Matt Damon's speech to teachers

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

[Ghostwriter]

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.

[WCsweet<3]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

[MysticCat]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

1. Bring back vocational training. Quit this push for everyone to go to college. Everyone should not and there should be alternatives.

This is probably the most important - one of the main problems in modern childhood education is the proliferation of "one-track" schooling ... we pretend that's the best way for every child, when in reality, a mix of (pre-college/trade/technology/skilled labor/life-skills/other) tracks would be markedly more effective, and wouldn't cost much more in the way of money or manpower.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

[*]School uniforms until 10th grade.[*]Separate schools or, at least classrooms, for boys and girls until 10th grade.[/LIST]

If you're going to do them till 10th grade, you might as well go ahead and go the whole way through till 12th. If combined, this would REALLY be a mess - the opposite sex in the classroom for the first time and getting to wear whatever you want for the first time? That would make People of Walmart look like NYC Fashion Week.

I kind of agree with the first (only kind of because it just treats a symptom and doesn't really get to the heart of the problem) and completely disagree with the second. As agzg said, this is completely unfeasible for most rural school districts (as are many many many options that people bring up to "improve" schools). Not to mention, it just strengthens the stereotype that girls can't learn with boys around. If they're in the same school - do you really think that kids won't know who the "brains" are in the opposite sex classroom next door?

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is probably the most important - one of the main problems in modern childhood education is the proliferation of "one-track" schooling ... we pretend that's the best way for every child, when in reality, a mix of (pre-college/trade/technology/skilled labor/life-skills/other) tracks would be markedly more effective, and wouldn't cost much more in the way of money or manpower.

Many schools do still offer business/agriculture/shop/votech curricula in high school. The problem is getting it through the parents' thick head that their kid is more suited for that than they are to go to college.