Matt Damon's speech to teachers

[33girl]

"MBA style thinking"

Matt Damon, if you feel a big pair of arms encircling you, it is my dad giving you a hug from the Great Beyond.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by 33girl

"MBA style thinking"

Matt Damon, if you feel a big pair of arms encircling you, it is my dad giving you a hug from the Great Beyond.

I love that he attacked a (supposed) logical fallacy (reducing education and its complexity to "MBA-style thinking") through a series of his own logical fallacies. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, thine own mother teach the way.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I love that he attacked a (supposed) logical fallacy (reducing education and its complexity to "MBA-style thinking") through a series of his own logical fallacies. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, thine own mother teach the way.

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.

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.

[KSig RC]

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).

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.

[*winter*]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

Clearly 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)?

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.

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).

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Clearly 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).

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.