Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
While I think the initial logical fallacy was the one expressed by the reporter (basically "as an actor, work isn't guaranteed so you work hard so that you'll have job security, right?" -- an interesting question to pose to someone who doesn't have to work at all), I concur he answered it with another logical fallacy.
|
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).
Quote:
|
Still, though, I agree with the general points he's trying to make. The heavy reliance currently placed on standardized tests results in teaching to the test and should not be the measure of whether teachers are performing well, especially when a student's performance depends on so many variables, many of which are way beyond a teacher's control.
|
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.
Threaded Mode
