3 ms·

This might sound trite, but I think the solution would be to couple standardized testing with performance based pay. Unlike code, it's hard to aim for solely sh

This might sound trite, but I think the solution would be to couple standardized testing with performance based pay. Unlike code, it's hard to aim for solely short-term gains. As long as teachers aren't cheating, I can't imagine many ways to teach students that aren't inherently beneficial to the student. Teaching better study habits, etc might not be directly related to their material, but it still helps the students. Also, I think there are fairly generalizable development timelines for children. While standardized testing can never be a gold standard in determining progress, I think we can both agree such testing does measure a worthwhile metric. I would definitely agree that there are edge cases, both in terms of individual students and in terms of school districts, but linking pay with progress seems on face value to be a good idea. That, plus independent school districts, is system-based evolution. Such selection depends on creating the right relationship between effort and reward.

HaloZero 16y ago
The argument against standard test scores as the metric is that it covers two basic competencies, reading and mathematics. Which are of course fundamental but there are edge cases of people who have no interest in those fields but would prefer foreign languages, arts, etc. Teachers in the arts can inspire and help provide to students but don't have any standardized evaluation method. Plus for students who are younger where one teacher teaches all subjects, the focus on mathematics/reading will increase compared to arts. The arts education significantly reduced during No Child Left Behind b/c of the requirements. You can obviously argue that competency in basics should be achieved before arts too though. Just pointing out an issue
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  We can't have standardized foreign language or art tests?
  - HaloZero 16y ago
    Foreign language yes, but art? I could memorize a bunch of facts about art, styles, etc. But that's not the same as doing well in the class. I could be a brilliant artist who learned a lot in the class because the teacher motivated me but I have no idea what the difference between penciling vs stenciling. (I have no knowledge of art, I just said that example as something that sounds similar but could be very different).
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Most education in art focuses on the technical and contextual (history, styles, etc) aspects. The contextual aspects lend themselves quite well to standardized testing. The technical aspects don't lend themselves very well to a "fill in the bubbles" test, but that doesn't mean they are subjective. Testing them would be more difficult, but it is routinely done.
SkyMarshal 16y ago
>I think we can both agree such testing does measure a worthwhile metric. I don't know about that. I've come across plenty of critiques of standardized tests, especially back during the debate over Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' initiative. That kind of 'education' may produce good little worker drones, but I'm not sure it's something we want to base the entire education system of the Republic on.
dspeyer 16y ago
In many cases, you will get better short-term results by drilling recipes or factoids than pursuing deep understanding, though the latter is far more valuable in the long run (and in early schooling, long is the only run that matters). There's too much trivia-memorizing in schools as it is.
- alphaoverlord 16y ago
  I'm OK with paying a drill sergeant more than someone who sits around the teacher's lounge eating donuts all day. I'm not saying this approach is a panacea to all of education's problems, I'm just saying this is a step in the right direction. I think the question this approach answers is the disconnect between effort and reward in education.

HaloZero 16y ago

The argument against standard test scores as the metric is that it covers two basic competencies, reading and mathematics. Which are of course fundamental but there are edge cases of people who have no interest in those fields but would prefer foreign languages, arts, etc. Teachers in the arts can inspire and help provide to students but don't have any standardized evaluation method. Plus for students who are younger where one teacher teaches all subjects, the focus on mathematics/reading will increase compared to arts. The arts education significantly reduced during No Child Left Behind b/c of the requirements. You can obviously argue that competency in basics should be achieved before arts too though. Just pointing out an issue

yummyfajitas 16y ago
We can't have standardized foreign language or art tests?
- HaloZero 16y ago
  Foreign language yes, but art? I could memorize a bunch of facts about art, styles, etc. But that's not the same as doing well in the class. I could be a brilliant artist who learned a lot in the class because the teacher motivated me but I have no idea what the difference between penciling vs stenciling. (I have no knowledge of art, I just said that example as something that sounds similar but could be very different).
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Most education in art focuses on the technical and contextual (history, styles, etc) aspects. The contextual aspects lend themselves quite well to standardized testing. The technical aspects don't lend themselves very well to a "fill in the bubbles" test, but that doesn't mean they are subjective. Testing them would be more difficult, but it is routinely done.

SkyMarshal 16y ago

>I think we can both agree such testing does measure a worthwhile metric. I don't know about that. I've come across plenty of critiques of standardized tests, especially back during the debate over Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' initiative. That kind of 'education' may produce good little worker drones, but I'm not sure it's something we want to base the entire education system of the Republic on.

dspeyer 16y ago

In many cases, you will get better short-term results by drilling recipes or factoids than pursuing deep understanding, though the latter is far more valuable in the long run (and in early schooling, long is the only run that matters). There's too much trivia-memorizing in schools as it is.

alphaoverlord 16y ago
I'm OK with paying a drill sergeant more than someone who sits around the teacher's lounge eating donuts all day. I'm not saying this approach is a panacea to all of education's problems, I'm just saying this is a step in the right direction. I think the question this approach answers is the disconnect between effort and reward in education.