3 ms·

> Many students come poor and/or bad families. No new "Common Core" tests are going to help that child learn if they are afraid they might not eat dinner that e

> Many students come poor and/or bad families. No new "Common Core" tests are going to help that child learn if they are afraid they might not eat dinner that evening or they will be beaten up by their drunken family members. Just flogging the teacher to teach harder won't work. This sounds true if you don't think about it too hard. But why is it that kids who don't suffer get about the same (horrible) education as the ones you mention? > It would be nice if "teaching" was considered just as a prestigious profession as laywer, doctor, astronaut It would be nice for teachers. But this is the same kind of half-assed thinking that makes public schools worthless. Instead of making things better for children/students, you've slipped into talking about making things better for teachers. It's like the entire country subconsciously belongs to the teachers' union.

rdtsc 12y ago
The main gist was that environment (which includes home environment and cultural attitudes) play a very large role. Having a bad environment at home will hinder learning, now matter how good the teacher are. Having message from society that if you are a teacher, you probably weren't smart enough to become a lawyer, engineer, startup founder. That is reflected in both compensation, autonomy (like in this case) and other things. There was talk here (or maybe Reddit, I forgot) about how someone from Finland (a country with pretty high math scores, compared to US) did a study to find the impact teachers had. It turned out not to be as much as US thinks it is. Not enough to punish teachers if some standardized scores are not met. And as a hypothetical experiment they said "Let's imagine we transplanted teacher from Finland to Indiana,US", would that dramatically change test scores in Indiana. They speculated that it wouldn't. Here is the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/15/what-if-finlands-great-teachers-taught-in-u-s-schools-not-what-you-think/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/...
jschwartzi 12y ago
If you want to attract someone competent to a profession, generally it has to be seen as a desirable profession. As long as teaching is seen as a last resort people wont respect it and you'll keep attracting large numbers of teachers whose only qualification was that they couldn't find a better job somewhere else. To put it bluntly, teaching has been made into an objectively shitty profession, which is why you can't attract good teachers. If you want good teachers, you need to pay them more and give them the freedom to actually teach. There have been multiple blog posts on here about attracting good software engineers, and I believe the same principles apply to any profession: You need to: * Pay top dollar for talent. * Allow significant autonomy. The teacher in the article indicated that neither of these goals were met in his career, and he indicated that they likely wouldn't get met. Based on his awards, I would say he was a "top quartile teacher," so there's some evidence in this that if we had paid him more and reduced requirements imposed by the school district, then he might have stayed on. That would certainly have made things better for his students.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  > If you want to attract someone competent to a profession, generally it has to be seen as a desirable profession. This is flawed logic. You're selecting for status-seeking personalities, not competence. > As long as teaching is seen as a last resort people wont respect it and you'll keep attracting large numbers of teachers whose only qualification was that they couldn't find a better job somewhere else. This is flawed logic. You don't even seem to consider the possibility that you've already managed to recruit as many competent teachers as can exist, and that you have so many incompetent ones because your demand outstrips supply. If there are only 20,000 good teachers, and you need 1 million... then no matter how much respect they get, you'll never get more than 20,000 good teachers. You'll just fill the remainder with jackasses. > To put it bluntly, teaching has been made into an objectively shitty profession, They're being rewarded commensurate with their results. > If you want good teachers, you need to pay them more You're selecting for greedy people, not competence. Again, flawed logic. > You need to: * Pay top dollar for talent. * Flawed logic. If you are an individual who wants a small number of good teachers (say, as tutors for your son Richie Rich), then this is an effective strategy. You're using your immense wealth to lure good teachers away from other jobs. This is not just an ineffective strategy for a large nation-state, it's an economically and educationally disastrous one. You can't afford it, and you will incentivize a large number of incompetent assholes to become teachers for the "top dollar" pay. Your tests and qualifications can't weed them out because they will attempt to game any tests you present. They will become teachers, fuck it up not just with their incompetence, but also with their toxic personalities. Do you even think about this stuff, or do you just repeat what you've heard other people say (people who haven't thought about it either)?
  - JediWing 12y ago
    >This is flawed logic. You're selecting for status-seeking personalities, not competence Huh? So anyone who wants autonomy and to be well paid is a status seeker? Sounds more to me like they're a typical human being. > You don't even seem to consider the possibility that you've already managed to recruit as many competent teachers as can exist, and that you have so many incompetent ones because your demand outstrips supply. I think that idea is so implausible that it's not worth considering. You seriously think you couldn't lure some bright creative minds who would have done an excellent job teaching by making the profession better compensated? Not just those currently on the market but the 18 year olds who are choosing their fields of study? You don't think there have been plenty of people who have kind of wanted to be teachers, then turned on the news and decided "I don't want to put up with that" and then go choose something else? > They're being rewarded commensurate with their results. Wow. Way to grossly oversimplify one of the most important public policy issues of our time. You can't ignore externalities that affect student performance and place all the blame on teachers. There are way way too many factors to try to pin blame on any one segment. >Your tests and qualifications can't weed them out because they will attempt to game any tests you present. No more than any other profession considered prestigious is "gamed" today. You do realize teachers need to go through a degree program, background checks and professional testing per subject they teach, don't you? And that's today let alone if we further incentivize the profession. > This is not just an ineffective strategy for a large nation-state, it's an economically and educationally disastrous one. Hiring bright people to do a job that's vitally important to our society at a fair market price? The government spends enough money on nonsense that paying teachers well would be a drop in the bucket.

rdtsc 12y ago

The main gist was that environment (which includes home environment and cultural attitudes) play a very large role. Having a bad environment at home will hinder learning, now matter how good the teacher are. Having message from society that if you are a teacher, you probably weren't smart enough to become a lawyer, engineer, startup founder. That is reflected in both compensation, autonomy (like in this case) and other things. There was talk here (or maybe Reddit, I forgot) about how someone from Finland (a country with pretty high math scores, compared to US) did a study to find the impact teachers had. It turned out not to be as much as US thinks it is. Not enough to punish teachers if some standardized scores are not met. And as a hypothetical experiment they said "Let's imagine we transplanted teacher from Finland to Indiana,US", would that dramatically change test scores in Indiana. They speculated that it wouldn't. Here is the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/15/what-if-finlands-great-teachers-taught-in-u-s-schools-not-what-you-think/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/...

jschwartzi 12y ago

If you want to attract someone competent to a profession, generally it has to be seen as a desirable profession. As long as teaching is seen as a last resort people wont respect it and you'll keep attracting large numbers of teachers whose only qualification was that they couldn't find a better job somewhere else. To put it bluntly, teaching has been made into an objectively shitty profession, which is why you can't attract good teachers. If you want good teachers, you need to pay them more and give them the freedom to actually teach. There have been multiple blog posts on here about attracting good software engineers, and I believe the same principles apply to any profession: You need to: * Pay top dollar for talent. * Allow significant autonomy. The teacher in the article indicated that neither of these goals were met in his career, and he indicated that they likely wouldn't get met. Based on his awards, I would say he was a "top quartile teacher," so there's some evidence in this that if we had paid him more and reduced requirements imposed by the school district, then he might have stayed on. That would certainly have made things better for his students.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
> If you want to attract someone competent to a profession, generally it has to be seen as a desirable profession. This is flawed logic. You're selecting for status-seeking personalities, not competence. > As long as teaching is seen as a last resort people wont respect it and you'll keep attracting large numbers of teachers whose only qualification was that they couldn't find a better job somewhere else. This is flawed logic. You don't even seem to consider the possibility that you've already managed to recruit as many competent teachers as can exist, and that you have so many incompetent ones because your demand outstrips supply. If there are only 20,000 good teachers, and you need 1 million... then no matter how much respect they get, you'll never get more than 20,000 good teachers. You'll just fill the remainder with jackasses. > To put it bluntly, teaching has been made into an objectively shitty profession, They're being rewarded commensurate with their results. > If you want good teachers, you need to pay them more You're selecting for greedy people, not competence. Again, flawed logic. > You need to: * Pay top dollar for talent. * Flawed logic. If you are an individual who wants a small number of good teachers (say, as tutors for your son Richie Rich), then this is an effective strategy. You're using your immense wealth to lure good teachers away from other jobs. This is not just an ineffective strategy for a large nation-state, it's an economically and educationally disastrous one. You can't afford it, and you will incentivize a large number of incompetent assholes to become teachers for the "top dollar" pay. Your tests and qualifications can't weed them out because they will attempt to game any tests you present. They will become teachers, fuck it up not just with their incompetence, but also with their toxic personalities. Do you even think about this stuff, or do you just repeat what you've heard other people say (people who haven't thought about it either)?
- JediWing 12y ago
  >This is flawed logic. You're selecting for status-seeking personalities, not competence Huh? So anyone who wants autonomy and to be well paid is a status seeker? Sounds more to me like they're a typical human being. > You don't even seem to consider the possibility that you've already managed to recruit as many competent teachers as can exist, and that you have so many incompetent ones because your demand outstrips supply. I think that idea is so implausible that it's not worth considering. You seriously think you couldn't lure some bright creative minds who would have done an excellent job teaching by making the profession better compensated? Not just those currently on the market but the 18 year olds who are choosing their fields of study? You don't think there have been plenty of people who have kind of wanted to be teachers, then turned on the news and decided "I don't want to put up with that" and then go choose something else? > They're being rewarded commensurate with their results. Wow. Way to grossly oversimplify one of the most important public policy issues of our time. You can't ignore externalities that affect student performance and place all the blame on teachers. There are way way too many factors to try to pin blame on any one segment. >Your tests and qualifications can't weed them out because they will attempt to game any tests you present. No more than any other profession considered prestigious is "gamed" today. You do realize teachers need to go through a degree program, background checks and professional testing per subject they teach, don't you? And that's today let alone if we further incentivize the profession. > This is not just an ineffective strategy for a large nation-state, it's an economically and educationally disastrous one. Hiring bright people to do a job that's vitally important to our society at a fair market price? The government spends enough money on nonsense that paying teachers well would be a drop in the bucket.