string well, or ill, and its lengths count for naught.
Make your point well with short words, and you will have no use for long ones. Make it not so well and you will be glad that you kept them crisp.
And so, by God, will those who have to read you.
_____________
The first injunction of the first page of the Economist style book is to follow the six rules set out in George Orwell's Politics and The English Language:
• Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
• Never use a long word where a short one will do.
• If it is possible to cut out a word, always cut it out.
• Never use the passive where you can use the active.
• Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
• Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
4. Now, for short-word lovers here's my favourite editorial from The Economist, on the benefit of writing in simple English. See how many English words you can find in it over one syllable:From The Economist, October 9, 2004
English
OUT WITH THE LONG"Short words are best," said Winston Churchill, "and old words when short are the best of all."
And not for the first time, he was right: short words are best.
Plain they might be, but that is their strength.
They are clear, sharp and to the point.
You can get your tongue around them. You can spell them.
Eye, brain and mouth work as one to meet them as friends, not foes. For that is what they are. They do all that you want of them, and they do it well.
On a good day, when all is right with the world, they are one more cause for cheer. On a bad day, when the head aches, you can get to grips with them, grasp their drift and take hold of what they mean. And thus they make you want to read on, not turn the page.
And, yes, you may say, that all sounds fine. But from time to time good prose needs a change of pace — a burst of speed, a touch of the brake, a slow sweep, a spring, a bound, a stop. Some might say a shaft of light and then a dim glow, some warp as well as weft, both fire and ice, a roll on the drum as much as a toot on the flute.
Call it what you will. The point is that to get a range of step, stride and gait means you have to use some long words, some short and some, well, just run of the mill, those whose place is in the mid range.
What's more, though you may find you can write with just short words for a while, in the end don't you have to give in and reach for one of those terms which, like it or not, is made up of bits, more bits and yet more bits, and that adds up to a word which is long?
Then there is the ban on new words, or at least a puff for the old. Why? Time has moved on. The tongues of yore need help if they are to serve the way we live now.
And, come to that, are you sure that the Greeks and Gauls and scribes of Rome were as great as they are cracked up to be? Singe my white head, they could make long words as well as any Hun or Yank or French homme de lettres who plies his trade these days.
Well, yes, some of those old folks' words were on the long side, but long ones were no means the rule. And though the tongue in which you read this stole words from here and there, and still does, at the start, if there was one, its words were short.
Huh, you may say, those first "words" were no more than grunts. Yet soon they grew to be grunts with a gist, and time has shown that, add to the length of your words as you may, it is hard to beat a good grunt with a good gist.
That is why short words, when old, are still the tops. Tough as boots or soft as silk, sharp as steel or blunt as toast, these are old, short words to fit each need.
You want to make love, have a chat, ask the way, thank your stars, curse your luck or swear, sold and rail? Just pluck an old, short word at will. If you doubt that, look at what can be done with not much: "To be or not to be?" "And God said, Let their be light, and there was light," "We are such stuff as dreams are made on," "The year's at the spring/And day's at the norm . . ./ The lark's on the wing;/ The snail's on the thorn."
It can be done, you see, if you but try, and you can write well, and say what you want to say, with short words.
And you may not need a lot of them: some words add just length to your prose. That piece of string, the one whose length you all the time have to guess, is no less fine if it is short than if it is long; on its own, its length is not good, not bad, just the sum of its two halves.
So it is with words. The worth of each lies in the ends to which it is put. Tie your string well, or ill, and its lengths count for naught.
Make your point well with short words, and you will have no use for long ones. Make it not so well and you will be glad that you kept them crisp.
And so, by God, will those who have to read you.
_____________
The first injunction of the first page of the Economist style book is to follow the six rules set out in George Orwell's Politics and The English Language:
• Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
• Never use a long word where a short one will do.
• If it is possible to cut out a word, always cut it out.
• Never use the passive where you can use the active.
• Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
• Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
-
my Spanish sounds a lot like a character from an Almodovar film
Heh. My (almost non-existent) Spanish sounds like a bad Hollywood western for the same reason.
Esto es un robo! Arriba las manos!
Perhaps not the most useful phrases when enjoying a relaxing holiday in the Catalonian sun
-
• Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
• Never use a long word where a short one will do.
• If it is possible to cut out a word, always cut it out.
• Never use the passive where you can use the active.
• Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
• Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
For short: always be boring.
For somebody who wrote the books that he wrote, Orwell was a much greater supporter of graying conformity than is generally acknowledged.
-
Also, communities that wish to run their own education system ought to be cast in the same circle of hell as the people who wish to keep more of their pay packet because they can spend it more wisely than the gummint.
-
If it is possible to cut out a word, always cut it out.
Whoop! Whoop! Irony alert!
-
In ANZ - just to take up your last 2 points Gordon D - a 'foreign' word would be/could be Maori. Or other Polynesian refs.
Annnd, there a such a *huuuuge* number of words for which there is no 'everyday English equivalent' AT ALL.
I recently had a cast removed after breaking my radius & ulna (English everyday equivs.?) The words the orthopedic surgeon (yeah, well, we could use 'orthopod/hospital slang' I suppose) to explain my vastly (and temporarily) reduced wrist & finger movements were - pronation:
supination:
flexion.And - we sooo have many equivs. for these in everyday English ? Yeah right.
I made a small sucess of a book that scorned ALL the 'rules' mentioned.
You see, English is a vast amoeba of a language. You learn it over a lifetime. Some languages - because of their relatively small word hoard (ANZ Maori, with incorporated words, has about 35,000) can be learnt more easily -BUT! The appropriateness of using words in some situations, and the histories behind a lot of words, also take a lifetime of learning and talk-
Post your response…
This topic is closed.