By "weak area" I meant (for example) the 5% a student gets wrong when they score 95% on a test, not a "subject" they're weak in. This weak area could be in a subject they are very good at and enjoy. And when you talk about tests not being an effective form of motivation, that's exactly what I meant too. Unfortunately, the argument that students wouldn't be motivated to learn without upcoming tests is one I've heard numerous times, and it's just wrong. In fact, I agree with everything you say. If there was a misunderstanding, it may be due to the fact that language was a weak subject of mine as well.

Our school specifically gives choice to students so they are able to follow their interests. We expose them to everything, but where it leads is up to them. Unfortunately, there's not much good information online about our elementary programs, but at least here's a quick comparison vs. mainstream education.

I'm certified to teach K-5 in one of the US states but currently teach in another country. I've looked into this idea quite a bit.

There is evidence to show that extra school time benefits children in families that don't give much academic support at home (especially prevalent in poor, inner-city neighborhoods). For example, standardized test scores in reading often rise after summer vacations in affluent areas, but not so much in poor areas. The assumption is that many affluent parents tend to read and encourage their children to read during the summer. It's simply a disparity of time reading. To combat this, some experimental, inner-city schools have had success raising scores with very long days. However, I haven't seen anything showing that longer days help elsewhere. Homework (no matter how many hours) has been shown to have no significant effect raising scores for elementary students. (Up to 2 hours helps high school students, but over that seems to give no additional benefit.)

Honestly, I would first look at reducing time giving children tests. In many schools, children are given about an hour of tests a day, on average (amount varying from day to day, class to class, school to school). Tests are specifically to help adults (administrators, teachers, parents). Children are not allowed to practice their weak areas (the main thing that helps them learn) during a test. Although tests give children goals to strive for, motivational goals can be given many other, more effective ways. That's often 180 hours of test time a year (36 days of school, considering 5 hours a day of "in-class" time).

In my school we give 1 standardized test a year, and no testing outside that. Our scores are usually average or better than average on the standardized test (despite having many special-needs students). The teachers have more time to work with the students (and therefore know exactly where each child is). We also have more time to plan (instead of correcting tests during prep time).

Common questions we get are about how we communicate a child's level, without grades (given from tests). Simply put, we give more in-depth reports to parents & other schools. It works, but this is the part that scares most administrators and parents. Frankly, this part is more work for the adults. But if the main focus is on what's best for the children, frequent testing should be abolished. From the perspective of a child's education (practicing difficulties and learning new things), testing is one of the least efficient uses of time. And if we truly want more class time, that's where educators should start.

That's a swell joke.

They seem to be talking about Google Trends, where they are currently making cutesy graphs of what people are searching for about the World Cup.

Calling this a "newsroom" seems to be a bit of a stretch. This is NOT "Google News" where I see "humiliation", "shame" and "misery" in the top stories when searching for "Brazil World Cup".

This had me really confused (and it seems like many of the readers here as well), but the article and summary are misleading.

The "Species problem" shows this not to be the case. The specific issue you mention is in the introduction:

That being said, I was taught the same way as you and only learned differently when I started teaching it myself. Now when I explain classification, I try to intersperse phrases like "usually classified as..." or "One good way to classify it is...". I usually try to reinforce that there are many ways to classify, show them the most common way(s), and encourage them to make their own classifications if those ways fail. This is especially prevalent in biology where phylogenetics (usually based on RNA, dividing groups into clades) is currently intermixing with more traditional taxonomy (usually based on morphological traits, dividing groups into Linnaean classification)[1].

Betteridge's law of headlines fits perfectly:

Criticism of advertising

...was my 1st thought when reading...

One could argue that advertising is not always done with informed consent.

Megaman?

Here is financial info for Save the Children if anyone is interested. 2012 operating revenue was $597mil.

Congratulations to everyone involved. The few Athene videos I saw when he started were lowest common denominator attempts at shock value, but I'm glad something good is coming out of it.

The home team is called "humanity". So I'm not sure what all of you are going on about. Maybe you're playing a different game?

As an early education teacher, I am convinced that the quest for knowledge is innate, and is repressed by classrooms that ask preadolescent children to barely move or speak for 4 to 6 hours every day. I believe the "trigger" you mention could be areas of a stifled, developing brain finally getting what it desires, like a cold glass of water in hell.

I work in a school where most lessons are planned with sensory motor function in mind, where art, language, math, etc are shown to be intertwined, and where students often preform higher on standardized tests, despite me never giving them a single, formally graded test the rest of the year.

For more than half of the children that transfer into my school after spending 3 or 4 years in a public school (factory structured, lecture based model), I have to spend the initial months detoxifying the child, showing them that it's okay to be creative, unsuppressed, and use their interests to learn.

The developing brains of young children are extremely sensitive to visual, tactile experiences that the various arts provide. Their psychology is very different from an adult's, yet many adults often project their own learning styles onto them. This leads to continuously keeping subjects separate (such as art & math). While key concepts should initially be presented in isolation to avoid confusion, the follow up activities should combine multiple areas. In other words, expose the children to everything possible, show them how it all interconnects, and use what the child's mind is sensitive to, practicing multiple areas in conjunction and forming deep understanding.

I find it highly likely that the statistically significant increase in critical thinking, social tolerance, and historical empathy that this study found not only comes from the initial exposure, but also from teachers integrating the experience into follow-up lessons / activities.

The above "Insightful" comments didn't seem to RTA. It makes the case that the Core is badly designed FOR EARLY EDUCATION, and this test is merely a reflection of that.

It goes on to compare the US Core with the standards from other countries such as Finland and Singapore.

It then shows the very real and large problem that it was "Pearson Education" that made this poorly written test.

Children and schools are evaluated based on State tests. Do you want your job being evaluated by something like this?

Smellevision replaced television back in 2000. This is old news.

"pseudo-anonymous data"

ay @gri wIT yu k@mplitli. @nfOrtS@n@tli, wEbsAyts layk sl{SdAt wont lEt mi tayp D@ k@rEkt k{rIkt@rz, so ay h{d tu yus SAMPA InstEd.