Reform of education-my solution:

[bomba923]

Reform of education--my solution:...

Here's my solution towards increasing quality of public education:

*After each grade from 8-12, students will take a state exam on English, math, history...well, whatever basic subjects the state wants covered by those grades

*(For teachers) A teacher's income will depend on how closely do the grades they assign match their students' performance on the exam.

-For example, an algebra teacher assigns a student an "F", but that students scores an "A" on the state exam's algebra section (for his/her particular grade, of course). That teacher's income is lowered, similarly if they assigned an "A" to a student who failed the exam's algebra section.

-However, this is nothing serious . Just one or two misgraded student(s)?--Will not impact the teacher's income. Nothing to worry about. But...()..if the teacher misgrades proportions upon large proportions of students, then his/her salary will be impacted indeed.

-Yes, a statistical approach evaluating every student's teacher<->exam grades will be used. Not just mere "samples". Every student...quantitatively considered. (thanks to computers )
---------------------------------
More conditions:

*If a teacher assigns an "A" to a student, but the student fails the particular section of the exam, they will not be admitted to the next level course.
-An example: An algebra teacher assigns a "B" to a student who fails the exam's algrebra section, but passes well in English and history. The student will be held back a semester/year in math...but will nevertheless move on towards the next level English & history courses.
*Of course, the whatever "credit/course" requirements for that high school...will probably have to met anyway for graduation
---------------------------
In effect:

-Teachers will actually have to grade more directly on students' competence, skills, understanding, and ability.
-You won't have students in trigonometry class, for example, who cannot multiply fractions.
-Poorly performing teachers will receive a smaller income, opening up the income "pool" for more outstanding or competent teachers.
-Teachers who teach fewer students will be encouraged to concentrate and pay more attention to each of those indiivduals students...because grades for ten/twenty students will matter more than for a teacher who teaches many more students!
----------------------------
*Problems addressed:

1) What if a teacher doesn't teach well and just gives every one a 'D' or 'F' ?

-There are already quotas for the distribution of A/B's & C/D's and F's a teacher can assign without risking a loss in income...or an "investigation" for that matter . My "teacher<->exam grade" method will not interfere with those quotas...unless it has to (?). I will expand on this, of course.

2) What if a teacher receives many students who are ill-prepared/have problems/incompetent/etc...?

-That is currently a problem faced today! (i.e., without my method). However, my method does help alleviate some major tension----e.g., you don't pass the algebra section, you don't move on to trigonomentry class. That teacher will not have to put up with you. Same with other subjects when passing into the next level.

-Also, the ineptitude/incompetence of students has NO effect on the teacher's income from my method. The teacher is merely required to "fairly evaluate" students, even if it thus means giving an "F". Remember, the income here depends not on the "actual grade assigned" but rather on how closely whatever "grade gets assigned" matches the grade received on the state exam...be it an A,B,C,D or F or whatever. Remember (however) to reread Question #1 after reading this part .

-A trigonometry teacher is not responsible...or at least "supposed to be" ...for a student who cannot multiply fractions. But the teacher will have to put up with him/her anyway if they passed their last semester's/year's algebra course! In a way, the algebra teacher deserves some blame. But any-way, if the student fails the algebra section, then they will not advance into school courses beyond algebra regardless of what their teacher may have assigned to them.

-Similarly, if an algebra teacher assigns an "F" to a student who well passes the algebra section, then...well, screw the teacher. The student will advance to next level math!

-You see, those exams are somewhat of a "filter"...if you wish to call it thus.

3) What if a student cuts class and doesn't take the teacher's tests/assignments? How can the teacher assess them without risking loss of income?

Simple. Write a note to the district explaining (with good reason) why that particular individual(s) cannot be fairly assessed. That's all (and the student's exam score will not be held for or against the teacher).

4) Well...what if the test is too easy/hard? What if the teacher wants to do more than just prepare students for a "test" ?

-Excuse me? "Wishful thinking" is not a question. Public education has extremely low standards and does not perform to even an "adequate" level. Across many neighborhoods, public education severely underperforms. How can we talk about "academic edification beyond standards" when we HAVE NOT EVEN MET THEM? Discuss this here, at a General Discussion thread called, "To Americans: Opinions on our schools " (Poll included).

-Sure, once we have achieved and perform to good standards...we can scrap this whole "teacher<->exam" grade idea and move on! But not when our public education is the way it is now (and has been for more than two decades). This deserves more of a "" expression...

5) Your examples talk about A's & F's. But what about B/C/D's ??

-There are shades of gray indeed. Surely a teacher<->exam grade disparity of "A" to "F" will definitely affect the teacher's income more than would a "B"<->"C" disparity or an "C"<->"A" disparity.
-Again, I will re-emphasize that one/two mis-graded individuals will NOT impact a teacher's salary. Only proportions upon large proportions will severely impact a teacher's salary. This may or may not depend on the quantity of students a teacher teaches . Anyhow, a single/double "A"<->"C" disparity will not affect much. Nor might more than few "A"<->"B" disparities affect anything (those might be rather minor). On the other hand, several "A"<->"D"/"A"<->"C" or "B"<->"D/F" disparities WILL (without doubt) affect salary. And several "A"<->"F" disparities? Not good at all.

*In other words, the effect on income depends what proportions (or raw quantity, if some might prefer) of that teacher's students are affected by what sizes of disparities.

-And yes...every student (thanks to computers!), NOT just mere "samples" from the teacher will be quantitatively considered.

6) Ok..let's say the teacher expects an average "B" grade for the class. What prevents the teacher from randomly assigning "B-C-B-C-A-C-B-B-A-C..etc" to his/her students regardless of their performance?

The teacher's salary will. You see, a non-lazy teacher will aim for "no disparity AT ALL!" (approach) rather than randomly minimizing it and assign grades randomly about the expected mean performance. The teacher who takes the time to carefully evaluate each student (as they're supposed to) will without doubt earn much more than a teacher who randomly dishes out grades.
(**Unless a teacher can just "LOOK" at a student and immediately give out the accurate grade ...but no one is really that "psychic" )

Needless to say, especially holds true if the class is expected to have a large standard deviation between students' competence, abilities, and performance. But you understand my point here nonetheless.

-For further contentions against Question #6, remember that students can usually bring parents and argue their grades with teachers, based on what the teacher "told" them regarding how the students "will be graded". -Also remember that no serious checks for "random assignment of grades" exist today. Feel free to start another thread on this particular but ridiculously minor issue...which I have needlessly expanded on in my pedantic-ism (not that I am pedantic, but I would like to be).

And finally...question #7:
7) Do you realize that you might become the archenemy of the teachers' union for proposing this?

(Yes. Indeed I do . But I don't really care here )
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
*Anyhow, seriously...

What are your thoughts? Ideas? Insight? What do you guys think about my teacher<->exam this approach/method/idea ??

 

[devious_]

I doubt this will ever be implemented. You'll have all these soccer moms and such *****ing about how schools have become so hard and how their poor little children need to relax and "enjoy" school.

 

[rachmaninoff]

This is utterly ridiculous. We all know the schools aren't that effective, but how does systematically failing everyone do any good? That's obviously the immediate result of this. And this "plan" doesn't even consider the root issues... getting motivated, competent teachers and getting them to teach well. The only thing it pretends to remedy is grade inflation, and it solves that problem about as well as, say, dropping H-bombs on the schools.

 

[bomba923]

This is utterly ridiculous. We all know the schools aren't that effective, but how does systematically failing everyone do any good?

How does it "fail" everyone ? It only holds back those people who are not ready for next level courses. Heck, we even do that now to some degree. My plan will (in a minor way) reforms the current process of and how/why we hold back students. Remember that we do not demand that a 9th grader have skills & understanding in calculus, nor do we expect an 8th grader taught in US History to pass a section in Mexican history.

And this "plan" doesn't even consider the root issues... getting motivated, competent teachers and getting them to teach well.

Teachers cannot accommodate every single student, nor can they inspire all. What inspires some to pursue chemistry may discourage others to ever step on that subject ever again.

Secondly, that is not a requirement of my plan. There is no "current check" on how teachers "motivate" or how "competently they teach". If anything, my plan would increase teacher competence and performance in the classroom, combining the state's grade distribution quotas with my "teacher<->exam" grade factor will only encourage teachers to teach better and more. (If anything, I'd say "grade inflation" is a 'root' issue itself)

Again, how does my plan "undermine" the root issues? Compared to what we have now?

The only thing it pretends to remedy is grade inflation, and it solves that problem about as well as, say, dropping H-bombs on the schools.

And the only thing you pretend to remedy is your empty slander with a baseless conclusion.

Aside from that, a decrease in grade inflation can actually increase the quality of education. Parents will question why their children receive the grade they'll receive (thus their concern in their child's academic performance will more accurately translate into a concern for their child's academic competence). Students will know what to improve on, and will have a clearer idea of what their skills are and how and what they need to improve. In addition, my plan will discourage teachers from assigning & grading work that is unrelated to the course material. There many more additional benefits, which I'll elucidate later.

 

[Jelfish]

I've got an idea - how about offer teachers enough pay such that there would actually be competition for their positions rather than forcing rules that make being a teacher even more crappy than it already is?

I think your idea is much too standardizing. I mean, if I were a teacher and I had a brilliant student in my class who was also a troublemaker, poor influence on other students, didn't do homework, I'd fail him even if he scored perfectly on this exam. And I wouldn't be willing to write a hundred letters to justify each grade. Being a teacher isn't JUST about teaching material, especially in the younger grades. I mean, really - consider how many qualified teachers actually want to teach K-12. Then consider how far schools need to go in order to get willing teachers (read: low standards). Then consider how many would be teaching if suddenly their already low pay also requires heavy competition (just because you're distributing it differently doesn't mean there's more total). And this is completely ignoring the humongous beurocracy and overhead cost required in this auditing system. Also, you'd have to consider that certain cities have better funded schools because of local property tax. The bottom line is, the problem isn't solved and you have less people willing to be teachers. Redistribution of measly funds doesn't benefit anyone.

 

[rachmaninoff]

That and the fact that'd you in reality hold up anywhere from 30-40% of the nation's students, depending on which standardized test you use. (NAEP) Focusing just on the 12th year students who would otherwise graduate, this would mean you'd have to increase the number or capacity of secondary schools by 10% over the summer; number of teachers too. And the labor market would experience a massive, sudden shortage of HS graduates. None of this is remotely reasonable.

And this is completely ignoring the humongous beurocracy and overhead cost required in this auditing system

Let alone the cost of accomadating all the students held behind!

 

[Gale]

yeah, i think you put too much blame on teachers. how about parents of lousy students pay more taxes or something? their children take up more resources, and so they should pay more, aye? no one wants to teach these days already, you'll make the shortage of teachers worse with that sort of system. i WANT to teach, but no way in hell would you get me working in a system like that.

at any rate, how would you create those final tests eh? cause i don't believe that ONE test could adequately decide whether a student was prepared to move on. I'm an excellent test taker. in middle and high school, i'd often slack the whole semester, and just ace the final at the end after a day or two of studying. finals were weighted so much, no matter how little homework i did, it never mattered. i can't say i learned that material very well. definately not as well as i should have.

my quick theory: test kids on the same material over and over. i never understood why people didn't like classes that had tests every week. they're effective. especially at the higher level when most of the learning is independent anyway.

 

[mattmns]

Lowering a teacher's pay because of a lazy student? That is no doubt the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

 

[tribdog]

How about teachers get a raise if any of their students can read this thread and tell mattmns what it's about.

 

[mattmns]

Maybe you can explain this part trib:

"-For example, an algebra teacher assigns a student an "F", but that students scores an "A" on the state exam's algebra section (for his/her particular grade, of course). That teacher's income is lowered, similarly if they assigned an "A" to a student who failed the exam's algebra section."

 

[ComputerGeek]

This is utterly ridiculous. We all know the schools aren't that effective, but how does systematically failing everyone do any good? That's obviously the immediate result of this. And this "plan" doesn't even consider the root issues... getting motivated, competent teachers and getting them to teach well. The only thing it pretends to remedy is grade inflation, and it solves that problem about as well as, say, dropping H-bombs on the schools.

The roots of the problems in US education are not only good teachers, but students need to take responsibility for their education (something teachers can impact, as well as parents), and parents need to emphasis the importance of education.

 

[tribdog]

Maybe you can explain this part trib:

"-For example, an algebra teacher assigns a student an "F", but that students scores an "A" on the state exam's algebra section (for his/her particular grade, of course). That teacher's income is lowered, similarly if they assigned an "A" to a student who failed the exam's algebra section."

makes perfect sense to me. Makes the teacher take an active role in a student's life. Make sure they study, go to bed early on test nights. Wake up and have a good breakfast or get docked in pay. what could be simpler?

 

[mattmns]

what could be simpler?

Have the Parents do their job.

 

[bomba923]

I've got an idea - how about offer teachers enough pay such that there would actually be competition for their positions rather than forcing rules that make being a teacher even more crappy than it already is?

"More crappy"? You have yet to clarify any reasons why my system would make teachers "more crappy", because I've pointed that my system would make teachers "more competent."

Secondly, throwing hard money at the teachers' union won't make teachers more effective. An ineffective/incompentent/grade-inflating teacher is likely to remain one. That's what we've been doing for the past years, and yet standards have not significantly risen. Apparently some states (e.g., California) has yet to learn this. Now it is time to demand competition between teachers for the money we currently a lot to them.

I think your idea is much too standardizing. I mean, if I were a teacher and I had a brilliant student in my class who was also a troublemaker, poor influence on other students, didn't do homework, I'd fail him even if he scored perfectly on this exam.

Uh huh?? And your so-called "brilliant" student purposely fail their exams and cause trouble?? (notice the faulty assuming that takes place)

Teachers have guidelines by which they can fail students for misbehaving. Appeal to those guidelines via a letter, and that student won't affect your salary.

Thirdly, I'll re-re-emphasize:

Again, I will re-emphasize that one/two mis-graded individuals will NOT impact a teacher's salary.

Proportions upon large proportions of "brilliant"-purposely-test-failing-troublemaking students?? You are indeed crazy.

And I wouldn't be willing to write a hundred letters to justify each grade.

Read what I said above about how "brilliant" students will not fail your tests. If they do, they'll probably even fail the final "state" test if they're so ****ty. Secondly, a hundred is much larger than one; will you will have "hundreds of (realistically inexistant) brilliant-but-purposely-test-failing-your tests-but-aceing-the-state test-which-your-own-tests are based on?

(Think of how impossible your case really is.)

I mean, really - consider how many qualified teachers actually want to teach K-12.

I would like to add...qualified to teach ONLY K-12.

Then consider how far schools need to go in order to get willing teachers (read: low standards).

Or how teachers need to find willing schools (most easily those with low standards).

Then consider how many would be teaching if suddenly their already low pay also requires heavy competition (just because you're distributing it differently doesn't mean there's more total).

Ok...look: THE "TOTAL" does NOT matter. Redistributing the money to good teachers will encourage them (and in competition as well) to teach more and better, as they WILL be paid more. Simply take money from the poorly performing/incompetent teachers and give more of it to the better performing teachers...without having to change the net "Total". Competition may encourage the poorly performing teachers to perform better. Read my original post to see how my system may filter incompetent students so teachers can have an easier time teaching better. And then read some more.

And this is completely ignoring the humongous beurocracy and overhead cost required in this auditing system.

Which, upon implementing my system, will be stressful than the current "humongous bureauocracy" we have RIGHT NOW even without my system

at any rate, how would you create those final tests eh? cause i don't believe that ONE test could adequately decide whether a student was prepared to move on.

No, but we can...for example, demand that 9th graders know how to multiply and add fractions. We can demand that after 10th grade students know what a complete sentence is, and the types of clauses.

My tests are not going to demand calculus skills from 9th graders or six-page discourses on literature from 10th graders.

You see, my tests are more of a "standard filter" ensuring that students can work up to the basic standards...however low they might be.

"No test can adequately decide..."? Sure! No test is 100% accurate. A reductio ad absurdum leads to the conclusion that we should eliminate all testing of any sort b/c it is un-accurate in some way. But this is ridiculous.

Yes, no test can assess student skills & knowledge with 100% accuracy. But we can make reasonable demands on their skills and knowledge for each grade level. That topic is pursued in my system.

If public education was an academically effective system, my tests would be a pushover...just a kick in the bucket...for any normal student. Nothing at all to even worry about.

Lowering a teacher's pay because of a lazy student? That is no doubt the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

No, your contention is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. I'll mention once again:

-Also, the ineptitude/incompetence of students has NO effect on the teacher's income from my method. The teacher is merely required to "fairly evaluate" students, even if it thus means giving an "F". Remember, the income here depends not on the "actual grade assigned" but rather on how closely whatever "grade gets assigned" matches the grade received on the state exam...be it an A,B,C,D or F or whatever.

Maybe you can explain this part trib:

"-For example, an algebra teacher assigns a student an "F", but that students scores an "A" on the state exam's algebra section (for his/her particular grade, of course). That teacher's income is lowered, similarly if they assigned an "A" to a student who failed the exam's algebra section."

I'm pretty sure trib understands that it is not the "actual grade assigned" but rather how closely that grade matches the grade received on the test. Regardless of whether it is an A, B, C, D, or F. In no way are teachers penalized by handing out a bad grade. Only if that bad grade contrasts the student's performance on the state exam.

If a teacher gives an "F" to a student who fails the algebra section, NO PROBLEM. Teacher is home free, and is not penalized because there is no visible disparity between a "F" on the test and an "F" in class. If the teacher<->exam grade compares as an "A"<->"A", no problem at all (nothing happens)! Only if the teacher assigns an "A" to a student who fails the section, or an "F" to a student who scores an "A" on the section...is there a problem. And it is a minor one; one/two students will not even noticeably affect the teacher's salary. Read my original post for more, on question #5.

The roots of the problems in US education are not only good teachers, but students need to take responsibility for their education (something teachers can impact, as well as parents), and parents need to emphasis the importance of education.

Agreed! Unfortunately, "grade inflation" seems to shroud this problem from parents & public. And my system helps correct similar issues related to this.

 

[Gale]

what i said about your tests is that there are plenty of kids capable of acing them without knowing the material. i was one of those students. I'm a student like Jelfish said. and i was close to failing a lot of classes, except that i always aced the final exams. i was not the only student who slacked all semester and only stepped up for one exam. And i was saying that if your exam's purpose is to make sure students know the material before moving on, then it won't for a number of students like myself. and i don't think I'm so terribly small a majority. I can ace an exam without knowing the material well. like i said, i went on to calc III with rudimentary understanding of integrals and derivatives. i definately shouldn't've have been allowed to move on, but even in your system i would be. I've recovered now, but i'd be a flaw in your system.

And again, i don't think you addressed the teacher's pay adequately. If you're paying the good teachers more, how much more can they really get? likely not a significant amount unless the poor teachers are really getting pay docks. If you're a poor teacher and getting poor pay... what'll you do? QUIT. no one's going to want to go into the teaching field either if there's already so many dissatisfied teachers. so now we have a teachers shortage. how do you get teachers back? lower standards. Your system is self defeating.

 

[mattmns]

No, your contention is the most ridiculous thing I've heard.

You are right! Why I am contending such a ludicrous "solution."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The idea of effecting the individual teachers pay is a bad one in my opinion though the premise of you idea isn't so bad. We could administer the proposed tests then contrast them with grade records and have the results issued to policy makers and published publicly. From this pressure could be placed on those who run things at a higher level. Those on the board of education may find that they will not be receiving the raises they had been anticipating. Pressure can be applied to the union for their members who are sub par. ect...
Teachers already make very little money. Here in CA as you probably know we have been giving more and more money to schools every year even though the union tries to twist the facts and say that education is being cut. That money is going somewhere but our schools are still crap, our teachers are underpaid, and they keep complaining that they need more money. Considering this I think that the problem is somewhere higher up the chain and that's where the pressure ought to be applied.

That and the fact that'd you in reality hold up anywhere from 30-40% of the nation's students, depending on which standardized test you use. (NAEP) Focusing just on the 12th year students who would otherwise graduate, this would mean you'd have to increase the number or capacity of secondary schools by 10% over the summer; number of teachers too. And the labor market would experience a massive, sudden shortage of HS graduates. None of this is remotely reasonable.

He's suggesting testing the students yearly to make sure they are up to speed not just once at the end of their HS career. He's also advocating allowing the students who do poorly in one subject to still continue on to the next level in the rest so they wouldn't exactly be held back a grade.
Regarding HS graduates and employment there was once a time when having an HS diploma was not required to get a job because most people didn't have them. If suddenly fewer people had HS diplomas employers would simply start hiring people without. The lack of qualified individuals in non-skilled labour only means a drop in requirments.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Dude, there is no grade inflation. Criteria based grading is not grade inflation.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Is it the Unions twisting facts, or are the schools actually not getting the money and the unions are just stating the facts from their end?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Dude, there is no grade inflation. Criteria based grading is not grade inflation.

I believe he is talking about students that are passed from one grade to the next and one level to the next when they shouldn't have been. It does happen, and unfortunately quite often, that teachers give students passing grades when they shouldn't have received them just to keep them moving through the system and get them graduated regardless of whether they learned anything or earned their grades.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Is it the Unions twisting facts, or are the schools actually not getting the money and the unions are just stating the facts from their end?

They specifically have accused the governator of cutting funding to education. The fact is that there hasn't been an actual cut in funding. To the contrary there have been nothing but increases in funding. They just didn't get the size of increase they wanted and therefore are accusing him of cutting funding when infact he has increased it. It just doesn't sound as terrible I guess when they say that he's "cutting our increase".

 

[ComputerGeek]

That is not grade inflation though.

Grade inflation means that a teacher gives students higher grades than they earn. Under Norm based grading is the system that people refer to as the better way when criticizing criterion based grading when referring to grade inflation.

Student promotion is something that is only peripherally related to grade inflation in that grade inflation is one rout (but not the most common rout) of promoting students to the next grade..

 

[bomba923]

"Grade inflation" can refer to several things:

1) Grading students on work unrelated and non-correlative with competence & knowledge in and of the course material. For example, a student receives mostly D's/F's on tests in algebra but does most of his/her homework can have his/her grade inflated by a teacher restricting tests to 20% of the grade and raising homework to account for ~60-70%, with the other 10% being "participation" or "organization of papers" or (some other useless task). By the teacher's system, the student's grade is not reflective of his/her competence, knowledge, skills, and understanding, appearing "too high" for a student of that low caliber. Thus, the grade is "inflated" beyond what can reflect the student's competence/knowledge/ability. Any such grading system that fails to reflect student competence/knowledge can also be categorized as "grade inflating"...even unbecknownst to the teacher/parent/student.

2) Also, grade inflation can take the form of "+20 extra credit points for an organized binder, which will add 5-12% towards your overall grade"...despite the fact that the student may seriously lack the competence and knowledge of the course and its material.

My system helps correct "grade inflation".

-To fairly assess their students, teachers will be discouraged from assigning...and having to grade...work unrelated to the course material.
-They will be discouraged from assigning a grade that the student does not deserve, as grades will based on the student's competence and understanding of a subject, rather than mere "blind effort" or "attendance" (in some cases).
-Students will understand more clearly what their actual capabilities are in terms of individual competence/knowledge of course material & skills.
-Without grade inflation, parents will more easily become aware of their child's academic strengths and weakness
-Teachers can be sure that prospective students who they'll teach are prepared for the course material (e.g., if they fail the algebra section, they won't move onto trigonometry)
-Teachers with fewer students will be encouraged to pay more attention to the skills and understanding of each individual (as each single student will matter more when calculating the differences in the teacher's assignment of grades versus the students' performance on the test).
-Good academic standards can be enforced before students enter college/university
-Teachers will no longer be able to inflate grades without penalty. From that comes many other benefits.
-Decrease in the incomes of poorly performing teachers will open up the income pool for good teachers

Criteria based grading is not grade inflation.

Unless the criteria itself fails to accurately assess students in terms of individual competence, understanding, and ability. When teachers implement a system of grading criteria that fails to accurately assess the competence & knowledge of students, we have "grade inflation". Whether or not the teacher/parent/student knows about it.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Your system is overly beurocratic and will do nothing but get school districts to teach to the test which will in turn just hurt the education of the students because rather than teaching for the students to know and understand, they will be taught to retain the information long enough to take the test.

 

[Jelfish]

"More crappy"? You have yet to clarify any reasons why my system would make teachers "more crappy", because I've pointed that my system would make teachers "more competent."

No, you misread my post. I didn't say that your system would make teachers more crappy, I said it would make it a less desirable job.

Secondly, throwing hard money at the teachers' union won't make teachers more effective. An ineffective/incompentent/grade-inflating teacher is likely to remain one. That's what we've been doing for the past years, and yet standards have not significantly risen. Apparently some states (e.g., California) has yet to learn this. Now it is time to demand competition between teachers for the money we currently a lot to them.

If there is more money in the system, then there will be a greater supply of teachers that are not ineffective. Then perhaps schools can be selective.

Uh huh?? And your so-called "brilliant" student purposely fail their exams and cause trouble?? (notice the faulty assuming that takes place)

Teachers have guidelines by which they can fail students for misbehaving. Appeal to those guidelines via a letter, and that student won't affect your salary.

Thirdly, I'll re-re-emphasize:Proportions upon large proportions of "brilliant"-purposely-test-failing-troublemaking students?? You are indeed crazy.

No doubt the reason I'm "crazy" is that, again, you misread my post. I said that I would consider failing a student despite his or her brilliance in an exam if I felt that this student was, say, extremely desruptive to other students. Please don't be so quick to twist my words.

Read what I said above about how "brilliant" students will not fail your tests. If they do, they'll probably even fail the final "state" test if they're so ****ty. Secondly, a hundred is much larger than one; will you will have "hundreds of (realistically inexistant) brilliant-but-purposely-test-failing-your tests-but-aceing-the-state test-which-your-own-tests are based on?

(Think of how impossible your case really is.)

Again, read my post.

I would like to add...qualified to teach ONLY K-12.

That's absolutely untrue. People get degrees to teach younger children. It's not a "oh, I'm not good enough to teach high school so I teach middle school" deal. You're making a huge generalization on the integrity of teachers in general.

Or how teachers need to find willing schools (most easily those with low standards).

The need for a teacher to find a 'willing' school is completely irrelevant because the school can say no.

Ok...look: THE "TOTAL" does NOT matter. Redistributing the money to good teachers will encourage them (and in competition as well) to teach more and better, as they WILL be paid more. Simp[ly take money from the poorly performing/incompetent teachers and give more of it to the better performing teachers...without having to change the net "Total". Competition may encourage the poorly performing teachers to perform better. Read my original post to see how my system may filter incompetent students so teachers can have an easier time teaching better. And then read some more.

Imagine an American History teacher. He lectures to students everyday about the importance of our Consitution, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, etc. His students take your exam and do mediocrely because perhaps he put less emphasis on memorizing facts and more on invoking a sense of importance of the subject (shame on him). After all, your test is probably multiple choice, unless you were planning on hiring a bunch of essay readers and standardizing correct open response questions.

The math teacher next door teaches algebra, where they learn about solving for unknown variables, inverse operations, functions. The students are drilled everyday on specific skills. They ace the test.

That's just ONE very conceivable example of how your standardized testing fails. Not every subject can be tested equally. How are you going to test PE teachers? Should there be a standardization to how effective a PE teacher is? Should we give all the students fitness exams as a measure of how much a PE teacher gets paid?

You're neglecting something very important - reality. Just because you have an idealized plan doesn't mean it will hold up in real life. You have to account for all of those things.

Oh and by the way, I'd LOVE to be a teacher in your system, where if every teacher becomes better by the same amount, they all get paid exactly the same. Sucks to be you, most-improved-PE-teacher-of-the-year. Don't tell me to read your post again when you didn't read mine at all. I did read your post and I clearly disagreed with it.

Which, upon implementing my system, will be stressful than the current "humongous bureauocracy" we have RIGHT NOW even without my system

I have no idea what this means, but maybe I'll just assume you said something rediculously absurd since that seems to be the trend. I'm not going to try to respond to this until you can give a solid method of standardizing every subject and mapping that to a salary distribution between all teachers (of different subjects).

No, but we can...for example, demand that 9th graders know how to multiply and add fractions. We can demand that after 10th grade students know what a complete sentence is, and the types of clauses.

My tests are not going to demand calculus skills from 9th graders or six-page discourses on literature from 10th graders.

You see, my tests are more of a "standard filter" ensuring that students can work up to the basic standards...however low they might be.

"No test can adequately decide..."? Sure! No test is 100% accurate. A reductio ad absurdum leads to the conclusion that we should eliminate all testing of any sort b/c it is un-accurate in some way. But this is ridiculous.

My apologies to Gale for responding to this.

What's rediculous isn't the testing. What's rediculous is having a teacher be put under the pressure of having his or her salary based on it. I mean, have you considered the fact that students could artificially do poorly to spite a teacher they don't like? (oh wait, this must be covered by one of your thousands of small subtleties, which is, by the way, how standardizations FAIL. A private investigation, perhaps? Sure, you can pay for it.) Standardized tests that affect STUDENTS work because students are motivated to graduate high school if not learn for the sake of learning.

Yes, no test can assess student skills & knowledge with 100% accuracy. But we can make reasonable demands on their skills and knowledge for each grade level. That topic is pursued in my system.

Again, you're affecting teachers in an inaccurate and second-hand manner. If you're so convinced that tests are reasonable, why not just test the teachers themselves in some sort of practical pedagogy exam and have that affect their salary?

If public education was an academically effective system, my tests would be a pushover...just a kick in the bucket...for any normal student. Nothing at all to even worry about.

Really? So an effective education system either physically enforces students to learn and study material or be so low in standards that any fluctuation in individual student effort is effectively negligent. That sounds wonderful.

No, your contention is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. I'll mention once again:

Similar apologies to Mattmns. This is regarding lazy students. I think you're not understanding the ramifications of a "lazy student." I believe his point was that a lazy student could do poorly in class (e.g. by doing no homework, class participation, whatever else is part of one's grade) and then ace the standardized test. Should teachers then redefine a student's grade to more closely match what the student might get on a test? That's rediculous. And Mattmns, please let us know if I've misinterpretted your statement. Maybe some of us should learn to not give him/herself the benefit of doubt.

I'm pretty sure trib understands that it is not the "actual grade assigned" but rather how closely that grade matches the grade received on the test. Regardless of whether it is an A, B, C, D, or F. In no way are teachers penalized by handing out a bad grade. Only if that bad grade contrasts the student's performance on the state exam.

If a teacher gives an "F" to a student who fails the algebra section, NO PROBLEM. Teacher is home free, and is not penalized because there is no visible disparity between a "F" on the test and an "F" in class. If the teacher<->exam grade compares as an "A"<->"A", no problem at all (nothing happens)! Only if the teacher assigns an "A" to a student who fails the section, or an "F" to a student who scores an "A" on the section...is there a problem. And it is a minor one; one/two students will not even noticeably affect the teacher's salary. Read my original post for more, on question #5.

[ etc etc etc ]

You're stating this again as though no one had read that when in fact everyone who has responded seems to have read it and is giving examples of how that system might not work. You are the one ignoring people's posts.

 

[bomba923]

If there is more money in the system, then there will be a greater supply of teachers that are not ineffective. Then perhaps schools can be selective.

?? More money in the system will attract ANY teacher...good or bad. There can just as easily be an increase of ineffictive/incompetent teachers as well.

No doubt the reason I'm "crazy" is that, again, you misread my post. I said that I would consider failing a student despite his or her brilliance in an exam if I felt that this student was, say, extremely desruptive to other students. Please don't be so quick to twist my words.

Why is this a problem?? Any disruptive student is immediately reported to administration--e.g., counselors, parents, etc...--and is dealt with. If you're just lazy or don't want to be "inundated" by one/two letters to a district official, just ask the student's counselor to put a check by that student's name in the registry. Whatever grade they receive for that section on the exam...won't affect your salary, problem solved. Just remember that guidelines for students' disruptive activity are already in place to prevent teachers from unfairly abusing this privilege.
Unless you are lazy, I don't see any difficulty in consulting the student's counselor.

Then again, let's say you are "lazy"! So what?? One misgraded student won't affect your salary anyway.

Again, read my post.

And now you make even less sense. Why don't you reread my post?

That's absolutely untrue. People get degrees to teach younger children. It's not a "oh, I'm not good enough to teach high school so I teach middle school" deal. You're making a huge generalization on the integrity of teachers in general.

More like, "I'm not good enough to teach at a university/college level so I'll teach at a high school".

**Put simply, what teacher in hopes of great salaries will accept a grade school position over an opportunity to teach more motived and mature individuals who pay (tuition) well for their education??

Think about it. If grade school teachers wanted higher salaries, their first option would probably be to apply to a university or college as an instructor.
-Unless...
*There's something about teaching high school that's worth a lower salary, or
*They do it out of the goodness of their hearts (intrinsic appreciation of teaching youth that transcends extrinsic appreciation of salary), or etc...

Remember that teachers qualified to teach at good universities but who choose to teach at high school probably have personal reasons to do so worth a lower salary. (Honestly, I do think that there is 'something' along the lines of an intrinsic appreciation to educate youth at work here, in this particular case.)

The need for a teacher to find a 'willing' school is completely irrelevant because the school can say no.

"Is completely irrelevant" is not a phrase to use when you have not clarified your consideration of other factors like:

*Departments' under/over-staffing
*that particular school's standards
*the credentials and/or qualifications of prospective teachers
-etc.

Imagine an American History teacher. He lectures to students everyday about the importance of our Consitution, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, etc. His students take your exam and do mediocrely because perhaps he put less emphasis on memorizing facts and more on invoking a sense of importance of the subject (shame on him).

(Oh boy, you're way off the deep end here)
How ideal but totally inexistentent (in public schools) is an efficient system where students can "feel importance" without memorizing facts.

Take the American Revolution. George Washington emerged as a victorious leader. Without memorizing facts like "names"...people will say, "Oh! Was Washington was head of the Communist party? What is democracy? I don't want to memorize facts/names or evidence!

"How were the slaves freed? By a document called the Emancipation Proclamation, written by Abraham Lincoln. AHH! But I don't want to memorize facts like names and whether it was a document or study guide that freed the slaves. What is "emancipation"? Wait! I don't want to memorize definitions! What half-century did the Civil War occur? Wait! I don't want to memorize dates! What are some laws included in the first three Articles of the Constitution? Wait! I don't want to memorize facts like 'laws' or legal regulations...! Who was head of Nazi party? Wait! I don't want to memorize names. Where is the city of New Delhi? Wait! I don't want to memorize locations or names of countries."

Would you rather than students "feel opinions and judgments" without learning the facts to support their convictions? Sure, they can "feel" whatever the **** they want. But it is utterly pointless if they cannot back up their convictions with evidence. And no, there is no legitimate "feel" towards history without knowing in some detail what actually happened.

I can "feel importance" of a good economy. Does that make me good economist?? No! I do not know economic equations, trends, laws, rules, extents of government intervention, etc..etc..etc. My "feel" is useless lest it is supported by some evidence or reasoning. But what forms the premises behind our reasonings & logic? Evidence. At some extent things must known via memorization.

After all, your test is probably multiple choice, unless you were planning on hiring a bunch of essay readers and standardizing correct open response questions.

Just as there are a "bunch of essay readers" for the SAT essays, so can there be essay readers for my state exams. But yes, they will most likely be multiple-choice anyway

The math teacher next door teaches algebra, where they learn about solving for unknown variables, inverse operations, functions. The students are drilled everyday on specific skills. They ace the test.

Good. By no means do I expect algebra students to construct proofs and to have deeper understanding of number theory.

Come to think, knowing those skills are just minimum requirements you need anyway to get a job and have a life.

Similarly, if those students are skilled and capable, they should be pass my exam, no problem .

That's just ONE very conceivable example of how your standardized testing fails. Not every subject can be tested equally.

Some can be 98% in reflecting competence, others can be 97.3%...or 98.1 %..etc. Again, how is this a problem?

How are you going to test PE teachers?

Simple. I won't

You're neglecting something very important - reality. Just because you have an idealized plan doesn't mean it will hold up in real life. You have to account for all of those things.

You haven't presented anything reasonable to account for. Perhaps it is you who must think about this quote.

Oh and by the way, I'd LOVE to be a teacher in your system, where if every teacher becomes better by the same amount, they all get paid exactly the same.

So? They will become more competitive in future improvement

Sucks to be you, most-improved-PE-teacher-of-the-year. Don't tell me to read your post again when you didn't read mine at all. I did read your post and I clearly disagreed with it.

You disagreed, but you have yet to make this disagreement reasonably clear.

I have no idea what this means, but maybe I'll just assume you said something rediculously absurd since that seems to be the trend. I'm not going to try to respond to this until you can give a solid method of standardizing every subject and mapping that to a salary distribution between all teachers (of different subjects).

That will be the economist's job. So far I've presented trends and buffers. Provide me with some good statistics and then we can talk

What's rediculous isn't the testing. What's rediculous is having a teacher be put under the pressure of having his or her salary based on it.

Until public education demonstrates that a fair amount of teachers are mature enough to not be held under this system, there is still no reason to deem my ridiculous.

I mean, have you considered the fact that students could artificially do poorly to spite a teacher they don't like?

Yes, I've considered it as a possibility whose chance of developing into a serious issue for a teacher is almost totally inexistentent.

(oh wait, this must be covered by one of your thousands of small subtleties, which is, by the way, how standardizations FAIL. A private investigation, perhaps? Sure, you can pay for it.)

What the hell are you rambling about here??

-What "subtleties" ?
-What "failure"
-What private investigation?

In other words, what the hell are you rambling about here?

Standardized tests that affect STUDENTS work because students are motivated to graduate high school if not learn for the sake of learning.

Who taught to you logic??

Have you considered that a student "motivated to learn for the sake of learning" will most likely try to graduate in order to further "pursue learning for its own sake?"

Another example: You are a teacher at dental school. A student of yours is "motivated to learn about dentistry" but is incompetent, inept, and has terrible handiwork. Would you pass that student?? WOuld you let him operate on other's mouths?

"Motivation" is no concern here. A student may 'want' to learn algebra but does not want to or cannot learn "details" like the distributive property or how to multiply fractions. The question: Should you pass that student?

Again, you're affecting teachers in an inaccurate and second-hand manner. If you're so convinced that tests are reasonable, why not just test the teachers themselves in some sort of practical pedagogy exam and have that affect their salary?

Really? So an effective education system either physically enforces students to learn and study material or be so low in standards that any fluctuation in individual student effort is effectively negligent. That sounds wonderful.

Now how did you "jump" towards this conclusion??

("Physically enforces?" If I recall, schools prohibited spanking, ruler slapping, and other forms of punishment from teacher a long time ago.)

A few "individuals" do not raise a school's standing. It takes a much larger statistically significant proportion of well-performing students to raise a school's academic standing. This goes for any kind of school.

To graduate more people, schools usually lower standards (as that is the simplest approach, unfortunately). An effective "education system" does not have low standards.

Should teachers then redefine a student's grade to more closely match what the student might get on a test? That's rediculous.

Until public education has shown that it is mature enough not to require external standardization and checks on performance...(which it has not yet)

You're stating this again as though no one had read that when in fact everyone who has responded seems to have read it and is giving examples of how that system might not work. You are the one ignoring people's posts.

Name someone who provided an example I have not yet contradicted in my posts, which, if you've noticed, contain several quotes from several posters here. Perhaps you, like others, are ignoring my posts...

 

[rachmaninoff]

Imagine an American History teacher. He lectures to students everyday about the importance of our Consitution, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, etc. His students take your exam and do mediocrely because perhaps he put less emphasis on memorizing facts and more on invoking a sense of importance of the subject (shame on him).

(Oh boy, you're way off the deep end here)
How ideal but totally inexistentent (in public schools) is an efficient system where students can "feel importance" without memorizing facts.

Take the American Revolution. George Washington emerged as a victorious leader. Without memorizing facts like "names"...people will say, "Oh! Was Washington was head of the Communist party? What is democracy? I don't want to memorize facts/names or evidence!

"How were the slaves freed? By a document called the Emancipation Proclamation, written by Abraham Lincoln. AHH! But I don't want to memorize facts like names and whether it was a document or study guide that freed the slaves. What is "emancipation"? Wait! I don't want to memorize definitions! What half-century did the Civil War occur? Wait! I don't want to memorize dates! What are some laws included in the first three Articles of the Constitution? Wait! I don't want to memorize facts like 'laws' or legal regulations...! Who was head of Nazi party? Wait! I don't want to memorize names. Where is the city of New Delhi? Wait! I don't want to memorize locations or names of countries."

What use are facts without a critical understanding of their significance? It makes no bloody difference if fifty kids memorize the names of fifty Nazi leaders for a week, if they don't even know what nationalism is. You don't teach facts by rote memorization and regurgiation, unless you're trying to get them to pass a multiple-choice exam. There's a heck of a lot more to teaching than reading shopping lists of names and dates. Mind, there's no one here who would argue that knowing basic historical facts is unimportant - that's a disingenous straw-man. But a history class without extensive essay-writing and analysis of primary-source writings... a waste!

 

[rachmaninoff]

?? More money in the system will attract ANY teacher...good or bad. There can just as easily be an increase of ineffictive/incompetent teachers as well.

More money in the system means more teachers apply, so the school has the ability to reject some of them, and be selective. Hence better teachers.

 

[bomba923]

More money in the system means more teachers apply, so the school has the ability to reject some of them, and be selective. Hence better teachers.

>>Hmm...not a bad thought indeed!

*Though, could we budget such an monetary increase and similarly, expect a corresponding increase in the quantity of applying grade school teachers?
*Secondly, wouldn't this money remain latent from the current (raise-demanding) teachers, in order to make it available for prospective teachers?

You do have an interesting thought there--
and I will consider it -<>{

What use are facts without a critical understanding of their significance? It makes no bloody difference if fifty kids memorize the names of fifty Nazi leaders for a week, if they don't even know what nationalism is. You don't teach facts by rote memorization and regurgiation, unless you're trying to get them to pass a multiple-choice exam. There's a heck of a lot more to teaching than reading shopping lists of names and dates. Mind, there's no one here who would argue that knowing basic historical facts is unimportant - that's a disingenous straw-man. But a history class without extensive essay-writing and analysis of primary-source writings... a waste!

Wholeheartedly Agreed Indeed!

Which is why I (as before) have intended my exam's history section to cover just those "basic historical facts". In addition, perhaps some analysis of primary sources...the text of which will be included in the body of the exam. Also, I will seek to include an essay, an excellent idea I believe //

 

[rachmaninoff]

"Agreed indeed?" How do you agree with someone who is disagreeing with you? Are you disagreeing with yourself?

You're the one who was advocating rote memorization, and putting down the idea of understanding the "significance" of things.

 

[vanesch]

I've been playing with some similar ideas (which are usually met with a lot of hostility when I talk to teachers about it). I think it would be possible to measure a teacher's effectiveness by allowing nation-wide, standardised tests both at the beginning and at the end of the year ; the teacher's effectiveness would be given by the increase in performance of his students during the period. It would be very unfair and unproductive to couple a teacher's "quality" only to the output and the results of his students, because certain teachers get better students than others (school districts, the distribution of teachers over the different classes by the school administration...). A teacher who gets in very bad students, and can turn them into moderately bad students, is a better teacher than one who gets in top class students, and turns them out average good students.

In order to be fair, the tests should be calibrated, corresponding to the program to be treated, anonymous and nation wide. The tests should be relevant (test what really ought to be tested). The problem is that this is a very big thing to organize, both at the beginning and at the end of the year.

 

[ComputerGeek]

I've been playing with some similar ideas (which are usually met with a lot of hostility when I talk to teachers about it). I think it would be possible to measure a teacher's effectiveness by allowing nation-wide, standardised tests both at the beginning and at the end of the year ; the teacher's effectiveness would be given by the increase in performance of his students during the period. It would be very unfair and unproductive to couple a teacher's "quality" only to the output and the results of his students, because certain teachers get better students than others (school districts, the distribution of teachers over the different classes by the school administration...). A teacher who gets in very bad students, and can turn them into moderately bad students, is a better teacher than one who gets in top class students, and turns them out average good students.
In order to be fair, the tests should be calibrated, corresponding to the program to be treated, anonymous and nation wide. The tests should be relevant (test what really ought to be tested). The problem is that this is a very big thing to organize, both at the beginning and at the end of the year.

Perhaps you get a lot of resistance from teachers because your idea will hurt the students rather than help them.

If you want to test the effectiveness of a teacher, there are much better ways to do it than to test the students(who have enough of their time taken up by standardized tests already).

 

[ComputerGeek]

>>Hmm...not a bad thought indeed!

*Though, could we budget such an monetary increase and similarly, expect a corresponding increase in the quantity of applying grade school teachers?
*Secondly, wouldn't this money remain latent from the current (raise-demanding) teachers, in order to make it available for prospective teachers?

You do have an interesting thought there--
and I will consider it -<>{


Wholeheartedly Agreed Indeed!

Which is why I (as before) have intended my exam's history section to cover just those "basic historical facts". In addition, perhaps some analysis of primary sources...the text of which will be included in the body of the exam. Also, I will seek to include an essay, an excellent idea I believe //

so... now you have an overly beurocratic system that costs a lot of money because you have to pay readers to evaluate essays and have them ignore grammar and spelling because this is a history test, not an english test.

The fact is that your system is NOT a good way to look into the effectiveness of a teacher. All this will do is get teachers to teach to the test which means it will dictate the curriculum, meaning that the teachers have less room to focus on areas that they see as the most important parts of the class.

and by reducing pay, as others have said, you make the job less desirable by those who have the competency to be great teachers. The fact is that there are students who do very badly in a class and then get full points on the tests. I am an example of such a high school student. When I was in HS, I did no class work, I got A's on all my tests, but the homework was worth 40% of the grade. This class was AP bio. I got a grade of 1.0 in the class (a D) and got a 4 on the AP test (1 is the lowest, 5 is the highest). should I have gotten an A in that class eve though I did no work? How does that teach me good work habits and how does that reflect the reaction I would get in the business world?

 

[vanesch]

Perhaps you get a lot of resistance from teachers because your idea will hurt the students rather than help them.
If you want to test the effectiveness of a teacher, there are much better ways to do it than to test the students(who have enough of their time taken up by standardized tests already).

I would like to know which test of a teacher's work is better suited for testing his effectiveness than testing the finality of his work, which is, after all, the increased performance of his students on the matter he's supposed to teach ?

Also I don't see in what way taking standardized tests, and know where you are on the scale, is hurting students ? (as long as the standardized tests are relevant, of course, in that they test the knowledge the course of the teacher is supposed to bring you, and not some cooked-up multiple-choice kind of test that is a carricature of it)

The reason I propose this is that I know a lot of teachers (I'm pretty close to the teacher's world) who are completely discouraged because the effectiveness of their course has not the slightest bit of implication for their pay, which evolves by completely administrative measures and rather arbitrary decisions by school heads and inspectors (which come by every 5 or 10 years or so, and decide upon seeing half an hour of course by the teacher). Teachers who do NOT teach much material, but make a lot of fun with the students, go on trips, show them movies etc... are usually well-quoted - although the students didn't learn much (but had a good time). Teachers who are rather severe, require discipline and hard work, but do get the students to learn stuff often get trouble with parents and with the administration, asking them to "slow down a bit". Incompetent teachers can hide easily their incompetence, and competent teachers do not get the possibility to show that their course DOES work well.

 

[Blahness]

Bomba, glad to see we're still somewhat on the same page. =D

For this system, it'd need to be slowly implimented throughout the course of several years, because a sudden change in systems might cause chaos.


Otherwise, I'll just read what other people're posting, I've not have much to say.

 

[ComputerGeek]

I would like to know which test of a teacher's work is better suited for testing his effectiveness than testing the finality of his work, which is, after all, the increased performance of his students on the matter he's supposed to teach ?
Also I don't see in what way taking standardized tests, and know where you are on the scale, is hurting students ? (as long as the standardized tests are relevant, of course, in that they test the knowledge the course of the teacher is supposed to bring you, and not some cooked-up multiple-choice kind of test that is a carricature of it)

First, to much standardized testing results in the test controlling the curriculum, which hurts the students.

Second, the testing and the prep for the test take away from time that can be spent teaching a lesson, which hurts the students.

As for the effectiveness of such a test... how are you proposing to test the teachers? From district to district and state to state the curriculum standards change. It would be expensive to develop a test that covers the information that each teacher covered in his or her class room. Standardizing the test for the students does not measure a teacher's effectiveness because it is not reflective of what was taught in the classroom (unless the teacher conforms to the test for their lessons and in that case, the test is, as I said, directing the curriculum and the class).

 

[Jelfish]

?? More money in the system will attract ANY teacher...good or bad. There can just as easily be an increase of ineffictive/incompetent teachers as well.

Again, you missed my point. Increasing the prospective salary increases the applicant pool which then increases the number of effective teachers applying. I never said that this would not increase the number of ineffective teachers applying. That's why I ended my statement with "Then perhaps schools can be more selective." But I guess what I say is just magically more ambiguous.

Why is this a problem?? Any disruptive student is immediately reported to administration--e.g., counselors, parents, etc...--and is dealt with. If you're just lazy or don't want to be "inundated" by one/two letters to a district official, just ask the student's counselor to put a check by that student's name in the registry. Whatever grade they receive for that section on the exam...won't affect your salary, problem solved. Just remember that guidelines for students' disruptive activity are already in place to prevent teachers from unfairly abusing this privilege.
Unless you are lazy, I don't see any difficulty in consulting the student's counselor.

Good. In that case, I'll be letting my students' counselor know to put a check by every student's name except those whom I know will do as well on the test as in my grading scheme.

Then again, let's say you are "lazy"! So what?? One misgraded student won't affect your salary anyway.

When you're poor, you don't take chances. If this doesn't affect a teacher's salary, then how many will it take? Also, if I'm competing with the teacher next door, how likely am I to think that I will get a lower salary because I have a class of more lazy students (or will this just turn into a strategical game of elimination by counselor?).

And now you make even less sense. Why don't you reread my post?

What? You rambled for a paragraph based on a complete misinterpretation of what I wrote and you're saying I don't make sense?

More like, "I'm not good enough to teach at a university/college level so I'll teach at a high school".

**Put simply, what teacher in hopes of great salaries will accept a grade school position over an opportunity to teach more motived and mature individuals who pay (tuition) well for their education??

Think about it. If grade school teachers wanted higher salaries, their first option would probably be to apply to a university or college as an instructor.
-Unless...
*There's something about teaching high school that's worth a lower salary, or
*They do it out of the goodness of their hearts (intrinsic appreciation of teaching youth that transcends extrinsic appreciation of salary), or etc...

What person, in hopes of great salaries becomes a physicist? No one. Guess what? I'm spending 8+ years of my life to become one. It's extremely honorable to teach younger kids when they have yet to be motivated. Public K-12 education isn't about kicking out kids who aren't natural geniuses or live to study and do homework. It's disgusting that you're so cynical about a profession that's obviously underappreciated. Also, many teachers in K-12 get their college degrees in teaching K-12, so yes, there is such a thing as motivation beyond salary.

Remember that teachers qualified to teach at good universities but who choose to teach at high school probably have personal reasons to do so worth a lower salary. (Honestly, I do think that there is 'something' along the lines of an intrinsic appreciation to educate youth at work here, in this particular case.)

That's exactly what I said. Aren't those the type of teachers you want? You system does nothing but make it more difficult for a motivated teacher to enter a career. Not only will she be paid less (how would you setup the salary for a new teacher?), she won't even be able to predict the amount she gets every year because she won't be spending all of her time tracking the progress of other teachers. She'll be concentrating on the students, which is her JOB.

"Is completely irrelevant" is not a phrase to use when you have not clarified your consideration of other factors like:

*Departments' under/over-staffing
*that particular school's standards
*the credentials and/or qualifications of prospective teachers
-etc.

Let me refresh your memory. My original post said "Then consider how far schools need to go in order to get willing teachers (read: low standards)." and your response was "Or how teachers need to find willing schools (most easily those with low standards)." You've completely missed the point because you stated what I originally stated. My point was that your system makes teaching a less desirable (or if not that, then at least less self-sustainable) career, thereby decreasing the number of possible teachers.

I'm saying that your system promotes lower standards in schools because there will be less people interested in being a teacher.

(Oh boy, you're way off the deep end here)
How ideal but totally inexistentent (in public schools) is an efficient system where students can "feel importance" without memorizing facts.

Take the American Revolution. George Washington emerged as a victorious leader. Without memorizing facts like "names"...people will say, "Oh! Was Washington was head of the Communist party? What is democracy? I don't want to memorize facts/names or evidence!

"How were the slaves freed? By a document called the Emancipation Proclamation, written by Abraham Lincoln. AHH! But I don't want to memorize facts like names and whether it was a document or study guide that freed the slaves. What is "emancipation"? Wait! I don't want to memorize definitions! What half-century did the Civil War occur? Wait! I don't want to memorize dates! What are some laws included in the first three Articles of the Constitution? Wait! I don't want to memorize facts like 'laws' or legal regulations...! Who was head of Nazi party? Wait! I don't want to memorize names. Where is the city of New Delhi? Wait! I don't want to memorize locations or names of countries."

Would you rather than students "feel opinions and judgments" without learning the facts to support their convictions? Sure, they can "feel" whatever the **** they want. But it is utterly pointless if they cannot back up their convictions with evidence. And no, there is no legitimate "feel" towards history without knowing in some detail what actually happened.

I can "feel importance" of a good economy. Does that make me good economist?? No! I do not know economic equations, trends, laws, rules, extents of government intervention, etc..etc..etc. My "feel" is useless lest it is supported by some evidence or reasoning. But what forms the premises behind our reasonings & logic? Evidence. At some extent things must known via memorization.

I'm starting to think you're making negative asumptions from what I say simply to give responses like this. I NEVER said that memorization is not important. But PLEASE don't let me stop your ranting spree. I'll continue my response to this down further.

Just as there are a "bunch of essay readers" for the SAT essays, so can there be essay readers for my state exams. But yes, they will most likely be multiple-choice anyway

Again, why would you spend so much money on essay readers when when you could create an effective teacher's practical exam to test the teachers directly? I noticed that you didn't respond to this. And even though it wouldn't necessarily solve the problem, it's at least more realistic then your idea.

Good. By no means do I expect algebra students to construct proofs and to have deeper understanding of number theory.

Come to think, knowing those skills are just minimum requirements you need anyway to get a job and have a life.

Similarly, if those students are skilled and capable, they should be pass my exam, no problem .

Ok.. my anecdote was meant to address a larger issue, addressed below.

Some can be 98% in reflecting competence, others can be 97.3%...or 98.1 %..etc. Again, how is this a problem?

THAT is exactly the problem that I attempted to illustrate with those two teacher scenarios. If you're going to affect teacher's SALARIES because of "97.3%...or 98.1 %..etc." NO ONE WILL WANT TO BE A TEACHER!

Simple. I won't

Great, while you're at it, you can cut the salary of arts teachers and music teachers. It's clear that public education serves as nothing else but to assure a child that if he doesn't excel in math, science, English or history, he'll probably end up being a janitor.

You haven't presented anything reasonable to account for. Perhaps it is you who must think about this quote.

Perhaps nothing I've said seems reasonable because you've misinterpretted almost everything I've said.

So? They will become more competitive in future improvement

Good luck finding willing teachers.

That will be the economist's job. So far I've presented trends and buffers. Provide me with some good statistics and then we can talk

You realize that you're making a teacher's career not only the most undesireable but also the least secure. An economist? We aren't talking about day-trading.

Until public education demonstrates that a fair amount of teachers are mature enough to not be held under this system, there is still no reason to deem my ridiculous.

I don't want a fair number of teachers constantly worried about how they are doing against every other teacher in the state, changing around his/her curriculum and grading scheme to fit exactly with the test, and having good teachers leave because it's hard enough to live off a teacher's salary as it is.

Yes, I've considered it as a possibility whose chance of developing into a serious issue for a teacher is almost totally inexistentent.

You seem to assume that the chances of anything going wrong is "almost totally inexistentent[sic]." This is what I meant when I said that you're ignoring reality.

What the hell are you rambling about here??

-What "subtleties" ?
-What "failure"
-What private investigation?

In other words, what the hell are you rambling about here?

Ok, I'll explain it further (this is your cue to not read)

Remember when you said that teachers could go to counselors to eliminate students from his/her evaluation? Remember when you said that the difference between the effectiveness (read: the way you determine a teacher's salary) of different teachers is some random percentage (given by your economists, presumably). Those are subtleties that you respond to by saying that they either don't happen or they won't affect it (without reason). A good plan accounts for all possibilities. Oh, and the private investigation was referring to the students who purposely do poorly to lower a teacher's salary and how to solve that problem when (not if) it arises.

Who taught to you logic??

Have you considered that a student "motivated to learn for the sake of learning" will most likely try to graduate in order to further "pursue learning for its own sake?"

Another example: You are a teacher at dental school. A student of yours is "motivated to learn about dentistry" but is incompetent, inept, and has terrible handiwork. Would you pass that student?? WOuld you let him operate on other's mouths?

"Motivation" is no concern here. A student may 'want' to learn algebra but does not want to or cannot learn "details" like the distributive property or how to multiply fractions. The question: Should you pass that student?

My original statement was this : "Standardized tests that affect STUDENTS work because students are motivated to graduate high school if not learn for the sake of learning. "

Here it is in context: "What's rediculous isn't the testing. What's rediculous is having a teacher be put under the pressure of having his or her salary based on it. I mean, have you considered the fact that students could artificially do poorly to spite a teacher they don't like? (oh wait, this must be covered by one of your thousands of small subtleties, which is, by the way, how standardizations FAIL. A private investigation, perhaps? Sure, you can pay for it.) Standardized tests that affect STUDENTS work because students are motivated to graduate high school if not learn for the sake of learning."

My point: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STUDENTS GRADE AND A TEST RESULT IS TOO VARIABLE TO DEFINE A TEACHER'S PERFORMANCE. (Can you read Caps?)

Why are you segueing into a situation of voluntary further education? There are truancy laws for kids 16 and under. I'm really getting tired of explaining and re-explaining myself. I'm not going to respond to your statement any further because you didn't respond to my point.

Now how did you "jump" towards this conclusion??

("Physically enforces?" If I recall, schools prohibited spanking, ruler slapping, and other forms of punishment from teacher a long time ago.)

A few "individuals" do not raise a school's standing. It takes a much larger statistically significant proportion of well-performing students to raise a school's academic standing. This goes for any kind of school.

To graduate more people, schools usually lower standards (as that is the simplest approach, unfortunately). An effective "education system" does not have low standards.

I "jumped" to this conclusion when you said that in an academically effective system, tests would be a pushover. Maybe you should try tutoring students sometime. There's a lot more to a test being a 'pushover' than the school system. The student has to be self motivated to learn or get good grades(which you can't ensure without physical enforcement) or the test has to be easy enough so that any student can pass it by just being in the class of your exemplary teachers and no additional effort, which obviously would require a huge lowering of standards. The point is that you can't say an effective system would make tests a pushover because students are responsible for their education too.

I'm getting tired of this argument.

Look, I'm not against teachers being paid more if they are more effective, but your method creates so many new problems and doesn't even effectively gauge a teacher's performance.

 

[ComputerGeek]

The fact that he cannot see why someone would WANT to teach HS or even elementary school shows you just how off he is in all respect.

Ideas like wanting to help kids get to college and wanting to teach them better than you were taught and wanting them armed for the real world and wanting every child to have a quality education are just a few reasons to NOT teach in the university.

 

[bomba923]

"Agreed indeed?" How do you agree with someone who is disagreeing with you? Are you disagreeing with yourself?

You're the one who was advocating rote memorization, and putting down the idea of understanding the "significance" of things.

Here's your argument:
-History is nothing without a critical understanding
-No one advocates the lack of knowledge of basic historical facts
-My test might be rote memorization beyond those facts

But what if:
-My history test simply grades on those basic historical facts, that you mentioned would be "disingenuous" not to know??

It's as simple as that.

A teacher who gets in very bad students, and can turn them into moderately bad students, is a better teacher than one who gets in top class students, and turns them out average good students.

Thanks to my tests the teacher will not have to worry much about receiving bad/ incompetent/ill-prepared student.

In order to be fair, the tests should be calibrated, corresponding to the program to be treated

Of course; nineth grade world history students will be test on: world history (in addition to whatever subjects they took in nineth grade, with few restrictions)
(--Also, why should they be nationwide? I explicitly stated state-wise!)

so... now you have an overly beurocratic system that costs a lot of money because you have to pay readers to evaluate essays and have them ignore grammar and spelling because this is a history test, not an english test.

For a history essay, perhaps grammar and spelling would be ignored.
For an Enligh essay, they probably won't be ignored.

Secondly, states already have essay tests in place for almost each grade; we call them "Integrated Writing Assessment" exams. I don't see how adding an essay to my exam will do any harm.

The fact is that your system is NOT a good way to look into the effectiveness of a teacher. All this will do is get teachers to teach to the test which means it will dictate the curriculum, meaning that the teachers have less room to focus on areas that they see as the most important parts of the class.

The fact is that there are students who do very badly in a class and then get full points on the tests. I am an example of such a high school student.

No, the fact is that those are an insignificant minority, who, if you've read Question #5 in my original post, will not affect the teacher in any way.

When I was in HS, I did no class work, I got A's on all my tests, but the homework was worth 40% of the grade. This class was AP bio. I got a grade of 1.0 in the class (a D) and got a 4 on the AP test (1 is the lowest, 5 is the highest). should I have gotten an A in that class eve though I did no work?

Yes, actually you should have gotten an 'A' b/c you demonstrated via tests that you possessed good skills, knowledge, and understanding of AP Bio. I would actually categorize grading 40% on homework a type of "grade inflation".

How does that teach me good work habits and how does that reflect the reaction I would get in the business world?

So you want to major in business, not Bio ? Take a business class, and then tell me how you were graded and what grade you received.

For academic subjects, your behavior in AP Bio demonstrated to the teacher than you had good competence/understanding of AP Bio, although you may've been slightly lazy. But lazy NOT for studying perhaps, but rather for simply doing related work, whose marginal effectiveness towards gaining skills and understanding in AP Bio was proven to be negligent via your test grades.

In business, you may need other skills. But so far, biology is not business.

Again, you missed my point. Increasing the prospective salary increases the applicant pool which then increases the number of effective teachers applying. I never said that this would not increase the number of ineffective teachers applying. That's why I ended my statement with "Then perhaps schools can be more selective." But I guess what I say is just magically more ambiguous.

*Because, unlike rachmaninoff, you haven't proposed a mechanism or an explanation why. Just a blatant and unsupported statement.

Good. In that case, I'll be letting my students' counselor know to put a check by every student's name except those whom I know will do as well on the test as in my grading scheme.

Nice try, but Too Bad You won't be able to do that , once you've learned to read my last sentence there, "Just remember that guidelines for students' disruptive activity are already in place to prevent teachers from unfairly abusing this privilege. (of name checks)" Read it again if you missed (like you do so often ) the point.

If this doesn't affect a teacher's salary, then how many will it take?

One/two students won't affect salary. How many will it take? Give me some statistics and I'll quantify a percentage.

Also, if I'm competing with the teacher next door, how likely am I to think that I will get a lower salary because I have a class of more lazy students (or will this just turn into a strategical game of elimination by counselor?).

Again, what the hell are you rambling about?
Reread this section from my original post:

Also, the ineptitude/incompetence/"laziness" of students has NO effect on the teacher's income from my method. The teacher is merely required to "fairly evaluate" students, even if it thus means giving an "F". Remember, the income here depends not on the "actual grade assigned" but rather on how closely whatever "grade gets assigned" matches the grade received on the state exam...be it an A,B,C,D or F or whatever.

Apparently Jelfish, it seems you have problems reading between the lines.

What person, in hopes of great salaries becomes a physicist? No one. Guess what? I'm spending 8+ years of my life to become one. It's extremely honorable to teach younger kids when they have yet to be motivated.

What's "honorable" from your part is only your call.

Public K-12 education isn't about kicking out kids who aren't natural geniuses or live to study and do homework.

For the most, it's about kicking kids to do SOME homework/study. (It is time we kicked them some more )
Also, and making sure that they have skills and are ready for the outside world. And to be productive individuals in the future within careers and their lives.

It's disgusting that you're so cynical about a profession that's obviously underappreciated.

Obviously unappreciated for obvious reasons regarding obvious academic inefficiency. But by no means underappreciated. Again, this is a subjective call. And no, I'm not "cynical." You're just "retarded". (If it's a battle of insults you desire...but I don't wish to go there)

Also, many teachers in K-12 get their college degrees in teaching K-12, so yes, there is such a thing as motivation beyond salary.

Good. So they're prepared for potentially lower salaries.

Aren't those the type of teachers you want?

Why only those? I'll open myself to other teachers, provided they can demonstrate fairness in grading and quality in teaching.

You system does nothing but make it more difficult for a motivated teacher to enter a career.

By doing what? Teachers must evaluate students fairly, whether they "like it or not" or are "motivated to evaluate fairly or not".

Not only will she be paid less...

Or more...because she will grade fairly ...

how would you setup the salary for a new teacher?

Why, the same way we do for current teachers, except with an added teacher<->exam grade factor.

she won't even be able to predict the amount she gets every year

Why not? She'll get her students' exam grades and the grades she assigned to them (as a teacher), and plug in the numbers into Excel. There, salary partially figured out already (as the economy might give her other factors).

because she won't be spending all of her time tracking the progress of other teachers. She'll be concentrating on the students, which is her JOB.

Good. That's what we want, friendly competition.

You've completely missed the point because you stated what I originally stated. My point was that your system makes teaching a less desirable (or if not that, then at least less self-sustainable) career, thereby decreasing the number of possible teachers.

How does it make it less desirable, if more salary becomes available to good teachers? Especially considering how many inefficient teachers will decrease in salary...why, the income pool would grow even towards new teachers. Thereby increasing the number of teachers.

I'm saying that your system promotes lower standards in schools because there will be less people interested in being a teacher.

And I've just well contradicted your argument

I'm starting to think you're making negative asumptions from what I say simply to give responses like this. I NEVER said that memorization is not important.

Because your responses are unfortunately vague, a number of assumptions can arise, as when your history teacher,

...he put less emphasis on memorizing facts...

Which facts? Do you refer to all "facts" in general? If you're not specific, a number of assumptions will arise. Rachmaninoff, on the other hand, somewhat clarified which "facts" need be taught and memorized. You have not, and thus arise the assumptions.

Again, why would you spend so much money on essay readers when when you could create an effective teacher's practical exam to test the teachers directly?

Because any teacher can just "hand out" grades irrelevant to the actual level of her students' competence & understanding. Lo and behold, there appears to be a rise in grades without a corresponding rise in students' skills, knowledge, and abilities.
But worse, there is a decrease in the accuracy of grades in reflecting student competence and understanding. Not an effective teacher at all.

THAT is exactly the problem that I attempted to illustrate with those two teacher scenarios. If you're going to affect teacher's SALARIES because of "97.3%...or 98.1 %..etc." NO ONE WILL WANT TO BE A TEACHER!

Again, who taught you not to read?

Any subject teacher will OBVIOUSLY know WHAT WILL BE INCLUDED in the state subject tests within the exam. And will OBVIOUSLY be able to tell reasonably well after a schoolyear how well her students might perform.
Who cares about 97%..98.1%..when those percentages do NOT AFFECT or even CONCERN teachers one bit?

Oh, and "No one will want To become a teacher"??
After parts in your posts like these,
"NO ONE WILL WANT TO THINK YOU CAN ARGUE"
(if it's a battle of insults you desire...though I don't wish to go there)

Great, while you're at it, you can cut the salary of arts teachers and music teachers. It's clear that public education serves as nothing else but to assure a child that if he doesn't excel in math, science, English or history ...

That happens even now, even without my tests . Again, how does my system particularly influence this?

Perhaps nothing I've said seems reasonable because you've misinterpretted almost everything I've said.

And perhaps because you've either not read or misread almost everything I've said.

An economist? We aren't talking about day-trading.

An economist? It seems you cannot understand the obvious similarities between economy and financial matters.
Merely "Day-trading?" You have no understanding of what economy is and no understanding of what economist do. As seen here, you misconceptions do greatly misguide you .

I don't want a fair number of teachers constantly worried about how they are doing against every other teacher in the state

And they won't. The only thing they'll worry about is accurately evaluating their students' competence and understanding.

...changing around his/her curriculum and grading scheme to fit exactly with the test...

A good curriculum needs not be changed. A bad curriculum certainly does.

and having good teachers leave because it's hard enough to live off a teacher's salary as it is.

(Again you misread my posts. Nevertheless, I will contend your ramblings)
Good teachers will stay, bad teachers will leave. Read what I wrote earlier and you'll find out why

Remember when you said that teachers could go to counselors to eliminate students from his/her evaluation? Remember when you said that the difference between the effectiveness (read: the way you determine a teacher's salary) of different teachers is some random percentage (given by your economists, presumably).

Don't twist my words.

Where have I said "random percentage" ?
Where have I said "teachers effectiveness is a percentage" ?

Those are subtleties that you respond to by saying that they either don't happen or they won't affect it (without reason).

And without reason, you say they will exist.

With reason, I say that even if they do exist (which they probably won't),
they won't affect a teacher's salary.

...refering to the students who purposely do poorly to lower a teacher's salary and how to solve that problem when (not if) it arises.

Oh...a significant amount of students will purposely do poorly and hurt their own chances at success and learning to hurt the teacher??
It is an impossible case for those students, however inexistant they are, to significantly affect the teacher's salary.

If you've read my previous posts, you will understand why this is an impossible scenario. And even more impossible in being significant.

...THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STUDENTS GRADE AND A TEST RESULT IS TOO VARIABLE TO DEFINE A TEACHER'S PERFORMANCE...

NOT UNLESS A TEACHER'S GRADE IS BASED ON EXPECTED PERFORMANCE ON THAT TEST .

Why are you segueing into a situation of voluntary further education? There are truancy laws for kids 16 and under.

What do "truancy laws" have to do with anything?

I "jumped" to this conclusion when you said that in an academically effective system, tests would be a pushover. Maybe you should try tutoring students sometime.

I did, and they have succeeded.

There's a lot more to a test being a 'pushover' than the school system. The student has to be self motivated to learn or get good grades(which you can't ensure without physical enforcement) or the test has to be easy enough so that any student can pass it by just being in the class of your exemplary teachers and no additional effort, which obviously would require a huge lowering of standards.

That's where you oversimplify
Here your clarification:

1) A balance in standards can be established provided reasonable standards for students' performance.

2) No teacher can teach so "exemplary" as to remove all of the students' role and individual responsibility in learning the material.

Obviously, no "lowering of standards" is required. In fact, I intend my exam to seek standards higher than the currently low standards of today.

The point is that you can't say an effective system would make tests a pushover because students are responsible for their education too.

Oh yes I can make such a system. Simply check (using the exam) to ensure that grades reflect students' competence, and throughout the schoolyear students will seek to gain good knowledge and skills.

And true, students are responsible for their education. Knowing that and having such students makes the teacher's job a whole heck of a lot easier.

And yes, my exams will help implement this .

 

[rachmaninoff]

This looks like it's turned into a flame war. I called it first! I win a prize!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

More money in the system means more teachers apply, so the school has the ability to reject some of them, and be selective. Hence better teachers.

CA education has been receiving increases in funding on the order of billions of dollars yet education in this state is still terrible. Obviously simply putting money into the system doesn't help. There needs to be some sort of pressure or regulation which makes sure that the money gets to where it needs to go in order for the quality of education to increase. We can't simply throw money at the problem in hopes that this will make it go away.

 

[rachmaninoff]

CA education has been receiving increases in funding on the order of billions of dollars yet education in this state is still terrible. Obviously simply putting money into the system doesn't help. There needs to be some sort of pressure or regulation which makes sure that the money gets to where it needs to go in order for the quality of education to increase. We can't simply throw money at the problem in hopes that this will make it go away.

True, I just suggested an obvious, very simplified economic model for what Jellyfish was saying. Reality is much more complex, it might not work that way at all. For instance, if the applicant pool of teachers is very inelastic, it might not be able to respond to increases in salaries with increase of supply. Or say, if the administrators were unable to figure out who "good teachers" were, the average quality would't change because they wouldn't be selective. And then obviously there's bureaucratic corruption and "missing money".

 

[Jelfish]

This looks like it's turned into a flame war. I called it first! I win a prize!

I'm not interested in a flame war. bomba923, if you're certain that your plan has potential, then please, by all means, make a formal write up and submit it to your governor or mayor and let us know what they think.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Are you on CRACK?

Bomba, If some one does not work for their grade, I do not care how much they know, they will get poor marks.

No one gets promotions or raises in the real world without actually doing the work that is required (even the busy work). Students should not get any better treatment than what they should expect when they move into adulthood, especially in high school.

 

[bomba923]

The fact that he cannot see why someone would WANT to teach HS or even elementary school shows you just how off he is in all respect.

That fact that you cannot read

Honestly, I do think that there is 'something' along the lines of an intrinsic appreciation to educate youth at work here

just shows "how off" YOU (ComputerGeek) are

Ideas like wanting to help kids get to college and wanting to teach them better than you were taught and wanting them armed for the real world and wanting every child to have a quality education are just a few reasons to NOT teach in the university.

Of course, and more importantly, that
"the intrinsic appreciation of teaching youth that transcends the extrinsic appreciation of salary"
line that you "forgot" to read ??

Bomba, If some one does not work for their grade, I do not care how much they know, they will get poor marks.

That's just you. Good grades are derived from students' knowledge and abilities, not from how much empty "work" they might do.

In fact, if someone doesn't need to do "as much work" to learn and gain knowledge and understanding, that is a benefit in itself. That student knows how to efficiently study and be a competent individual.

We shouldn't grade students on how "hard" their efforts are, but rather on how "smart" their efforts are.

For example, doing "hard work" with some 62 assigned problems in differentiation will not help a student whose real problems are with integration, and who might thus fail a calculus test. It doesn't matter how "hard" they work with differentiation; they did not work "smart" and may thus fail a test.

You see, we should not grade on "how much work students do" or "how hard they work." Rather, we should grade on competence and understanding, the fruits of their labor, so that they may for themselves optimize their work and effort to achieve maximum competence and understanding. But grading "raw effort" will not help them at all.

If someone doesn't do "much work for their grade," to acquire skills and knowledge, then others and the teacher may learn from that individual, and change for themselves how they study and learn so they may--- better and more efficiently study and learn for themselves.

No one gets promotions or raises in the real world without actually doing the work that is required (even the busy work).

But a school and a basic chemistry/history textbook are not "The Real World"
There is a great difference between grade school and the real world.

For example, in the real world, people expect you to be prepared. Bosses do not have to "inspire you" to do your work. You are ranked by your productivity; regardless of how hard or how little you had to work for it. Remember that people are different, and some can do more with less effort (more efficiently).

Take grade school as a rough example: some people can learn and understand more with less effort. But substituting grading on "effort" rather than on productivity (in terms of acquired skills and knowledge, reflected via tests) and resultant competence and understanding, well...you have a generation unprepared for the real world

I'm not interested in a flame war. bomba923, if you're certain that your plan has potential, then please, by all means, make a formal write up and submit it to your governor or mayor and let us know what they think.

Hmm...except it will have to go to superintendent

And statistics, which I don't have and were not provided here, must also be considered
-->Yes, I would have to acquire (in my opinion, a considerable amount of) certain statistics and develop a financial model concerning I will execute this plan. In other words, I'd need good and good amounts of statistics.

 

[vanesch]

First, to much standardized testing results in the test controlling the curriculum, which hurts the students.

It depends upon the test of course, that's why it needs to be a real test of what the authorities making up the curriculum want students to acquire.
So if the test is well-choosen, then the test resulting in controlling the curriculum is not hurting the students, on the contrary. It is enforcing exactly what is desired: namely acquiring the curriculum.

Second, the testing and the prep for the test take away from time that can be spent teaching a lesson, which hurts the students.

Again, if the test is well-designed, then the best preparation for it is to acquire the curriculum, so I don't see how this preparation hurts the students.

As for the effectiveness of such a test... how are you proposing to test the teachers? From district to district and state to state the curriculum standards change. It would be expensive to develop a test that covers the information that each teacher covered in his or her class room.

Ah, I thought that there were national (or at least state-wide) curriculum descriptions (stuff that the student needs to know; for instance: at the age of 8, simple reading abilities. Being able to read and comprehend a simple text, followed by lining out what is meant by "a simple text").
Of course, with one imposed curriculum goes one standardized test. And it is the teachers' job to bring these abilities to his students, not to invent a curriculum on his own. What the teacher has to invent is, given the curriculum, and given the students he receives, what methods should he use to best transmit the curriculum he's supposed to transmit.

Standardizing the test for the students does not measure a teacher's effectiveness because it is not reflective of what was taught in the classroom (unless the teacher conforms to the test for their lessons and in that case, the test is, as I said, directing the curriculum and the class).

Yes, but I consider that a good thing. The job for the teacher is then clear. You don't care much what is taught in the class besides the curriculum, do you ? Or at least, BEFORE you consider anything else, what you first want of a schooling system, is that it teaches you to its best ability, the contents of the curriculum. The rest is luxury.
For instance, what you really want, from the first few years of elementary school, is reading and writing abilities. It doesn't matter if the teacher explained the principle of a nuclear reactor to 7/8 year olds during half of the year, if at the end of the year, they cannot read the phrases "Joe goes to school. Mary is the sister of Joe. Mary and Joe take the bus."

So, looking how well a teacher does in INCREASING the reading abilities of his students is, I'd say, a rather good measure of his effectiveness as a teacher for that level.

The problem I noticed is that teachers trying to do their job WELL have not much means of getting themselves promoted for it. They don't do much "fun" things, they are not active in several activities... they simply stick to their job and do it well, and get almost no recognition for it, compared to their collegues who jump around alot, and impress administration and parents with all their projects, activities, trips etc... but who do not teach the kids what they're supposed to learn.

However, as is clear from this discussion, is: the construction of the test is crucial. If the test turns into a caricature, then it will screw up totally the system.

 

[daveb]

This plan does nothing to make a teacher a better teacher or a student a better student. It merely requires a teacher to fairly assess the student. A student fairly assessed (i.e., fails your test) with an F still gets the F, and a student fairly assessed at an A level (i.e., aces your test) still gets the A. It does nothing to improve the quality of education - only the fairness of it.

 

[bomba923]

Oh, but you see,
Fair assessment greatly improves the quality of education
-(and is one of the very first steps to do it)

See https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=860778&postcount=23

 

[Blahness]

Know why?

Because if they're fair, they'll have to actually try to get a better grade, instead of going "Oh, 1000 points extra credit, GO US!"Anyway, bomba, what's your plan on school discipline? I've been through horrid mix-ups.

Assuming you have one >_>

 

[cPQaIM]

I think you're giving it alittle too much thought on it.
Worry about yourself and just leave it at that.
Why criticize the system in which youre in now if you seem to be doing so well in it?