32 ms·
All this means is that better methods will need to be invented to score teachers, not that it's impossible. For example, one thing I've seen missing in these st
by lend000 8y ago
All this means is that better methods will need to be invented to score teachers, not that it's impossible. For example, one thing I've seen missing in these studies is a system design that attempts to control for the distribution of students in a given incoming class, which seems like the single most predictable metric for end-of-year performance.
- empath75 8y agoOr the aptitude of teachers simply aren’t that relevant and the problem exists elsewhere, as in the curriculum or home environment of the kids, etc.
- Alex3917 8y ago> All this means is that better methods will need to be invented to score teachers, not that it's impossible. No, it is impossible. That's the whole point. If it wasn't impossible it'd be a great idea.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- lend000 8y agoI suspect some in the HN community assume that because public school curriculums were generally so easy and aligned with textbooks such that they got all A's regardless of the teacher, that the teacher does not matter. No, the teacher definitely matters, as does the inflexible and oversimple curriculum and a million other factors. Switch 'teacher' with 'professor' and I highly doubt you would argue that quality no longer matters. The difference is that professors are less bound by stringent curriculums and teach more advanced material. This is where everyone really feels the difference. Whereas for public grade school teachers, an academically inclined student will only struggle under exceptionally bad teachers, less well academically inclined students will suffer without decent teachers even in grade school. The first quarter/semester at a good college typically provides a reality check for students who breezed through primary education.