Reform of education-my solution:

[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?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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

You get what you pay for. If you pay for teachers that are really good at predicting the results of their students' tests, then that's what you'll get. I don't see how this improves education.

 

[Plastic Photon]

When I first walked into high school as a freshman I had no idea what I wanted to do, what classes I wanted to take. But there were many you had a very well predetermined regiment of what they wanted to achieve.

I think that we will begin to see more hs (at least) become academy oriented. This way a kid who wants to major in geology can take more math and science classes rather than a truck load of meaningless liberal art studies. There would also be offerings for general studies and required courses, such as maybe two english, two history, two math, two science and the rest elective. That way in your first year or two you will follow the same regiment as everyone else in your grade, but by your junior year you will have more elective classes focused on your intentions after high school to take.

I didn't know that I would be going to college to take chemistry until I actually arrived, but I can say I would have preferred less liberal arts and more science.

 

[franznietzsche]

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.

Too bad. If you don't actually learn what you should in high school, you don't deserve a diploma. Period. End of discussion. You do not have the right to a High School diploma, you only have the right to opportunity to EARN one. If 40% of students can't cut it, then 40% of students can't cut it. Too bad.

 

[Rach3]

Too bad. If you don't actually learn what you should in high school, you don't deserve a diploma. Period. End of discussion. You do not have the right to a High School diploma, you only have the right to opportunity to EARN one. If 40% of students can't cut it, then 40% of students can't cut it. Too bad.

You misread my post. I was criticizing a proposal to hold back 40% of HS students, which would greatly increase the size of the school system for no good purpose. I have no problem with 40% not getting their diplomas. However, putting them all back into school is clearly unfeasible from an economic view, that was my point.

It's not slightly ironic that we're having difficulty reading correctly the posts in this particular thread.

 

[franznietzsche]

You misread my post. I was criticizing a proposal to hold back 40% of HS students, which would greatly increase the size of the school system for no good purpose. I have no problem with 40% not getting their diplomas. However, putting them all back into school is clearly unfeasible from an economic view, that was my point.

It's not slightly ironic that we're having difficulty reading correctly the posts in this particular thread.

You're right, I misunderstood you.

 

[Mk]

You get what you pay for. If you pay for teachers that are really good at predicting the results of their students' tests, then that's what you'll get. I don't see how this improves education.

But the teachers also have to teach their kids.

 

[bomba923]

Rach 3, I presume you are the former rachmaninoff?

You misread my post. I was criticizing a proposal to hold back 40% of HS students, which would greatly increase the size of the school system for no good purpose. I have no problem with 40% not getting their diplomas. However, putting them all back into school is clearly unfeasible from an economic view, that was my point.

It's not slightly ironic that we're having difficulty reading correctly the posts in this particular thread.

Where did you criticize any such proposal?? I never proposed to "hold back 40% of HS students."

If my proposal (i.e., my two-part plan) does somehow "hold back 40% of HS students", then you "have no problem" with it, as you clearly stated here in your post right here:

I have no problem with 40% not getting their diplomas.However, putting them all back into school is clearly unfeasible from an economic view, that was my point.

You must understand that:

1) Without a diploma, a student either stays in HS or drops out.

2) Therefore, if 40% of students don't earn a diploma
----and you've mentioned that you "have no problem" with that---
then you also would also "have no problem" with 40% of students deciding between staying in HS or dropping out.

In other words, "having no problem" with 40% not receiving a diploma is equivalent to "having no problem" with 40% deciding whether to stay in HS or drop out. Since you've mentioned that you don't want to (i.e., have a problem with) "put them all back into school", you're probably suggesting that most of that 40% of HS students drop out??

*Also, in any case, one can earn a GED; it is equivalent to a high school diploma.
(Perhaps, not for the top colleges/universities, but why should the top colleges/universities accept dropouts / students who did not earn diplomas?)

And one final comment,
Just to remove any final doubts here:

~If you've read the beginning of the post, I merely assumed that your 40% was accurate for the sake of argument.

And---No, my plan is NOT going to hold back (from a diploma) anywhere near 40% of HS students. Unless you also wish to imply that 40% of HS students about to graduate severely lack skills in basic mathematics, reading, and writing.

Realistically, I would expect only around 5-20% of HS students actually "held back" from diplomas under my plan. (Then again, remember how inaccurate any such national percent measure would be, considering how much variance and/or deviation in students achievement exists across regions, cities, and even individual school districts. Not to completely discourage speculation, but just a consideration).

As franznietzsche added,

Too bad. If you don't actually learn what you should in high school, you don't deserve a diploma. Period. End of discussion. You do not have the right to a High School diploma, you only have the right to opportunity to EARN one.

That's right.

You're right, I misunderstood you.

No, you understood Rach3 correctly the first time.

 

[Rach3]

Where did you criticize any such proposal?? I never proposed to "hold back 40% of HS students."...

Realistically, I would expect only around 5-20% of HS students actually "held back" from diplomas under my plan...

No, you understood Rach3 correctly the first time.

An additional 20% of seniors being re-enrolled into school, i.e. somewhere ~1.4million extra students materializing, is vastly impractical for the very same logistical reasons as a 40%. I frankly have no more interest in this scenario - my only beef with FN was that he misread me as being critical of a 40% (20%) of graduating seniors not receiving diplomas due to incompetence, independent of the question of re-enrollment. This was clarified between me and FN, I don't understand why you want to get involved.

I have no intention to argue with you about this thread or your ideas, I am only posting here to defend some old posts from misinterpretation.

 

[Mk]

AMAZING POST bomba! Remincent of Danger's posts in the thread killers thread when he would leave for a few weeks and come back to respond to nearly everything said.

I'm in progress reading this thread, and I like the idea a lot.

 

[bomba923]

An additional 20% of seniors being re-enrolled into school, i.e. somewhere ~1.4million extra students materializing, is vastly impractical for the very same logistical reasons as a 40%.

20% "re-enrolled" into high school?" If you're referring to "holding back a portion of the graduating class (senior)"

~First of all, why would seniors have to "re-enroll?"

~Secondly, where do you get such numbers as "20%"// "40%" etc??

My only beef with FN was that he misread me as being critical of a 40% (20%) of graduating seniors not receiving diplomas due to incompetence, independent of the question of re-enrollment.

Again, FN understood quite well the first time.

*For what reason OTHER THAN "incompetence" would seniors have to "re-enroll?"

I am only posting here to defend some old posts from misinterpretation.

And in the spirit of old posts, you misinterpret my plan.

Why do fixate solely on seniors? Moreover, why do you focus on grades of students (e.g., 12th grade)?

1) Remember that testing, as explained in Part I of my plan, involves ALL HS grades 9-12. Whatever impact we might have of "re-enrolling" seniors would be mitigated by the "re-enrollment" of juniors, sophomores, and freshman

2) Again, your 20% is quite inflated. If you've read Part I, you would realize that the exam does not hold people back on GRADES. Rather, students are held back by COURSES.

-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.

I thought I made this point quite clear in the original post?

How can "re-enrollment" even pose a significant problem under that system?
Even in the case of seniors, one or two classes at a local college or some time with a tutor is all that would be needed to help the student acquire the competence mandated by that basic course.

Whatever small percent seniors might have to "re-enroll" (maybe around 5 to 7%) would likely be ones most needy of the extra year, as their incompetence would be most extensive (spanning several subjects).

Honestly, where do you get these numbers? ("20%"/"40%"?)

 

[Rach3]

Why do fixate solely on seniors? Moreover, why do you focus on grades of students (e.g., 12th grade)?

1) Remember that testing, as explained in Part I of my plan, involves ALL HS grades 9-12. Whatever impact we might have of "re-enrolling" seniors would be mitigated by the "re-enrollment" of juniors, sophomores, and freshman

The logic of this is breathtaking.

Are you trolling? Re-enrolling seniors is a bottleneck which must significantly increase the size of schools. You no longer have four incoming classes, but five; the former 8th graders, 9th...11th, PLUS a fraction of the 12th graders which did not graduate. In other words; the mean length of time in HS increases from ~four years to ~four-years-and-some-fraction, because of incompetents re-enrolling themselves in the same year. Thus schools must significantly grow to accommodate.

 

[franznietzsche]

The logic of this is breathtaking.

Are you trolling? Re-enrolling seniors is a bottleneck which must significantly increase the size of schools. You no longer have four incoming classes, but five; the former 8th graders, 9th...11th, PLUS a fraction of the 12th graders which did not graduate. In other words; the mean length of time in HS increases from ~four years to ~four-years-and-some-fraction, because of incompetents re-enrolling themselves in the same year. Thus schools must significantly grow to accommodate.

Then schools have to grow, fine.

Bomba:

No, I misunderstood. I thought Rach3's objection was to the idea of failing those who did not meet the requirement, which was incorrect. His (her?) point is the logistical problem of the larger number of students in school at any given time due to some people being there longer. I'm of the opinion that if we then need larger schools, then we need larger schools. Space consideration is not a relevant factor in determining academic standards.

 

[Rach3]

His (her?) point

His.

...is the logistical problem of the larger number of students in school at any given time due to some people being there longer. I'm of the opinion that if we then need larger schools, then we need larger schools. Space consideration is not a relevant factor in determining academic standards.

I agree in principle. Though, in practice I don't see anyone coughing up the money for hundreds of new schools; I'd suspect the real result would be that nothing actually gets expanded, so additional students would all get squished into existing schools, larger classes, fewer resources, etc. It's not new to see a massive, visionary project go without funding.

 

[bomba923]

The logic of this is breathtaking.

Are you trolling? Re-enrolling seniors is a bottleneck which must significantly increase the size of schools. You no longer have four incoming classes, but five; the former 8th graders, 9th...11th, PLUS a fraction of the 12th graders which did not graduate.

Read my previous post again. The logic in it is quite valid:

1) Some seniors might have to "re-enroll". Meaning, they won't graduate and thus will not give up their place in the class.

2) However, because testing affects all grades 9-12, some juniors will be retained as well! Thus, less juniors enter the senior class. And thus, space in the prospective senior class not a problem. The "decrease in space in the senior class" is offset by "decreasing in the quantity of juniors that may enter the senior class". Oh, and the same applies for freshmen entering sophomore class and sopohomores entering junior class. >Understand?

(And perhaps, more importantly,)
Again, remember that re-enrollment is only for students whose academic incompetence is so extensive (i.e., not just in one/two subjects) that it cannot be managed by tutors, summerschool, or one/two courses at some local college. And remember that testing affects placement into COURSES, not "GRADES".

In other words; the mean length of time in HS increases from ~four years to ~four-years-and-some-fraction, because of incompetents re-enrolling themselves in the same year. Thus schools must significantly grow to accommodate.

Let's be more specific:

-Do you mean "mean length of time" for competent students? Or for incompetent students?
~Because competent students have little use for (and are, by the way, not really affected by ) statistics involving their incompetent peers.

Regarding "re-enrollment," alright then: we'll allow students to re-enroll only ONCE.

His (her?) point is the logistical problem of the larger number of students in school at any given time due to some people being there longer. I'm of the opinion that if we then need larger schools, then we need larger schools. Space consideration is not a relevant factor in determining academic standards.

Given the offsetting factors I previously mentioned (in this post and my previous one), perhaps you are referring to the influx of prospective HS freshmen?

*Franznietschze, if a freshman is accepted to a public high school, then the high school must allow that freshman to advance to sophomore, junior, and senior in THAT VERY school.
*However, if there wouldn't be enough space (however unprobable this scenario might be ) for ALL the 8th grade students who apply to that school for freshman positions, the school does NOT have to grant entrance to all of those applying for freshman positions.

~>In fact, that's a general policy schools use today! (and have used in the past)

 

[Rach3]

Read it again. The logic is quite valid:

1) Some seniors might have to "re-enroll". Meaning, they won't graduate and thus will not give up their place in the class.

2) However, because testing affects all grades 9-12, some juniors will be retained as well! Thus, less juniors enter the senior class. And thus, space in the prospective senior class not a problem. The "decrease in space in the senior class" is offset by "decreasing in the quantity of juniors that may enter the senior class". Oh, and the same applies for freshmen entering sophomore class and sopohomores entering junior class. Understand?

Are 5-year-olds entering school for their very first time, being prevented from entering because of their "previous academic performance"? No? Well if they go in, and not all of them come out, then there is obviously a bottleneck somewhere, no?

 

[Rach3]

It is supremely obvious that if the average student goes from spending 4.0 years in HS, to 4.2 years (or whatever), then when things balance out there will be more students in HS at any given time.

 

[bomba923]

Are 5-year-olds entering school for their very first time, being prevented from entering because of their "previous academic performance"? No?

Here's an idea: Find some qualified 5-year-olds applying to be HS freshman.

-Honestly, must you really involve 5-year-olds? You know, age groups that aren't even closely affect by my plan? -Must you really equate HS enrollment with entrance into kindgarten? I pity such arguments.
(are you really that desperate?)

Well if they go in, and not all of them come out, then there is obviously a bottleneck somewhere, no?

Yes. A bottleneck called incompetence.
~In fact, this bottleneck goes WAY back when schools first came into service!

Honestly, do you really think that EVERYBODY--regardless of attendance, competence, and ability---graduates from high school?

--As though...being 17/18 years old somehow "entitles" you to a diploma?

Recall what franznietschze has mentioned:

Too bad. If you don't actually learn what you should in high school, you don't deserve a diploma. Period. End of discussion. You do not have the right to a High School diploma, you only have the right to opportunity to EARN one.

Hey Rach3, another "bottleneck" to graduation right there!

Also, as Rach3 mentioned:

It is supremely obvious that if the average student goes from spending 4.0 years in HS, to 4.2 years (or whatever), then when things balance out there will be more students in HS at any given time.

No, the only thing supremely obvious when

average student goes from spending 4.0 years in HS, to 4.2 years (or whatever)

is that "when things balance out", there will be more students DENIED admission FROM a given HS. Space, Rach3, is conserved

What "things will balance out"? Simply the
amount of students who must re-enroll (only a minor 1 or 2%) with the amount of new students admitted to that HS (for the first time).

 

[Rach3]

You've changed your story! Now you're talking about public schools granting/denying admission! Slippery, slippery eels.

Fact is, your scenario as it was up until your last post and its ad-hoc modifications, involved lengthening the average time spent in schools, hence increasing their size.

edit: For reference, bomba's original line of reasoning I refer to, is the one in post #64.

(edit for emphasis)

 

[Rach3]

I'm not going to comment on your new proposal, or any other proposal you might think up. I'm out of this thread.

(edited for emphasis)

 

[bomba923]

You've changed your story!

No I haven't. Just added some clarification to your senseless complaints~

Now you're talking about public schools granting/denying admission! Slippery, slippery eels.

Yes...those "slippery, slippery eels!" (like me) that have always found class size an important factor in academically-conducive environments! And just look how even universities deny admissions when a class is overcrowded!

Hey...in case you didn't know, those "slippery, slippery eel" policies (denying admissions due to space concerns) were always there! Perhaps you need to trip on your logic a few more times to realize how "slippery" your reasoning truly is!

Fact is, your scenario as it was up until your last post and its ad-hoc modifications, involved lengthening the average time spent in schools, hence increasing their size.

Fact is, I have not made any modifications.

Fact is, I have only clarified some inapt concern regarding "increasing HS size". Look closely: I have not added any details.

Fact is, this involved showing why "increasing average time spent in schools" and "increasing size of schools" do not effectively relate to one another! And that involved introducing that obvious factor "denying admission to due lack of space". Say Rach3, was your college the type that let's EVERYONE in?

edit: For reference, bomba's original line of reasoning I refer to, is the one in post #64.

No, "bomba's original line of reasoning" is my very first post---post#1--- in this thread .

>"Post #64" is where I address some undue concern regarding "school size"

I'm not going to comment on your new proposal, or any other proposal you might think up. I'm out of this thread.

Good for you. Now we'll have room for intelligent criticism.
(by the way, my plan is now four months old, nothing "new" at all ).