KJB
-
Posts
746 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by KJB
-
-
Did anyone ever figure out the system requirements for this software? Mac or PC? Operating system?
I am specifically interested in requirements for Kleinbrücken.
Thanks!
Answering myself here:
Minimum Computer Requirements
Operating System:
PC: Windows 98 or later
(XP Highly Recommended)
Processor
Min Pentium 3 or equivalent
CD-Rom or DVD Drive:
Required
RAM: Min 128MB
Colour Display: Min 800 x 600
Graphics Card
3D Preferred
Microphone
Recommended
Sound Card:
Required
Speakers or headphones:
Required
-
Right now I am happy with the language exposure my little guys are getting. They are in German school from 8 until 11:45 with the option to stay until 4:30 (which we sometimes do!)
What I am looking for is a way to continue their daily exposure with a native speaker after we move. So my brainstorm was a virtual playgroup, led by a German teacher who is familiar with teaching small children, would be ideal.
I think it would be really neat to for my kids to get online and skype/chat/conference call with video to a group of other young children and a teacher. My idea is that they could learn songs, listen to stories, and answer comprehension questions the teacher asks like in school. They could speak to other children and the teacher, ideally.
I've actually found a few leads as to what I'm interested in. If one works out, I'll post!
Thanks for your response!
-
Did anyone ever figure out the system requirements for this software? Mac or PC? Operating system?
I am specifically interested in requirements for Kleinbrücken.
Thanks!
-
Background:
We live in Germany. Two of my children (4 and 6) are attending German kindergarten. Two of my children (13 and 10) take German through the Dodds school and/or Rosetta Stone.
Next year, we will leave the country but will possibly stay in Europe.
My older two kids will continue studying German online, possibly through TPS or the University of Oklahoma. They have a very academic start to German. They know some conversational language, but their knowledge is pretty "text book" with a limited ability to converse.
My younger two understand quite a bit of the language (surprisingly sometimes) but have a limited ability/willingness to speak the language. They have a very conversational/school specific knowledge of German.
All that to ask this:
Is there an online program geared towards conversational German for young children? I'd like to put my 4 and 6 year old in front of a computer for an hour a day and have them use the webcam to interact with a virtual classroom of other children and a teacher to speak and learn German.
Ideally, I'd like a teacher to sing German songs, play little games, and converse with the virtual classroom requiring oral responses.
In other words, I would like a mini-replication of how they are learning German right now.
Is this possible? Does this exist? Is there something even better out there?
-
My daughter went here when she was 11:
http://www.goethe.de/ins/de/spr/kuj/kur/deu/kin/enindex.htm
We were in the country at the same time, so although it was an "international" experience, we could drive to the camp if there were any cause. There were kids from all over the world many with english as a second or third language.
It was a great experience for her and she loved it.
-
He worries about it, but does he provide any data to support his concerns? He also says you 'might' get scores that are off the charts. Does he have any research to suport that? He's also talking about working with a consultant; does he want to legislate that as well, or is that just a red herring?
My dh taught in the inner city and now runs a school for severely disabled and autistic young people. I plan to finish my degree so that I can teach in the inner city after the kiddos are gone. I run an afterschool religious program in an inner city school right now. My argument has nothing to do with a lack of concern for disadvantaged students or a denial of the problems they face.
I do have problems with poorly researched or supported arguments (as I've said before, once you start teaching logic, it all starts to pop out at you.) Honestly, this article is just sloppy journalism. (For example, most colleges do not average the scores currently; they use the highest.) Using a lot of quotes about how this "may happen" or that "could happen" and not doing any homework to see if there is any basis in reality for those assertions is sloppy.
If you want to rely upon logic, then it is common sense and quite logical that the more times you test the better prepared you will be. Hence the adage "practice makes perfect".
There is no leap there; it's pretty straightforward. I think I can safely claim that the more you practice anything the better you are at it without committing any logical fallacies and without any in-depth research.
And if you don't see the obvious cause (practice) effect (better score) relationship for yourself, you can rely upon the opinion of Richard Shaw. He is the Dean of admissions at Stanford University. He is an expert in his field. His opinion carries weight based upon his expertise, his position, and his experience.
If there is no advantage to repeat testing, then why would anyone ever bother to test more than once?
-
:iagree::iagree::iagree:
I've voiced this in the past, but I'll say it again. I totally agree that there should be a limit to the number of times students test. But, SAT/ACT would lose a lot of money;).
I love you SusanAR. It's about time reinforcements showed up.:D:lol:
-
Does it, though?
I have seen mixed research. What I have read has said that very, very few students take it more than two or three times, and that average scores level off after two or three tries (at a certain point, you either know the material and have the ability or you don't.) I have read that scores can be lifted some by retesting, but it is hard to prove that it is because of practice, though I would think that would be one factor. You also have to consider: that many students who retake do so because they had a bad experience the first time ("I was sick that weekend, so I better try again,") that students retaking are now older and have had more education than they did the first time they tested, and that they may have realized the need for test prep and utilized it. You will have a hard time proving which variable accounts for which part of the score increase. Until you can prove it with research, you can't support a change to the way the test is administered based on a 'feeling' that it is unfair.
I contend that any disadvantaged student can retake it multiple times. Even if a homeschooler has to jump though a hoop to take the test for free, we aren't talking about homeschoolers here, I don't think, when we talk about disadvantaged students.
I think every student should get to take it two or three times if they want to, and indeed they can (and apparently more than do than not.) This would eliminate score differences based on having a bad day, lack of understanding of how the test works, etc. It would give a more accurate comparison of students' achievement.
My feelings aside,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040904051.html
And in particular, this quote:
"We don't want young people to game the system," said Richard Shaw, dean of admissions at Stanford University. "What we want them to be is open and honest and transparent."
And Shaw said he worried that wealthy students who can afford test-preparation classes would get an unfair advantage. "If you start practicing and working with a consultant in the 10th grade, eventually you might get scores that are off the charts, but that's not something that low-income students will have access to," he said.
He's also referring to repeat testing and the new score reporting standard.
The point is the College Board has an ethical duty to make the test as fair to all test takers as possible. They have an *ethical duty* because they are the test that determines the future education of almost all students in the US.
Sure, they could have an appeals process for special circumstances like illness, but they have a *duty* to provide comparable results.
And students can take the test again now. All students *can* retest, but not all students know they can test young, or can afford to retest. Limiting the number of times they test solves this problem.
-
Neither of these is currently administered across the country in a way that they are accessible to individual students. The cost to do so would be prohibitive to parents.
And, as PP said, the 12th grade ITBS grade test isn't high enough.
I can tell why we use the MATS program. It is one of the few ways to get good feedback for our dc. Grade level tests or tests a few grades up don't help much. When we get our score report for MATS, they include suggestions based on what level their scores fell into. We have found this incredibly helpful, sometimes in giving us a push to let dc accelerate in a way we were scared to let them. You can visit the Accelerated Learner board and read many threads from parents who use these programs and see their reasons. I cannot recall EVER seeing practicing the SAT or ACT as a reason. It is about getting into programs that are appropriate for gifted students and getting information on how to educate them.
Well, my original point is that taking the SAT multiple times results in a skewed comparison favoring students who are encouraged and can afford to take and retake until the acquire a result they are happy with. This includes, but is hardly limited to, talent search testing participants.
I strongly disagree that allowing your middle schooler to test isn't connected to giving them a testing experience that will buoy them up for future testing. It's an obvious advantage. Sure there are other reasons to test too, but familiarity for future benefit is a big one.
-
But again, the reason to use the SAT is because it is both nationally normed and externally proctored and administered in many, many locations, and anyone can sign up to take it. It does not require a special testing session to be set up for the student or a professional to be hired to administer it, which would raise the cost prohibitively for the students which they are targetting. I may be wrong, but I don't think we have 12th grade ITBS or WISC3 being administered in group sessions, where the fee can be waived for those of low income.
Achievement is actually not a very good way to measure giftedness. Achievement will measure what a student has learned with the curricula they were given. A gifted student with a poor work ethic will score poorly on achivement, and a student with an exemplary work ethic may score far higher despite a far more moderate level of giftedness.
I bet if the College Board restricted testing to once or twice, talent search programs would figure something else out to use as their tool for admittance.
Also, achievement is an excellent way to measure giftedness. Truly gifted people are not limited by the "curricula they were given". Achievement shouldn't be defined as to how well Johnny did on this spelling test or that science unit.
Gifted people achieve, even if it isn't in an area constructed by other people as appropriate or measurable/definable by traditional tools. Sometimes their achievements are only recognizable by other gifted people. One would think their achievement would be apparent to those who would offer them special services.
Gifted and lazy don't really coexist. Gifted and forced to participate which creates resentment and lack of participation in a given activity might exist, but that doesn't mean the gifted person isn't productive and achieving in an area of their own choosing.
-
Do you know if these are "classes", ie require participation in class, in the session with other children, or "tutorials" where the child can log in at any time, do the work, little interaction with other students, and/or teacher, and basically self-teaches?
From The Potter's School website (and I think MP classes are similar):
Independent Study. Since our courses support home education, they are primarily independent study classes. Our teachers use their expertise to guide the curriculum and provide personalized evaluation and feedback. Each class also has a live session once each week.
Parental Oversight. We understand parents to be responsible for their children's education, regardless of the medium they choose. We assume parents will actively supervise their children as necessary in all aspects of our courses, including deadline management and academic performance. We also assume parents will remain aware of and responsible for their children's behavior during class time and in any correspondence with their teachers or school staff. Our teachers will notify parents where they detect a problem or declining performance trend, but we assume that parents will already be aware of these issues because of their own active supervision of their children.
Rigor and Workload. Our courses are designed for college-bound students with high academic standards. They are excellent preparation for admission into top U.S. universities, as indicated by the success of our students who have already entered college. Under our academic standards an average student who works reasonably hard can expect to receive an average (80-85%) grade. The average student will spend approximately an hour per day outside class for a junior high course and an hour-and-a-half per day for a high school course. Advanced and honors courses will take more time even for strong students. Individual experiences vary with student aptitude and diligence.
-
You've motivated me to put up a slightly more recent pic of my baby. It's hard to be the littlest. At least I *have* pics of her, little sweetie.
It would be fun if they end up in the same classes. It's nice to "know" someone else who's going down this road. We are currently in Germany and we may be in Turkey next year, so time zone may be an issue for us.
I was unaware of the placement test. I just took a look at it. Have you downloaded it? It looks like they submit something they've already written and something specific to the test. We're Rod and Staffers and I think the first part of the test is in line with what we've done.
Placement testing is always nerve-wracking!
Had to add, I also have five with a fifth grade son and a four year old daughter!
-
Except that in order to run anything similar, you need a far out-of-level, nationally normed test which is proctored and administered across the country. The out-of-level is really necessary in order to distinguish the kids who really need the extra enrichment versus those who are merely doing very, very well at their grade level.
http://store.iblp.org/products/ITK12/
http://nswagtc.org.au/info/identification/WISC3.html
Besides the fact that there are other available tests, there are also other ways to measure giftedness such as achievement.
-
Thanks, KJB! That's good info!
(Adorable baby, BTW!!)
Thanks! The baby is a lot bigger now. She needs an updated pic!
Regarding TPS, I snipped the part of her message because it was specific to my student, but the email suggested fulfilling the logic requirement before high school if possible. They offer a year long course that does Intro to Logic first semester and Intermediate Logic the second.
I'm thinking of English 2, Geography, German II, and Logic for my upcoming eighth grader from TPS. She'll do her other courses at home. Then for 9th grade I'm thinking she'll start the CT.
Update when you decide! I'll be curious to hear what you do and why so I can change my mind again for the thousandth time. :D
-
P.S...just to be sure, you do know that each SAT is different, right? And that that hundreds...perhaps thousands of practice versions out there are all extremely similar to the actual test layout? I guess I'm still not really seeing the unfairness of it all.
Not only are they different, but they will send you the solutions to the test you just took along with your answers.
As I've written above, nothing compares to actually taking the test. As I said before, a musician that can play a piece beautifully at home, can still freeze up on stage. The more recitals in which you play, the easier it is to get back up on stage for most people.
Ftr, and something I've noticed in this thread people getting defensive about, I'm not saying gifted/bright/talented students shouldn't be accommodated, accelerated, given special opportunities, etc.
I'm just saying *everyone* should test the same number of times in order to make the scores meaningful and comparable.
And now, as promised many posts ago, my dog and I are leaving the discussion.
It's not important that we agree. The discussion is fruitful regardless.
-
Ooops, I wasn't clear, and it's too late to edit. Sorry! Let me reword the above though...
"The benefits to bright kids (that have nothing to do with higher test scores from repeat testing) outweigh any cons in my book."
I don't know...but if you take away the multiple testing option, I'm pretty sure the ones that will be the most distraught will be the ones that aren't scoring well to begin with. The bright ones will just find other ways to test their early abilities, and will continue to have that "unfair" advantage that comes with being smarter. I don't think we can regulate the bell curve.
FWIW, I'm not responding to the affirmative action aspect of this thread, but am reading with great interest. My student is learning AP government at the moment, and we are right now in a chapter the deals with affirmative action, and I'm fascinated by all that brings to mind. I have no answers though.
Well, if you take away multiple testing, bright kids could still be offered enrichment opportunities using some other entrance standard. Taking the SAT more than once isn't pivotal to enrichment.
And, fwiw and imo, being born smart isn't an "unfair" advantage.
In some cases, it's not even an advantage at all.
-
I think I lost track of your lament KJB....is it against College Board itself? Or Johns Hopkins? John Hopkins utlitizes the test that College Board already offers.
You should probably be more irrate with the senior student I work with. She's taken the SAT at least 3 times in the past year, and has plans to take it again this spring. She's had a private tutor for months and myself working one-on-one with her this past year, yet her math score really hasn't budged. Well, then again...what's to be mad about there?
Don't get me wrong...I have my own issues with College Board. But being in "cohoots" with JHU to encourage even more testing $$$'s is not one of them. The benefits to bright kids outweigh any cons in my book.
From the op:
"So, it really leads me to question how fair it is to allow multiple testing experiences. Doesn't this give already bright students an unfair advantage? And what about low income students or students with less savvy or less educated parents; how are they supposed to compete when some little Johnnys are super prepped and testing for the fourth time in as many years?"
I am hardly mad or irate. I do admit to lamenting the fact that the College Board allows multiple opportunities to take the SAT. :D
I would never be mad at a student trying to better herself or an institution like JHU taking advantage of a business opportunity.
I do question rather or not it is fair to allow students to start testing young and continue to test until they feel like stopping.
As I've said repeatedly (and unemotionally, I might add) multiple testing strikes me as unfair.
-
KJB, it's too late for your daughter....she already has the unfair advantage, since she's already taken the test. If JHU offers her a free ride because of her scores, you should absolutely turn it down.
I'm not saying that JHU (and college board) aren't looking to pad their pockets. But I don't see how any of that is MY concern (or that of others taking advantage of the opportunity), because I allow my children to test early for the sole purpose of pursuing more appropriate education for them, based on their advanced abilities. We are not testing for "practice".
Life it not always "fair".
My dog can't stay away. :D
You miss the point entirely.
Of course YOU should do everything you possibly can for YOUR child, including taking advantage of "unfair" opportunities.
However, the COLLEGE BOARD who purports to offer a fair gauge of academic talent and intelligence should make every effort to provide fair opportunity for all test takers.
Ummm....shouldn't they?
You doing things for your family or taking advantage of God given advantages is totally appropriate. You'd be derelict if you didn't.
It's not the same thing at all.
-
KJB, you do need to have a certain level of scores to test through Johns Hopkins for the SAT (or other talent searches). It used to be the 95th percentile on some other test, but state tests using "advanced" complicate things. Still, my point is that the "invitation" is really more of an entrance criteria than a special invite. ANY kid can test on the SAT at any age, without going through a talent search, but if there scores are not already high, these are not the kids JHU is hoping to offer their programs (not practice).
JHU/CTY's goal is NOT to groom for the test...it's to discern amongst many top scorers, to find kids that are already exceptionally bright, and offer them (albeit expensive) programs. Not all kids that test at the 95th percentile on grade level measures are at the level JHU is trying to find.
If this has the side advantage of giving smart kids "practice", so be it. This is NOT JHU's goal.
As I wrote above,
"The students are being groomed to be future members of Big Name U through this special "invitation."
And Big Name U wants the best students and their $$.
I think these students are being encouraged to test and participate in expensive camps to eventually become part of the student body or at the very least to pay for expensive camps creating revenues enjoyed by the university.
If not this, then what do you think JHU and comparable school's goals are for creating these programs? Do you think they're altruistic? Just trying to help bright students? I don't doubt that there is some of this involved in the creation of these programs, I'm just not sure this is the sole motivation.
My take is that primarily they have a strong financial incentive to create ties with bright students which as I keep saying begins by this special invitation which encourages early testing.
Forgetting about the Talent Search angle completely for a minute, however, I am pondering why kids are allowed to test over and over again until they get a score they can live with. It seems to take the fairness out of it for other students who aren't encouraged or able to test repeatedly.
As I've mentioned other places in this thread, the advantage of repeat testing is one that can be controlled by the college board unlike race, culture, economics, religion, hang nail on test day, etc. It is my belief that the college board should control for all factors that create unfairness that they *can* control since there are so many variables they have no control over.
Anyway, I now will remove my dog from the discussion. (0:
I've made my point, I think.
-
I am also considering TPS vs Memoria Press vs possibly K12.
Not exactly what you're looking for, but I recently emailed TPS for suggestions for courses to help prepare for their classical track.
I received this email from TPS:
Our strongest and best prepared students are good readers. They follow a
good track of math and science, as well as geography and language. The
Potter's School (TPS) provides a good range of such classes for the junior
high student. We strongly encourage parents who are looking at the CT to
enroll in English 2 for the 8th grade year. This supplies an excellent
foundation for writing. Our CT kids who have taken English 2 are by far the
best prepared.
I like to see students with a good grasp of geography, and we offer a good
junior high geography class. Logic is a required course for students to
cover before their junior year in the CT....
I am leaning strongly towards classes primarily from TPS. I like that the courses are intentionally selected to provide a complete and comprehensive classical education.
-
The talent searches aren't signing kids up to take the SAT in 7th grade in order to "groom" them for future success on the SAT in 11th grade. They're signing them up because these kids have maxed out on their grade level standardized tests, rendering the info from the standardized tests utterly useless as a comparative measurement. A test way above grade level, like the SAT or ACT, is the only way they have to get info to separate out the kids clumped in the top 5% of at-grade level tests. They're not practicing 4-5 years in advance. That just sounds silly!
Practice tests would be just as beneficial for "grooming", if not more helpful... you can read the answers and see what you did wrong and actually learn from mistakes.
The students are being groomed to be future member of Big Name U through this special "invitation". (I put that in quotes, because again, you don't *need* an invitation to take the test as a 7th grader.)
And of course they are practicing 4 to 5 years in advance and occasionally more than that. That's a main benefit to the early testers. I don't see why that is silly?
Lastly, practice tests are not the same at all. You are at home, with your hot cocoa and your dog, practicing. It is not the same as experiencing a *real* testing environment. Ask any musician who plays their piece perfectly at home but freezes at the big show about the difference.
Incidentally, you can pay to have your actual test and answers from the real test sent home to you. This helps you practice to retake.
-
I agree that there are benefits to retesting, and benefits to having savvy parents who can guide you. I agree that it's not entirely fair. But of all of those, I think the 7th grade SAT probably has the least effect. A huge number of the 7th grade talent search kids will not retake it until they're juniors or seniors, and I don't think whatever they remember from a 4-years-past experience on one Saturday morning is going to really have stuck with them in any practical way.
And even if someone does retake the SAT over and over, I'm not sure that it has as big an effect as you think. I have tutored kids preparing for the SAT, and honestly there's only so much you can do without the years of solid education to build on. And what you can do doesn't require a ton of retesting. A careful run through a prep book or a few practice tests, or even the "question of the day" feature on collegeboard.com would give you most of what you need.
Where I see the biggest advantages are in those other things you've mentioned -- savvy parents, money, camps and classes. I don't call those SAT prep, and I wouldn't lump them in with testing over and over, but they certainly can add to your score just by setting you up to be where you need to be when you take it. Actually of all of that, the talent search (which as you say rests on a name that no one could miss) may have the potential to reach kids who wouldn't otherwise have those advantages. A teacher keeping an eye out for someone who might benefit at an early age could get a kid on that track even if his parents wouldn't have thought of it. There's financial aid, and while it wouldn't overcome all obstacles, it's a start.
I know DS has a bunch of advantages. For one thing obviously he's homeschooled. He has parents who can afford to arrange their schedules around his schooling (and who care to), and even more than that - parents who are willing to go out of their way to provide opportunities. Some of that involves money, but a lot of it is the savvy you mention -- I can find resources that others might not even know exist. I know where to look and what to look for, and I know what's worth our effort. Almost nothing of what we put our energy into will translate into SAT scores, but almost all of it has the potential to look really good on an application. Better than whatever SAT score he could get by spending this time in prep.
Is it fair? Not really. Are we doing it anyway? Heck yeah! I share what I can with whomever I can -- I post opportunities to our local group, I offer to coach math and science teams, I even pay for things that benefit a whole group and not just us. It doesn't really "level the playing field" but it's what I can do. He still has some extra advantages. I can tell everyone about the science fair until I'm blue in the face, but it's not going to make them all scientists. The fact that DS grew up around scientists and engineers and statisticians and speaks their "language" is likely to pay off in much bigger ways than anything else, but that's something a parent or a teacher really doesn't manage. It's partly luck and partly just being who we are. Geeky parents have geeky friends. Completely unfair, but not a playing field you could level.
If you're looking for unfair advantages there are plenty. My point is only that the talent search isn't where I'd look.
I disagree.
All of the advantages you have listed regarding your son are more or less "God given".
This specific advantage (testing multiple times) is created by big name universities wanting to establish a connection with bright students for their future student body ($) and the college board ($) who purport to offer a test that fairly represents academic talent and intelligence.
-
My two eldest, now in their mid-20s, were both "invited" (recruited? lol) to test for Northwestern's Talent Program. Both scored very well (I believe above 600 in both verbal and math in sixth grade) with no test prep whatsoever. At the time, I had not heard anything about these types of programs. We opted not to enroll them anyway because classes were too pricey for us and time-consuming. Despite not going, both kids managed to get into terrific colleges with full-ride scholarships to boot. Later, neither took a test prep class in high school (again, too expensive for us back then), but we did have each sit at home and take a practice test.
My daughter went to Northwestern, btw, and taught a few of the engineering classes for the Saturday Enrichment Program. She had to design the classes herself, so we came here -- the WTM boards -- to get ideas!
So, if your child doesn't score well, don't sweat it. There are so many fabulous sources available nowadays. My youngest's favorite is Alcumus which is free. Can't beat that!
Your children did really well for sixth graders! Many kids invited to test end up testing highly, but of course not all.
I'm not especially concerned about my daughter's scores. If she does well we'll be thrilled for her, but if she doesn't she still has benefited from the early experience. She has the standardized test scores to support her ability to score well if she had a good day. She will test again in high school regardless because I'm sure her score will go up.
I am pondering the fairness of repeated testing vs a one test only (with possible exceptions made for someone who is ill test day) mentality.
From a fairness point of view, the college board can't control a lot of factors. Race, economics, educational opportunity, maturity of a student, etc. are all factors that will influence scores. But, they *can* control who can test and I can't see how a first time test taker can compete with someone who has taken the test repeatedly since they were 12.
-
They take the SAT in 7th or 8th grade and then not again until they're juniors/seniors and taking it with everyone else. So their only difference when it counts is having taken it once before, at least 3 years earlier.
OK, we may not be on the same page, but at least we're in the same book.:D
I have been reading about kids that retake the test a number of times. Especially in high school when they are dissatisfied with their first scores and/or need a specific score for a scholarship or admittance to a university. But also, kids are retaking it yearly just for practice since the score choice means their scores aren't reported.
Very few colleges require full disclosure and even those that do don't care if there are several scores. The WP article I linked to above suggests that colleges ignore the lower scores, regardless of how many, and only pay attention to the higher.
French/German: I think I am in love...
in K-8 Curriculum Board
Posted
Can't you just buy it here?
http://s282892941.e-shop.info/shop/category_03/Kleinbrucken.html