The initial question was horrible, I completely agree. And I thought Damon's response was measured and well spoken, although definitely just as fallacious (I'm guessing at least in part, if not mostly, because of the setting/timing).

Right - I mean, to start, even if you want to use an economics-style incentive base when examining education, the incentives first examined should be the ones for the students. I'm skeptical teachers have much, if any, effect on these incentives for wide swaths of the population - which makes using outcome awkward as hell.

At the same time, for things like math in particular, testing is a VERY effective way to determine comprehension, which while not the be-all/end-all, is pretty damn close in terms of importance of outcome. I think there has to be a balance, for sure - the anti-test movement sometimes goes just as far into zealotry as the only-tests-matter crew though.

It depends on the kind of math and what you're testing, I think. But for the purposes of the discussion this thread is about, it's kind of beside the point. The question here is whether standardized testing of students is an effective way to measure whether the teacher has taught well. A teacher can be fantastic and still have students who, for a variety of reasons, don't do well on the tests. And sometimes students can do very well on tests despite having had a terrible teacher. There are those awkward outcomes you're talking about.

There definitely has to be a balance, and testing can certainly be part of the equation. But too often, it seems, testing is the entire equation, and I think everyone -- student and teacher -- suffers as a result.

Sometimes you slam your car door on your leg the morning you are taking the ACT and take the test in extreme pain only to find out later that you have a chipped bone from it.

Oh wait, that's probably rare (and I did pretty well in spite of the circumstance!).

Some kids just aren't good test takers. I have always been pretty lucky that I'm a fast test taker and do well on tests. I had friends who knew their stuff but didn't do as well as I did on standardized tests. I think it was usually test anxiety that hung them up.

All of this emphasis on testing comes from No Child Left Behind. Basically the teachers are held responsible if the kids don't pass the standardized test- so some spend much time "teaching" the test instead of traditional teaching.

Now what is wrong with holding teachers accountable? Well...let's say I'm a high school science teacher (which I may be someday). If the kid enters my class with third grade reading skills...only basic math skills...is it my fault he can't grasp DNA replication or chemical reactions?

NCLB or not...kids are still being passed through. Kids are with their families 16 hours a day and in school 8. Not everything that happens in a kids life is at the hands of the teacher. As a society we need to accept there are some horrific people having children (not going to use the word "raising" as it's not applicable here.). Teachers can only do so much. They wind up being villianized by a society that does not appreciate the work ethic or heart of the average teacher.

Clearly :p That is indeed what I meant by awkward - separating signal from noise is very difficult, to put it different terms.

I guess, then, my question is: should we even try? I'm not being glib, either - is there any way to tell who is a "good" teacher (particularly using outcome)?

I think implementation is as much the problem as anything - and I mean that from the top down (test design, use of the results, integration of test materials into curricula and vice versa, etc.).

While standardized testing has well-documented issues (mostly related to biasing factors from test designers), it's not something inherently wrong or evil - it is just used in an extremely stupid fashion in most secondary schools.

We don't have the same global fight against post-secondary standardized tests - in fact, they're often embraced when performed on a smaller scale (doctors, lawyers and whatnot).

Exactly. My high school best friend was in National Honor Society (I think her overall was something like 3.8, and this was before the days of grade inflation, and she was in the college prep course) but I don't think she even broke 900 combined on her SATs. She wasn't stupid, obviously - just a really bad and really nervous standardized test taker.

But we aren't firing professors based on the number of professionals who pass these tests. The students are blamed for their own failures at this level. At least that is my experience in the medical field.

That was actually my point - it's only a problem when judging the teachers using the outcome, the tests themselves (regardless of flaws) are acceptable as an instrument in other contexts.

But it's comparing apples to oranges. Extremely specialized tests that are paid for out of pocket by the person being tested. You have an incentive to pass. For physicians, however, passing isn't mandatory after the USMLE. You don't have to be board certified to practice in your field.

I don't mean to invite an apples-to-apples comparison at all - that was what the "other contexts" was about ... I'm literally only saying that standardized testing is not inherently awful (and using examples where it is accepted to show this), which seems to indicate that the use of the tests is the problem, and not the tests themselves.

I guess I'll be somewhat more specific in my earlier point, and hopefully illustrate what I'm saying a little better:

Standardized tests provide TONS of data - smart school systems could use the data to improve at every stage. Instead, the data are reduced to a binary "pass/fail", at least in effect, and applied toward short-sighted goals (like judging teachers on a minute sample). Are the data flawed? In some ways, perhaps - but it's systemic, not endemic, and the apples-to-oranges examples of post-secondary testing show us that it is certainly possible to work around the flaws to get to something positive. In other contexts, the tests work just fine - it's about expectations and how the test is used.

I'll let them speak for themselves, but I imagine teachers would be MUCH more open to standardized tests if the tests resulted in a global overview of what is and isn't 'working' for kids at every level, and curricula were designed each year to help address those issues across every level. If the outcome became collaborative rather than 'definitive' (re: a teacher's performance, rather than a student's), it seems like most of the problems raised here would be obviated.

I agree with what you've said here. That would be logical, yet it's always easier to just point a finger and find fault.

Yep - I think that's my main take-away ... the most vocal on either side seem to be short-sighted and reactive, whether they're saying "TEACHERS SUCK!" or "TESTS DON'T WORK!"

Luckily, I think they're a distinct minority.

Most of the stuff he spews is bunk but I agree with a little of what he said but not for the reasons he states. I believe we should remove the federally mandated standardized testing but I also believe we should return the total responsibility for education back to the states and local governments. I do believe the states run the University and CC systems and, in most cases, do a very credible job. If the states don't want to compete they can continue to graduate dummies. If they want to compete in a global economy they will place the emphasis needed to meet these new requirements and new realitites. It is time to drilldown to the lowest level (state and local) because what we have been doing for the last 40+ years isn't working all that well.

I talked this over with my daughter who teaches high school English and we both agree with the following:

I know I am going to get a lot of crap for this (but that is the norm) so here goes.

1. Shut down the DOE and allocate that money (for the next 5 years) to the states based on their student population. Phase this money out and the schools will step up to the plate and meet the new realities.
2. Make teacher tenure difficult but reachable and have certain steps and rewards (tangible and intangible) for meeting these more stringent requirements.
3. Pay the teachers more to teach in "crappie" schools.
4. Quit passing everyone regardless of ability. Hold them back if the can't or won't do the work.
5. School uniforms until 10th grade.
6. Separate schools or, at least classrooms, for boys and girls until 10th grade.
7. Bring back vocational training. Quit this push for everyone to go to college. Everyone should not and there should be alternatives.

I agree with a lot of what you said, especially having some incentive for teachers to teach in "crappie" schools, whether more pay or what. However, coming from wearing uniforms from k-8th grade, there was little difference. The kids who couldn't afford new uniforms every year or have multiple versions (ie have one or two polo shirts per week vs having five) were still taunted. Kids were made fun of for how the uniforms fit them instead of clothes being out of style or whatever. I know there were two people in my class who are still dealing with eating disorders that started at this age potentially (I want to say probably) due to our peers teasing them about their bodies.

Also, I would have killed someone if I hadn't had my guy friends in middle school. The girls I went to school with were absolutely horrible. I do understand that it might be better for some children as it might allow the focus to be more towards education instead of social interests. Also while in mixed gender classrooms girls are less likely to exceed in math and science. Perhaps having different classes for boys and girls but still allowing social interaction during lunch/recess/etc? Also what about homosexual children? Would you keep them with their gender?

Other than that, hell yes to everything you said. Not everyone should go to college. It shouldn't be shameful or disgraceful to not go to college.
I feel like you should be reviewed somewhat periodically after a professor is tenured. The few I had, well one was great while the others couldn't care less.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you said, Ghostwriter, except for the federal/state relationship. While in theory I prefer the states' having complete control, in the modern world-wide economy, we defnitely have a national interest in education. I think the balance could perhaps be struck differently, but I think there is a federal* interest and federal role here.



* Federal in the sense of the states collectively.