4 ms·

Do we care more about student progress or our appearance? We care about both, and we have to. Proposed solutions will have to cater to this reality to have any

by loteck 12y ago

Do we care more about student progress or our appearance? We care about both, and we have to. Proposed solutions will have to cater to this reality to have any hope of success. Why can’t we start a movement to walk away from these tests? Because a ton of scared people think the tests are the safety net of education. They are the last resort. If you got a bad education and can still past the test, it's a quantifiable bare minimum. Why can’t we shift our focus to critical thinking and relevant educational experiences? Because while great teachers exist, they are sitting on top of a pile of good, decent and bad teachers that largely can't be fired or forced to improve. Kids in those teachers' classrooms need to come out with some bare minimum of quantifiable education.

bildung 12y ago
Because while great teachers exist, they are sitting on top of a pile of good, decent and bad teachers that largely can't be fired or forced to improve. But that is true for all countries, while the pervasive test culture is a phenomenon mostly observable in the US. The quality of teachers (or their education) can't be the major reason for the test dependency of the educational system in the US.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Pervasive test culture is far larger in Asia than in the US. Wealthy Asian nations perform very well, though admittedly most of that performance is likely due to unmentionable factors.
  - hueving 12y ago
    >admittedly most of that performance is likely due to unmentionable factors. A culture of forcing children to study for hours every night at home and go to school 6 days a week?
    - gwillen 12y ago
      I was assuming 'cheating'.
      - jpadkins 12y ago
        I assumed genetics.
logicallee 12y ago
>>Why can’t we start a movement to walk away from these tests? >Because a ton of scared people think the tests are the safety net of education. They are the last resort. If you got a bad education and can still past the test, it's a quantifiable bare minimum. Why does test-driven development enable the efficient creation of software that works, but the same isn't true of education? For example, asking a student to read some text and answer questions about whether they've understood it is a simple way to see if they're actually literate. An assert() if you will. Test-driven education has resulted in an American literacy rate of 99% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_r... The SAT is a test that heavily influences University admissions in the United States. (Not all countries have college admissions exams.) The most selective universities in America are some of the ones who give it the greatest weight. It is hard to argue against a causal link given the level of scholarship and research that is produced in American higher education. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world-ranking http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-ranki... I am not going to weigh in on what kind of tests should exist. But the idea that testing is a last resort, and you can 'get a bad education' and still pass the test, is like the idea of a function that doesn't work, but passes all the tests. Not to put words in your mouth, but in essence then you are essentially arguing that it is impossible to test an education. If so, what makes you think a bad education exists? Perhaps all educations are perfect? Granted this last example is a bit glib of me, since perhaps there are things that are infeasible to test in a normal test setting. But overall, I would say the type of things that make you say someone got a poor education, are also the kinds of things that can be tested for and are, in fact, tested for. You don't mean they can't make an omelette without getting it all over the floor.
- ComSubVie 12y ago
  > Why does test-driven development enable the efficient creation of software that works, but the same isn't true of education? What do you test - memorizing or understanding? Does it test the required minimum, then passing it corresponds to the lowest positive grade (whatever that is in your school system). Or do you also test "nice-to-have" knowledge? Then why do you test it?
- 12y ago
ncallaway 12y ago
I'd love to see an educational reform package that focused on several of these pillars. Something like the following: * Greatly increase teacher pay. Increase it to something like 1.5x or 2x the current pay scale. * Give greater flexibility to the administration to fire underperforming teachers. * Install much more robust (and flexible to change over time) measures of teacher success. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funded several studies in this area (https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/empowering-effective-teachers-empowering-strategy.pdf https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/empowering-effect...).
chernevik 12y ago
Yep. The tests are there because people don't trust the schools and looking for some independent means of motivating them to get better. Unfortunately, the testing architecture isn't entirely appropriate to the task -- but scrapping it just brings us back to the core problem. The reality is that many of the schools, and many of the teachers, are just bad. This can't be acknowledged in the public debate, so it isn't addressed. The unions have established a structure dedicated to protecting bad and mediocre teachers. Which is why great teachers can't get paid appropriately -- the unions would never allow it. It's also why teachers don't enjoy higher status: As a group, they really don't deserve it. Yes, the unions are right that, without tenure and their workplace rules, teacher hiring and pay would be a political game. That's what political systems do, they respond to political incentives. That's the whole idea of charters: to move the accountability of the schools out of the political system and into the hands of a constituency invested in actual quality. It's probably true that _today_ parents as a group aren't completely equipped to handle that role, because they've been trained to just send their kids off to school. But as they get the opportunity to make more decisions and influence the schools' offerings, they'll come up to speed. tldr; The testing apparatus is a symptom of a broken governance apparatus. The solution is to fix the governance and incentives. So long as the incentives are political, the results will be political.
- mikegioia 12y ago
  How can you claim that teachers as a group don't deserve a higher status? You first say that the union's structure protects bad and mediocre teachers, which impacts teacher pay. And somehow that equates to teachers not deserving a higher social status? You have to explain that.
  - chernevik 12y ago
    Think of Catholic priests: Noble vocation, ought to have enormous respect. But when an important proportion of the group is pedophiles, respect for the whole group diminishes. As a population, on average, teachers simply aren't that impressive. Teaching is a noble vocation and ought to have great status. But when the average teacher simply isn't that good, people aren't going to extend much respect to the profession. And the unions contribute to that condition by resisting efforts to improve the quality of the teacher population.
scott_s 12y ago
In other professions, when they want better candidates, they offer a better salary.
- tokenadult 12y ago
  In other professions, the people who enter the professions are more rigorously trained and tested before entering the profession. But the crucial difference is that in professions with higher pay, clients have the power to shop, and clients are not compelled to consume the services of professionals employed by the government in the usual case.
  - scott_s 12y ago
    I'm open to allowing teaching to be closer to a typical labor market, assuming that we also raise the pay. Although I do think that better pay will give schools better choice in choosing teachers, as competition for the available spots would probably increase.

by loteck 12y ago

bildung 12y ago

Because while great teachers exist, they are sitting on top of a pile of good, decent and bad teachers that largely can't be fired or forced to improve. But that is true for all countries, while the pervasive test culture is a phenomenon mostly observable in the US. The quality of teachers (or their education) can't be the major reason for the test dependency of the educational system in the US.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Pervasive test culture is far larger in Asia than in the US. Wealthy Asian nations perform very well, though admittedly most of that performance is likely due to unmentionable factors.
- hueving 12y ago
  >admittedly most of that performance is likely due to unmentionable factors. A culture of forcing children to study for hours every night at home and go to school 6 days a week?
  - gwillen 12y ago
    I was assuming 'cheating'.
    - jpadkins 12y ago
      I assumed genetics.

logicallee 12y ago

>>Why can’t we start a movement to walk away from these tests? >Because a ton of scared people think the tests are the safety net of education. They are the last resort. If you got a bad education and can still past the test, it's a quantifiable bare minimum. Why does test-driven development enable the efficient creation of software that works, but the same isn't true of education? For example, asking a student to read some text and answer questions about whether they've understood it is a simple way to see if they're actually literate. An assert() if you will. Test-driven education has resulted in an American literacy rate of 99% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_r... The SAT is a test that heavily influences University admissions in the United States. (Not all countries have college admissions exams.) The most selective universities in America are some of the ones who give it the greatest weight. It is hard to argue against a causal link given the level of scholarship and research that is produced in American higher education. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world-ranking http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-ranki... I am not going to weigh in on what kind of tests should exist. But the idea that testing is a last resort, and you can 'get a bad education' and still pass the test, is like the idea of a function that doesn't work, but passes all the tests. Not to put words in your mouth, but in essence then you are essentially arguing that it is impossible to test an education. If so, what makes you think a bad education exists? Perhaps all educations are perfect? Granted this last example is a bit glib of me, since perhaps there are things that are infeasible to test in a normal test setting. But overall, I would say the type of things that make you say someone got a poor education, are also the kinds of things that can be tested for and are, in fact, tested for. You don't mean they can't make an omelette without getting it all over the floor.

ComSubVie 12y ago
> Why does test-driven development enable the efficient creation of software that works, but the same isn't true of education? What do you test - memorizing or understanding? Does it test the required minimum, then passing it corresponds to the lowest positive grade (whatever that is in your school system). Or do you also test "nice-to-have" knowledge? Then why do you test it?
12y ago

ncallaway 12y ago

I'd love to see an educational reform package that focused on several of these pillars. Something like the following: * Greatly increase teacher pay. Increase it to something like 1.5x or 2x the current pay scale. * Give greater flexibility to the administration to fire underperforming teachers. * Install much more robust (and flexible to change over time) measures of teacher success. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funded several studies in this area (https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/empowering-effective-teachers-empowering-strategy.pdf https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/empowering-effect...).

chernevik 12y ago

Yep. The tests are there because people don't trust the schools and looking for some independent means of motivating them to get better. Unfortunately, the testing architecture isn't entirely appropriate to the task -- but scrapping it just brings us back to the core problem. The reality is that many of the schools, and many of the teachers, are just bad. This can't be acknowledged in the public debate, so it isn't addressed. The unions have established a structure dedicated to protecting bad and mediocre teachers. Which is why great teachers can't get paid appropriately -- the unions would never allow it. It's also why teachers don't enjoy higher status: As a group, they really don't deserve it. Yes, the unions are right that, without tenure and their workplace rules, teacher hiring and pay would be a political game. That's what political systems do, they respond to political incentives. That's the whole idea of charters: to move the accountability of the schools out of the political system and into the hands of a constituency invested in actual quality. It's probably true that _today_ parents as a group aren't completely equipped to handle that role, because they've been trained to just send their kids off to school. But as they get the opportunity to make more decisions and influence the schools' offerings, they'll come up to speed. tldr; The testing apparatus is a symptom of a broken governance apparatus. The solution is to fix the governance and incentives. So long as the incentives are political, the results will be political.

mikegioia 12y ago
How can you claim that teachers as a group don't deserve a higher status? You first say that the union's structure protects bad and mediocre teachers, which impacts teacher pay. And somehow that equates to teachers not deserving a higher social status? You have to explain that.
- chernevik 12y ago
  Think of Catholic priests: Noble vocation, ought to have enormous respect. But when an important proportion of the group is pedophiles, respect for the whole group diminishes. As a population, on average, teachers simply aren't that impressive. Teaching is a noble vocation and ought to have great status. But when the average teacher simply isn't that good, people aren't going to extend much respect to the profession. And the unions contribute to that condition by resisting efforts to improve the quality of the teacher population.

scott_s 12y ago

In other professions, when they want better candidates, they offer a better salary.

tokenadult 12y ago
In other professions, the people who enter the professions are more rigorously trained and tested before entering the profession. But the crucial difference is that in professions with higher pay, clients have the power to shop, and clients are not compelled to consume the services of professionals employed by the government in the usual case.
- scott_s 12y ago
  I'm open to allowing teaching to be closer to a typical labor market, assuming that we also raise the pay. Although I do think that better pay will give schools better choice in choosing teachers, as competition for the available spots would probably increase.