Those Who Can't Score Teach
From Gannett, via The Salt Lake Tribune:
University graduates who earned low scores on their college-admission tests were more than twice as likely as top scorers to have majored in education. One in five new teachers will quit the profession within three years. And poor and minority kids who often need the most help in school get stuck with the least experienced teachers.
A new report from a commission headed by former IBM Chairman Louis Gerstner Jr. offers a dim view of the nation's teaching force and calls for dramatic changes, including linking teacher pay to student test scores.
Recommended fixes for the problems include paying teachers more, giving principals the right to hire and fire teachers, and making licensing requirements tougher.
Which is to say the same-old same-old. It's bad the poor kids get stuck with the least-experienced teachers (though it's not clear that more experience necessarily translates into more learning; it could also simply mean more teacher burnout). It's also not clear to me that losing 20 percent of new teachers after three years is a higher attrition rate than you would find in most occupations. Similarly, it's not clear that just giving more pay to people in the system will improve performance.
But the real problem with these sorts of recommendations are twofold. First off, if you want to lure smarter people into teaching (which presumes that they will be more effective), you shouldn't raise the pay of all teachers. What you need to do is make it clear that good and excellent teachers will be rewarded commensurate with their success. The current system is not set up that way and likely never will be. Second, making licensing requirements tougher will almost inevitably mean taking even more of the idiotic education courses that every teacher I know complains about. That, and other bureaucratic hoops that will make just about anyone contemplating a switch into teaching think twice. Instead, why not open the schools to people with proven knowledge bases in subjects (as determined by having a college degree in the area or similar work/life experience) and give them on-the-job training regarding the specifically pedagogical elements of the job?
Most important, though, the commission's reforms leave out parents, who are ultimately the arbiter of their children's education; they are the customers who need to be satisifed. Empower parents to pick and choose schools by giving them the freedom to go wherever they want and the "school crisis" will disappear as educational institutions change and evolve--and go out of business--trying to meet those needs. It won't even take a majority of parents moving their kids (and their money) around--as the charter school experience has shown, even a small percentage would be enough to jump start meaningful reform.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
but the men with guns are removed by at least one degree (or less in some schools).
that's why it's "taxes" and not "armed robbery" though everyone who pays taxes knows better.
Dave,
I hear teachers complaining about the standardized tests all of the time. Is there a better way to judge whether a student has learned a given skill? Without a subjective measure, the school and the teacher have incentives to inflate grades.
Thoreau,
I have known many teachers who share similars values and beliefs as their students' parents, left as well as right, but who instead say they are shackeled by institutional requirements that say this is what you teach and this is how you teach it. Five of my kids former teachers are on verbal record as having told us "We wish we could homsechool our kids", while two are actually teaching in the public schools by day and homeschooling their own kids at night.
The problem is not with individual teachers. It is with the public education system, from the schools of education down to the local administration office. And because that system has repeatedly stated that it knows what's best for the children so you shouldn't worry as you pat them on the head and send them off in the morning, we have millions of parents who happily cede their children's education to total strangers, thus absolving them of any responsibility for that education.
Tom-
Funny but sad story: My wife taught for two years. It wasn't really her thing. But one night I went out with her and some of her co-workers, and they start talking about other teachers they know. A friend of theirs in Beverly Hills handed out a sheet of rules (do your homework on time, don't talk in class, etc.). The kids showed the rules to their parents, the parents showed it to their lawyers, and the teacher got threatening phone calls about how she'd better not be "unfair" to their precious brats.
Not disagreeing with your assessment of the institutional problems, just observing the multiplicity of factors, even in a supposedly "good" neighborhood like Beverly Hills.
Tom,
Homeschoolers in Texas are required to vet their textbooks with the state?
Some liberals here in Arkansas have proposed that homeschoolers be required to use the same curriculum as the government schools, but they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting that passed.
Nick,
Performance-based pay differentials, in a government bureaucracy, are likely to produce the same unintended consequences as the right of principals to hire and fire. They'll just give the school administration--made up of people who took enough of those idiotic "education" courses to get a Masters or Doctorate, and who know how to climb the bureaucratic ladder--more power to punish "troublemakers" and whistleblowers.
Virtually any imaginable "reform" in the publik skools (short of decentralizing control of local schools to the parents) will have the effect of strengthening the institutional culture of the teachers' colleges, the NEA, and the departments of education.
Administrative quality controls and greater management flexibility will just have the perverse effect of giving mediocrities more power to punish good teachers for not being team players.
And there's no conceivable administrative quality control that will be anywhere near as effective as the danger of parents taking their business elsewhere.
Thoreau,
It's sadly too common for parents to overestimate their children, and view any criticism of them as a personal insult worthy of lawyerly involvement. This probably happened in Socrates' day, too.
Children are at best Idiots With Potential, easily distracted by noisy, shiny things. How they learn is so diverse that the one-size-for-all education system just can't work. In homeschooling circles there is often debate over what method works best to transmit the necessary information into their brainpans. Some kids are genuine self-learners and can educate themselves, others need just a gentle prod to stay on course and leave the noisy, shiny things alone. For the majority, some kind of structured system is required, while for others, boot camp with Gunnery Sergeant Hartman is the only answer.
Jason,
I think your aunt would probably agree with Matthew Yglesias:
http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/002267.html#002267
Kevin,
We are in a distance learning program affiliated with one of the state universities that earns the kids credit toward attending that university. Lessons are graded by state-certified Texas teachers, and the texts are state-approved (we augment lessons with information from alternative sources we feel our kids need). So in essence, we "school at home" more than "homeschool". I'm all in favor of a more unschooling approach to foster a more entrepreneurial, non-company-man outlook in our kids, but the wife is terrified they won't be able to make it into college (if they want to go) without a structured, outside-evaluated program (she's paying for it, and since the fees are comparable to community college tuition, I have to bow to her checkbook). Pussywhipped jokes may now commence.
tom: that kinda sucks. (the regulations involved, that is)
but at the same time at least you can bring in outside sources of information.
in a way pre-college educational structures are a perfect preparation for the corporate world - they're filled with silly rules, absurdist social interaction and a whole lot of heirarchical ass kissing.
"She seems to come into the discussion believing that the state has a prior right to educate all children, regardless of a parent's wishes" Right? Gee, I always thought we considered it a responsibility.
Remind me not to hire your children.
.,
Is signing your post with only a period some form of menstruation joke?
Tom,
I'd be more likely to think that a@a is some kind of Randroid joke, if the content of the post didn't make that so absurd. It's no surprise "." wouldn't like to hire a homeschooled person. After all, the government schooling system was set up mainly for the purpose of creating docile citizens and employees with a "good attitude" toward authority.
A guy wrote a letter to the local paper demanding that homeschooled kids be required to use the same texts as the government school kids. I responded by asking if that was a minimum or maximum requirement: could homeschoolers supplement the State curriculum with supplementary reading on what a load of crap the official version of American history was (say, Gabriel Kolko and William Appleman Williams), or would that be a thought-crime punishable by compulsory re-enrollment in the publik skools?
Happy New Year to all.
A few remarks:
1) Everything in this report is well known in
the literature.
2) The point about administrative flexibility
in government schools being used to enforce
mediocrity is well taken, but I think a bit
overstated. Even my wretched public school
district (Federal Way, WA) tried to fire our
drunken (and lecherous) junior high science
teacher for incompetence (after, of course,
making available the appropriate treatments
and so on). They were strongly opposed by
the local teacher labor cartel. In that
case, which I think is not unique, the
ability of principals to fire teachers
would have improved quality.
3) At the same time, I agree with the general
thrust of those who argue that you can't
have real reform without both a market and
getting rid of the labor cartel (which, I
think, would likely follow from having a
market, as private sector unions are now a
rarity in the US in general). Lots and lots
of tests likely have a positive effect at
the margin on the tested subject (though
an overstated one due to "teaching to the
test") but they will have a negative effect
on all unmeasured (and therefore) unrewarded
aspects of the educational experience.
There is, of course, a big literature on
this in economics that includes a very
entertaining paper by Steve Levitt at
Chicago that reveals widespread cheating
*by teachers* on students' standardized
exams. I have been a bit surprised by the
extent to which folks that I admire and
respect, such as Chester Finn, have bought
into the testing agenda at the expense of
real, institutional reform. At the same
time, the testing advocates, at least some
of them, could easily frame their activities
as part of a long run strategy to undermine
the state educational monopoly.
Jeff
Kevin Carson:
Thanks for the Yglesias article. Scary stuff. My impression was that people assumed state superiority because they hadn't thought too much about it and the consequences of a state monopoly the 'truth'.
Hey Yglesias! What happens when Pat Robertson decides what is the truth that we will teach everyone's children?
well, the science books will get thinner.
I am to the point of supporting "Tom from Texas" in advocating home school, because in my experience (32 years teaching in a public high school, retired 2002) it was headed in all the directions described in these comments:
"Dave" who discusses the testing plague, "Shanon Love" and the sucking of talent from the potential pool of teachers, etc.
I am gratified by the quality of responses to this post. Collectively (in a manner I am not prepared to expatiate upon, as in the book I could write but never shall) many partake in part of the truth. And the truth is that the public education of our collective memory is over. Further, it doesn't matter what the causes were. Get over it, and get on with it.
A few suggestions:
1) Home school your own kids, if you dare. The greatest evil lurking here is not that you'll fail, it is that you will turn out carbon copies of yourself, an end to be avoided at all costs.
2) Find a nice private school that'll teach them what you want. These things can be found, if you live in the right place and have the money. The danger here is the Balkanization of America, as our "diversity" manifests itself in a hundred hundred groups, all sending their kids to schools that will nurture their particular tribal beliefs, prejudices, and hatreds. Which is more dangerous than #1.
The moribund public schools were the place where our children were forced to go face-to-face with people of different backgrounds and beliefs and.... to somehow get along. There's nothing to replace the public schools, either, and you can't have them back. Have a nice day.
I teach high-school English, and while I wouldn't mind having a larger budget or paycheck, I can't really complain about money. Hell, the majority of what I teach is in the public domain, and I don't need fancy computers or bells or whistles to teach a kid to write an essay.
I understand how Jason Ligon's aunt might have an anti-parent attitude, though. A lot of parents I've met don't view school as a place to get an EDUCATION--they view it as a place to get a diploma. Big difference. The main problem with schools is that their main concern these days is to avoid hurting people's feelings. Telling a kid that he incorrectly answered a question might make him feel bad.
Question for Dave and other teachers out there--has 'assistive technology' hit your districts yet? When we had to attend an AT seminar last March I thought it would be about things like wheelchairs, hearing aids, and other physical-problem devices. But no--assistive technology refers to intellectual aids.
For kids who have trouble spelling, they can now be issued computers where all the kid has to do is type in the first letter of a word, and the computer will give a list of suggested words. There are other kids who have the problem of not being able to spot grammatical errors unless they hear them (as opposed to reading them), so they get computers with speakers that read the sentences aloud in a mechanical female voice. Each of us teachers had the thrill of actually typing a sentence into the computer and hearing it pronounced. Isn't that fun? This was my sentence:
"I can't wait until Assistive Technology comes to gym class. Just because a kid's a quadriplegic doesn't mean he can't become a damned fine football player."
Later, when the seminar-giver asked for questions, I raised my hand and said, "So far AT has only been in the elementary and middle schools. At the high school level, is there any sort of timetable set up to wean kids off of these devices, or will we start graduating kids who can't write an essay unless a computer chooses the words for them?"
No straight answer to that one.
(Full disclosure: one month after this seminar, it came time for the principal to make the decision between giving me tenure and letting me go. A month after that, I received my first unemployment check, and now I substitute-teach while earning my certification in a neighboring state with much higher salaries.)
J.A. Jr.,
Yes, many homeschoolers (especially the religious ones) desire carbon copies of themselves. But then, so do many who run our public schools - they want students who scold their parents for not recycling, scold adults for smoking, scold their parents' employers for not giving everyone Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a holiday, scold everyone who takes drugs, basically be scolds for whatever the pet causes of their teachers.
IN 2000, my kids came home from public school and said they had had a mock presidentical election, and Al Gore won. Why did he win, I asked. "Everyone voted for him because he wants to save animals, and George Bush wants to give money to other rich people," one of the boys replied. They handed copies of a Weekly Reader-type flyer from one of the teacher associations that the teachers had handed out to all the kids before they voted. Sure enough, Al Gore was described as wanting to work to help the environment and save endangered species, while George Bush was only identified as a "Texas oilman" who had many friends who ran big businesses that hurt the environment.
Our goal is to raise kids who question the views of both the left and the right, and who make their own minds up. Just as I wouldn't want a return to the little red schoolhouse/pledge allegiance days of education where the teacher is god and always right, I don't want the current educrat We-Are-The-World system, either.
Jennifer,
As a freelance writer, I regularly write columns, letters, press releases, ad copy and such for high-powered folk with six-figure incomes who can't string three words together on paper, who can't spell worth a damn, and whose attempts at written communication resemble what 42 chimps will leave on a typewriter after six months of banging the keys. None of which seems to bother them very much, nor make them loose money.
After trying to make a living for years using words on paper, I have come to the conclusion that if people can't spell moccasin, can't differ between the past and the present pluperfect, or forget whether it's "Lay" or "Lie", then the world will still get on with things and the sun will still come up in the morning.
As much as English teachers may hate to hear it, very few people write essays once they get out of school.
That should be "lose money" at the end of graph one. Where's that damn Assistive Technology when you need it?
Tom--
Not essays, but what about letters? E-mails? You still have to communicate in writing from time to time, and a lot of kids literally cannot do that.
You also need to know how to read a basic article and understand what the author is saying. I'll agree you don't need to know as much about assonance and onomatopoeia as the curriculum would say, but I still think Assistive Technology is a terrible idea.
Analogy: we have cheap calculators anyone can afford, but kids should still understand the basics of simple addition and subtraction on their own.
Tom again-
Read your second posting. Assistive Tech would only help you if you can choose between "loose" and "lose." A lot of kids these days can't do that, and I can't teach them how. Apparently telling a kid his spelling is bad is like telling him his religion is wrong. How dare I enforce cultural values like grammar!
Jennifer,
According to some, we are at the dawn of an age of non-written communication (think Star Trek; I don't recall ever seeing Picard or Kirk actually "write" something) so maybe our kids are trailblazers on the next frontier?
One could make the argument that if we use some form of assistive technology in other fields (I am much happier seeing a sales clerk use a cash register to add up my purchases rather than do it in her head) then why should English be out of bounds?
Many of the people I work for are medical doctors. You might think that doctors would need to know how to write in order keep patient records. But the latest in electronic record keeping involves the use of standard templates where the doctor basically clicks on multiple choice options to record your state of health (now nobody can complain about their handwriting). The malpractice insurers love it.
Jennifer--
Apparently you have not been keeping up with the latest in mathematics education reform. Don't you know that cheap calculators have rendered all that memorization obsolete? These days, no college student is prevented from becoming an elementary school teacher by something as trivial as being profoundly ignorant of basic math!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom-
I would say there is a difference between, say, filling out a prescription versus having a conversation. In life, not all communication can be done via multiple choice.
Think about this: I know almost nothing about pharmaceuticals, but I would be willing to bet that there are many instances of medicines with very similar names but very different effects, so that if you need medicine "A1" and instead take "A11" you might die.
Now, if a doctor can't recall, offhand, how to spell the 28-letter chemical name of a medicine, so what. But if the doctor can't correctly choose the correct name from a list of similarly spelled srugs, people could die.
As for the cashier, it is quicker and easier to let the machine add $45.12 and $37.01 and $19.53, but you should know enough about basic math so that if the total comes up to one hundred and fifty dollars they know there's a problem. Surely you don't want to see a science-fictionesque society where people mindlessly assume the computer is always right?
And there's the ability to read. I have seen many instances here on Hit and Run where one person makes an obviously sarcastic suggestion, yet a few otherwise intelligent people take him seriously. ("How dare you suggest we get rid of drug addiction by requiring mandatory daily drug tests of all citizens," etc.) I have had many 17-year-old students who thought Jonathan Swift really advocated the eating of Irish babies, and I could NOT convince the kids otherwise.
Is "Thoreau" on this posting? He's often had his sarcasm misinterpreted; I would be curious to know his take on this.
By the way, forgot to mention that I doubt we will ever get to an entirely spoken society. Reading and writing require different parts of the brain that speaking and listening, and I doubt people will literally behave in such a way as to completely ignore whole hemispheres of their brains. (I know I set myself up for a huge joke response here.) Many pewople find that if they have to learn something, it is easier to learn when the write it down, as opposed to saying it. And so on; I could give many more examples.
Chuck-
Funny you mention math. Yesterday I had to substitute and teach a math class to a group of fourth graders. Word problems; here's one example:
Jack and Jill have eighteen oranges between them. Jack has four more oranges than Jill. How many oranges does each person have?"
Now, fourth graders are too young for basic algebra but there are very simple techniques you could teach kids, to solve this problem. The textbook, however, advocated "Guess and Check;" guess a number and then check if it's right.
"Lessee, Maybe Jack had sixteen oranges? That means Jill had twelve, which makes twenty-eight. . .no. . .Maybe Jack had fifteen? That means Jill has eleven. . ."
"Drugs," not 'srugs.'
"I know almost nothing about pharmaceuticals, "
Neither do many doctors writing prescriptions. Their knowledge comes from the sales reps pushing the drugs. Most doctors are incapable of even TRYING to write legibly, spelling is a lesser problem.
"Surely you don't want to see a science-fictionesque society where people mindlessly assume the computer is always right? "
You already assume some sort of magic usefulness of doctors like some people assume some sort of magic usefulness of government or teachers. What's the difference is some people mistakenly attach some magic usefulness to computers? That behavior ain't science fiction, that's the frickin' Bible!
Jennifer-
Yep, I posted in this thread. See my above comments in defense of teachers.
As to sarcasm: The more sarcastic a person is, the more subtle he's likely to make his sarcasm, and the easier it is for it to be misinterpreted. The most over-the-top sarcasm usually doesn't get me in trouble, it's the more subtle stuff that does. Like when a friend said something critical about Bush, and I simply said to her "Do you hate America?" I had to explain that I was satirizing certain particularly noxious elements of the right.
Thoreau--
I remember your comment; I didn't remember it was you.
Tom from Texas mentioned certain froufrou rules only of interest to grammarians. Let me say that I would have no problem teaching a class on Basic Communicative Written English or How To Read an Opinion Piece and Determine the Opinion Presented Therein; (as opposed to teaching Chaucerian Dialect and the Past Tense Subjunctive Pluperfect etc. etc.)
What I despise is a system where, officially, I am supposed to teach critical thinking and the basics and a few finer points of writing, comprehension and cultural/literary history; but in reality all I'm supposed to do is make sure the kid gets a diploma, whether or not he can read the words on it.
That said, I would not teach in a tony district like Beverly Hills. It would be hard to eran respect from kids whose weekly allowance is ten dollars more than your weekly salary.
As for Russ, I am not saying that doctors are gods, and I am certain that there are MANY incompetent doctors out there; I was simply agreeing with Tom that, for example, a guy could be a fabulous, wonderful doctor without knowing how to define 'bildungsroman' or parse a compound sentence. But I still say the doctor needs basic skills for his profession, including the skill of communicating via writing or at least typing.
I have seen many instances here on Hit and Run where one person makes an obviously sarcastic suggestion, yet a few otherwise intelligent people take him seriously.
That's because you can't convey tone of voice effectively in print. Yes, you may see a remark as being "obviously sarcastic" -- but hey, this is the Internet, Land of Crazy Beliefs.
If I say "I wonder why Bush wants a new Moon landing?" and you reply "To help his oil buddies get rich off rocket fuel, obviously" -- is that sarcasm, or are you just really left-wingy? 🙂
I may be in the minority here, but I fail to see the problems associated with standardized testing. Sure, scores can be juiced by teaching "test-taking skills", but without a decent understanding of the subject matter, no amount of "test-teaching" will generate a good score.
Maybe my opinion is biased from my own, overly positive experiences with standardized testing (PSAT, SAT, GMAT, CFA, etc.) but I don't imagine that I would have done well without having worked on basic literacy skills.
Ultimately, every student will have to demonstrate their abilities on some form of standardized test, whether it's for college admissions or job requirements. If were going to protect their little egos from disappointment when they're young, how do we expect them to not be disappointments when they grow up?
I couldn't care less if little Mary's feelings are hurt because she scored in the bottom quintile in grade 5 math. That's because were not making value judgments on Mary as a person, but solely on her ability to work with numbers.
The sooner kids learn to deal with disappointment, the better.
I had a lengthy discussion about public education with my public HS teacher aunt over the holidays.
She is teaching advanced and college prep English in a wealthy district, and has a lot of success getting kids into ivy league schools. She made two comments that I found striking. The first was that she shouldn't have to 'beg and scrape' for funding. I indicated that she seemed to be doing fine on the budget she had, to which she replied that it shouldn't be that hard. The idea that businesses have to operate within budgets did not remotely make an impression on her. These are, after all, kids and not widgets.
The second comment was that parents were the biggest impediment to educating a child properly. The idea that she was working to satisfy a parental demand was so alien that she didn't even understand what I was saying. Parents were obstacles, and you can't have a market in education because then parents will only get the education they want, which is apparently none. The role of the educator is to overcome inequities in parenting. You get the idea.
hey Jason - I had a terrific english teacher in High School named Mrs.Ligon. This aunt of yours doesn't happen to teach in Franklin, Mass does she?
Jason,
An aunt like yours is enough to give a parent nightmares.
Fuck the system. Homeschool your kids, or hire others to (via private school). Take control of you children's education.
at the same time, i think back to a lot of the parents at my (public) high school. they were the ones upset about an AP class (of 10 people) reading portrait of the artist as a young man. none of their kids were in the class yet the idea that a book mentions hookers and secular humanism flipped them the fuck out.
i'd certainly weep for the fate of their children.
Brian,
She has moved around quite a bit over her career, but I don't recall a position in Mass. I believe your choices would be DE, PA, TX, or, currently SC.
The degradation in the quality of the talent pool for teachers is partially an unintended consequence of sexual equality in the general labor market.
Prior to the 70's, an education degree offered the only reliable and respectable career for highly intelligent and driven young woman. Sexism forced many woman who today would be high paid professionals to be teachers instead. In effect, they were drafted and forced to work for compensation far below what their intellects would earn them in the free market. (The state monopoly on education also reinforced these artificially low wages)
As a consequence, generations of Americans received educations from the best and the brightest women of their times. The end of sexual discrimination sucked these bright women out of the education market and prevented most of the younger sisters from entering it in the first place.
We will never be able to afford to pay for that level talent again but school choice, which would allow teachers to get paid according to their individual merits would go a long, long way toward improving the situation.
Shannon,
While women who might today be successful in medicine, law, business or finance instead were often in the past limited to the teaching profession, those same women also enjoyed widespread support and respect from parents because they represented values and a worldview shared with the parents. Today, many teachers apparently subscribe to views that are polar opposites of what many of their students' parents hold, hence a portion of the distrust and discomfort that some parents feel.
In reading my kids' state-approved homeschooling (oxymoronic, I know...) textbooks, apparently the highest aspiration anyone should have is to manage a recycling center. When the topic turns to adult employment opportunities, most often cited are public sector jobs - policeman, fireman, public school teacher (surprise!). Rarely is any mention made of small businessmen (when they are, it's usually a kindly older man with an ethnic name who runs the corner bodega). No mention is made of people who create goods or offer services, employ a tax-paying, consumer- spending workforce and pay health benefits to same.
But at least now I can look at my kids' texts. For five years of public school, they were never allowed to bring any textbooks home (they are the property of the state, remember). I had to schedule special appointments (during the teacher's break periods only) if I wanted to review what I was letting my kids be taught.
Shannon-
My mother, a nurse, says similar things about nursing. Sure, some it is probably the "You know, in the good old days, new nurses were so much smarter than they are today" thing that you hear in every profession. But my mother also says that if she were 18 years old today she'd study pre-med in college, not nursing. So I'm inclined to believe that the quality of nurses may also be declining.
I've been teaching in the public schools for a decade now. Well, I've been working in the public schools, anyway. Teaching is not really what the public schools want, it seems. My job has become nothing more than test preparation. The various and sundry standardized tests my students are subjected to have become the one and only focus of politicians, administrators, and principals.
To my way of thinking, test preparation does not equal education. I'm not sure a high score on these tests means the child is educated to any meaningful degree, and I don't believe a low score necessarily means the child has been "left behind". I'm absolutely sure, however, that federalizing and politicizing all educational policy decisions is wrong. At least, it's driving me out of the profession. Heaven forbid, I may have to use my law degree now. Just what the world needs.
Tom-
Don't assume that textbooks which ran a PC gauntlet represent your average teacher. For every lefty teacher whose students have more traditional parents, there's a teacher who subscribes to the quaint notion that kids should be graded on how well they do the work, and some parents who either simply don't care, or else who are convinced that their kid is special and deserves an A no matter what.
In other words, parents and teachers run the gamut of beliefs and attitudes and probably always have.
An interesting story about your aunt. It's funny how different people's assumptions can be going into any given conversation. The idea of public education and one's right to it is so firmly entrenched in many people's minds that they're often unable to see that it isn't the only way and probably isn't the best way to solve the problem of educating children. She seems to come into the discussion believing that the state has a prior right to educate all children, regardless of a parent's wishes, and that the right that the state has to control what information is somehow translated into another right for money on demand, regardless of how it's spent or how the money is acquired. Those sorts of presuppositions bring to mind the way that I feel about the Catholic belief that the communion actually turns into the body and blood of Christ; it's kind of a nifty superstition, but it's absolutely mindblowing that people actually believe it to be true. It's hard to even know where to start with someone who believes that they not only know best for everyone, but that men with guns should enforce that preconception on other people's children. Crazy.
That headline led me to expect a completely different story.
To Jennifer - grossly offtopic,
Not only Swift advocated eating Irish babies, he also was the one who came up with CAPPS II. I kid ya not!
And while we're at it: during my teaching stint I had a college student whom I instructed to "dissolve 587,000 pmol of a certain compound to a final concentration of 100 pmol/ul, disregarding volume change". He couldn't figure out the # of ul's required. Um, that's not even high school math...
What is it, once part whiskey to two parts mixer?
basic algebra was well beyond me until college. and by then i was done taking math classes, thankfully. never could understand the obscenity of mixing numbers and letters together. 🙂
Maybe kids can do algebra in fourth grade; I don't know. My point was that "guess and check" is an incredibly stupid, time-consuming way to solve a problem.
More on tests for the record:
I am not opposed to testing students. What I am
opposed to is excessive reliance on tests as a
way to evaluate teachers. There are several
issues here:
1) It is really hard to measure value added.
If you can't measure value added, then
teachers at schools with kids with educated
parents get rewarded just for that. Also,
given that many classes are of size 20-30,
mean test scores have a lot of variance.
2) Some things that we want schools to do are
easy to test, others are hard to test. If
teachers get rewarded mainly for test scores,
they will rationally focus all their teaching
effort on the things that are easy to test,
which are the things that get tested. In such
situations, it is fine to do the tests but
you want there to be "low powered incentives"
- that's econ jargon for not making too big
a fuss about them at the teacher level,
because you do not want to cause excessive
misallocation of teacher effort.
I flunk undergrads in my classes regularly,
and had a grad student got tossed out of our
program for plagiarism that I detected through
some research on the internet. Wimpiness is
not the issue; getting the incentives righ is.
Good discussion.
Cheers -
Jeff
Basic algebra is beyond 4th graders?! How bad are your schools? My daughter had that EXACT question posed last year in one of her assignments. She got it wrong on the first go, but she was only in grade one. My God! And we're complaining about our education system having problems . . .
Dan: re the moon question: Yes on all counts, including Bush's reasons for wanting to go . . .
Sorry, couldn't resist.