4 ms·

I’m not sure how this is obvious when there is a teacher shortage almost everywhere. I’d be willing to bet that more often than not students’ exam proctor is no

I’m not sure how this is obvious when there is a teacher shortage almost everywhere. I’d be willing to bet that more often than not students’ exam proctor is not their everyday teacher. Also while this is a solution to the symptom of perverse incentives, it is still part of a bandaid approach. Low-performing schools are already spending weeks and weeks teaching to the test, which is fine for achievement but just a step above giving the answers out when it comes to rigorous teaching and learning.

WalterBright 4y ago
Instead of arguing that it won't work, why not give it a try? What's there to lose?
- thelock85 4y ago
  I’m simply pointing out that it’s not obvious how to implement teachers proctoring other classrooms’ exams in order to prevent the home room teacher from giving out answers for financial benefit. It’s not pragmatic when principals, guidance counselors, other-subject teachers and permanent subs are shoring up massive shortages across the country. If someone wants to try then go for it. But there are a lot of other well-researched interventions that are hard to implement in classrooms for similar pragmatic reasons. If we are going to ignore facts on the ground, then those would be the obvious ones to me. > What’s there to lose? Federal, state and local tax dollars that school principals probably have a better idea on how to spend.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > it’s not obvious how to implement teachers proctoring other classrooms’ exams in order to prevent the home room teacher from giving out answers for financial benefit A few seconds of thought: "don't give the teachers the test questions beforehand" > It’s not pragmatic when principals, guidance counselors, other-subject teachers and permanent subs are shoring up massive shortages across the country. It'll give the teachers a way to make more money, making teaching more attractive
    - thelock85 4y ago
      Appreciate the enthusiasm and I’m all for trying. Still don’t think it’s pragmatic. > don’t give the teachers the test questions beforehand This is already the case, except for all of the practice questions that students are drilled over weeks before the actual test. Teachers simply could apply the test-taking strategies in real-time more efficiently than students to arrive at and share the answer. Honestly I believe most teachers have too much integrity and we are solving for edge cases (per earlier comment about Tennessee experiment). Nonetheless all of these tactics are too naive for fed/state/local systems chock full of perverse incentives. > It’ll give the teachers a way to make more money, making teaching more attractive A few seconds of thought: “give the proposed money to teachers upfront.” Why should there be more hoops to jump through towards a sustainable career in one of the toughest jobs? Why give Big Publishers (assessment, implementation and rubric developers) even more influence over perceived teacher quality than say parents, or everyday taxpayers who would foot the bill?
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        > A few seconds of thought: “give the proposed money to teachers upfront.” No incentive, won't work. Parents have zero influence over teacher quality, and neither do taxpayers. > Why should there be more hoops to jump through towards a sustainable career in one of the toughest jobs? Because the existing system doesn't produce results.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

WalterBright 4y ago

Instead of arguing that it won't work, why not give it a try? What's there to lose?

thelock85 4y ago
I’m simply pointing out that it’s not obvious how to implement teachers proctoring other classrooms’ exams in order to prevent the home room teacher from giving out answers for financial benefit. It’s not pragmatic when principals, guidance counselors, other-subject teachers and permanent subs are shoring up massive shortages across the country. If someone wants to try then go for it. But there are a lot of other well-researched interventions that are hard to implement in classrooms for similar pragmatic reasons. If we are going to ignore facts on the ground, then those would be the obvious ones to me. > What’s there to lose? Federal, state and local tax dollars that school principals probably have a better idea on how to spend.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > it’s not obvious how to implement teachers proctoring other classrooms’ exams in order to prevent the home room teacher from giving out answers for financial benefit A few seconds of thought: "don't give the teachers the test questions beforehand" > It’s not pragmatic when principals, guidance counselors, other-subject teachers and permanent subs are shoring up massive shortages across the country. It'll give the teachers a way to make more money, making teaching more attractive
  - thelock85 4y ago
    Appreciate the enthusiasm and I’m all for trying. Still don’t think it’s pragmatic. > don’t give the teachers the test questions beforehand This is already the case, except for all of the practice questions that students are drilled over weeks before the actual test. Teachers simply could apply the test-taking strategies in real-time more efficiently than students to arrive at and share the answer. Honestly I believe most teachers have too much integrity and we are solving for edge cases (per earlier comment about Tennessee experiment). Nonetheless all of these tactics are too naive for fed/state/local systems chock full of perverse incentives. > It’ll give the teachers a way to make more money, making teaching more attractive A few seconds of thought: “give the proposed money to teachers upfront.” Why should there be more hoops to jump through towards a sustainable career in one of the toughest jobs? Why give Big Publishers (assessment, implementation and rubric developers) even more influence over perceived teacher quality than say parents, or everyday taxpayers who would foot the bill?
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > A few seconds of thought: “give the proposed money to teachers upfront.” No incentive, won't work. Parents have zero influence over teacher quality, and neither do taxpayers. > Why should there be more hoops to jump through towards a sustainable career in one of the toughest jobs? Because the existing system doesn't produce results.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]