|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 14 2015 07:49 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2015 06:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think peer review is the by far 'least flawed' method, perhaps with recurring negative student feedback as a trigger? I mean, standardized testing can also showcase something about teacher performance, it's just that it's too random and comes with too great of an extra cost to have teacher's salary / bonuses be determined by those results.
I really think the main thing is just being stringent during teacher's education and requiring teachers to actually have a degree if they want to teach.. During my year of pedagogics studies, several students were weeded out, mostly during the internship periods, because they displayed behavior that clearly made them unfit for the job. (And, in every single case- no exceptions- had these students given me the impression that they would be unfit for the job prior to them being weeded out. Likewise, none of the people I thought looked like they would become great teachers had any problem getting approved. ) To be approved as a teacher, we all needed to complete 15 weeks of mostly supervised teaching - that's quite a lot of time to determine whether you have the necessary qualities. Then I guess there can be issues with tenure and stuff like that, which I'm honestly not too familiar with, that allow teachers to relax too much once they are established, but this is not solved by firing the 5-10% with worst year to year results on standardized tests. The more I think about it, the more I think this is the optimal answer. Rather than wasting time trying to fix the problem on the back end with metrics, testing, salary etc., just make sure teachers can teach before they get into it. Keep doing evaluations to keep people honest. Problem with that in the USA is no one would go into teaching anymore because of the low pay plus added requirements. Starting pay for a teacher in NC is just under 31k/yr. Few people would undergo a rigorous amount of training for such a pittance. Not sure if raising standards for teachers while raising teacher pay is feasible in the current political climate.
And I think the worst part about it is that most of these "standards" that are being "raised" aren't even directly helpful to a teacher's growth as an educator. Most evaluations are done by an administrator who doesn't have teaching experience (let alone in that particular subject). They just take out a checklist of things like "Did the teacher write the objectives on the board" or "Did the teacher use technology", because they're unable to make more nuanced and well-informed evaluations. Teachers have to write up additional plans, teach to additional standardized tests, and jump through other hoops that actually detract from the time they need to be spending on teaching their students. Professional development hours can actually be used pretty well though, if organized by teachers and run by teachers. Teacher collaboration is where it's at, if you want to make teachers better at their jobs.
|
Canada11607 Posts
It really depends. Maybe it's different in BC's private schools, but all my administrators used to be teachers or in leaner enrollment years, even taught a course or two concurrent to administrating. In the public high schools of the two neighbouring districts, most of the vice-principals were former teachers, and I know for sure one principal was a former socials/ English teacher.
However, if the State system leans towards former teachers as administrators as an exception, rather than a rule, then evaluations would be sub par at best.
|
On August 14 2015 09:43 Falling wrote:
It really depends. Maybe it's different in BC's private schools, but all my administrators used to be teachers or in leaner enrollment years, even taught a course or two concurrent to administrating. In the public high schools of the two neighbouring districts, most of the vice-principals were former teachers, and I know for sure one principal was a former socials/ English teacher.
However, if the State system leans towards former teachers as administrators as an exception, rather than a rule, then evaluations would be sub par at best.
That would be 100% okay in my book, if all our administrators had those kinds of credentials.
|
DAVENPORT, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush on Thursday declined to rule out resuming the use of torture under some circumstances by the U.S. government.
"I don't want to make a definitive, blanket kind of statement," Bush told an audience of Iowa Republicans, when asked whether he would keep in place or repeal President Barack Obama's executive order banning so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the CIA.
"When you are president your words matter," he said.
The former Florida governor said that in general, he believes torture is inappropriate, and that he was glad his brother, former President George W. Bush, largely ended the CIA's use of the techniques before he left office. The CIA used waterboarding, slapping, nudity, sleep deprivation, humiliation and other methods to coerce al-Qaida detainees — methods the military would be prohibited from using on prisoners of war.
A Senate report released last year cited CIA records in concluding that the techniques were more brutal than previously disclosed, that the CIA lied about them, and that they failed to produce unique, life-saving intelligence. The CIA and its defenders take issue with the report.
Jeb Bush said he believed that the techniques were effective in producing intelligence, but that "now we're in a different environment."
He suggested there may be occasions when brutal interrogations were called for to keep the country safe.
Source
|
On August 14 2015 08:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2015 08:21 Simberto wrote:On August 14 2015 07:36 Gorsameth wrote:On August 14 2015 07:26 Simberto wrote:
"Teaching to the test" usually does not mean "teaching the broad subjects that will be tested", to most people it means "teaching in a way that will maximise test results as opposed to actual skills and knowledge". For example, you can spend the last month before the test by going through the tests from previous years. Teaching tricks based on the specific format of the tests. Focus very much on the exact things that will be tested and drilling in algorithms to solve those, as opposed to a much more useful broader knowledge which can be used in multiple cases. Things like that.
Generally those are not a good idea.
Also, i kind of wonder why you need to fire teachers all the time. In Germany, teachers are basically unfireable after ~3 years at work. cLutZ seems to very much focus on this "evil unions make teachers hard to fire, thus standardized tests are needed" Aspect of the situation. I don't think that should be the main focus.
if you can teach algorithms to solve your standardized test is to specific. Going over old tests to practice feels normal to me, it lets you prepare for the way questions are formulated. Its very possible to know the right thing but give a wrong answer because of how the question and/or answer is formulated. Going over old tests is of course a smart thing for a student to do who wishes to maximize his test score. It is also utterly wasted time regarding learning anything that is not passing that test. The test should not be the goal, knowledge should be the goal, at least for the teacher. And i am going at this from a maths perspective, as i am currently studying to become a maths teachers. There are a lot of things that you can teach in two ways. Either in a way that involves teaching them an algorithm that they need to memorize, which will be very effective at solving exactly that problem, and which the students will instantly forget after the test and never be able to use in any future problems that might involve similar concepts. Or you can teach them in a way that prioritizes understanding the underpinnings of the situation, which is usually less effective in the immediate future, but which they will remember lateron, be available for different situations, and upon which you can build future similar concepts. Obviously the second one is superior, but the first one will get them better immediate test scores. Agreed; I try my best to teach them all the different strategies and then allow them to use whatever works for them (as long as it's mathematically valid). What grades/ levels of math are you looking forward to teaching? I'm teaching high school and university 
High school, however the German school system is different from the american in that students are 2-3 (depending on state) different high school types in which people are split up depending on their grades in grade school. I am going for Gymnasium, which is the one the highest one that is supposed to prepare students for university.
|
On August 14 2015 10:12 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2015 08:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 14 2015 08:21 Simberto wrote:On August 14 2015 07:36 Gorsameth wrote:On August 14 2015 07:26 Simberto wrote:
"Teaching to the test" usually does not mean "teaching the broad subjects that will be tested", to most people it means "teaching in a way that will maximise test results as opposed to actual skills and knowledge". For example, you can spend the last month before the test by going through the tests from previous years. Teaching tricks based on the specific format of the tests. Focus very much on the exact things that will be tested and drilling in algorithms to solve those, as opposed to a much more useful broader knowledge which can be used in multiple cases. Things like that.
Generally those are not a good idea.
Also, i kind of wonder why you need to fire teachers all the time. In Germany, teachers are basically unfireable after ~3 years at work. cLutZ seems to very much focus on this "evil unions make teachers hard to fire, thus standardized tests are needed" Aspect of the situation. I don't think that should be the main focus.
if you can teach algorithms to solve your standardized test is to specific. Going over old tests to practice feels normal to me, it lets you prepare for the way questions are formulated. Its very possible to know the right thing but give a wrong answer because of how the question and/or answer is formulated. Going over old tests is of course a smart thing for a student to do who wishes to maximize his test score. It is also utterly wasted time regarding learning anything that is not passing that test. The test should not be the goal, knowledge should be the goal, at least for the teacher. And i am going at this from a maths perspective, as i am currently studying to become a maths teachers. There are a lot of things that you can teach in two ways. Either in a way that involves teaching them an algorithm that they need to memorize, which will be very effective at solving exactly that problem, and which the students will instantly forget after the test and never be able to use in any future problems that might involve similar concepts. Or you can teach them in a way that prioritizes understanding the underpinnings of the situation, which is usually less effective in the immediate future, but which they will remember lateron, be available for different situations, and upon which you can build future similar concepts. Obviously the second one is superior, but the first one will get them better immediate test scores. Agreed; I try my best to teach them all the different strategies and then allow them to use whatever works for them (as long as it's mathematically valid). What grades/ levels of math are you looking forward to teaching? I'm teaching high school and university High school, however the German school system is different from the american in that students are 2-3 (depending on state) different high school types in which people are split up depending on their grades in grade school. I am going for Gymnasium, which is the one the highest one that is supposed to prepare students for university.
Cool! Good luck! 
|
I think a lot of those things you guys are talking about are nibbling at the edges without addressing that we are already spending too much on education.
|
On August 14 2015 11:32 cLutZ wrote:
I think a lot of those things you guys are talking about are nibbling at the edges without addressing that we are already spending too much on education.
Spending less won't make education any better. Sure spending is a problem, but too much money isn't an education problem, it's a separate issue.
We should have the best results before we bother looking to spend less. Reallocating is a legitimate issue, but reducing spending altogether is a problem that gets addressed after we are performing better.
|
Why do you think that?
I am of a completely different opinion. I think education is one of the best things one can spend money on. You are basically investing in your future labor force, while at the same time also making the citizens happy.
According to this:
![[image loading]](http://www.jjahnke.net/index_files/13004.gif)
you are already spending less than most other first world countries on education.
|
I think per student we spend more than all but two countries.
|
Apparently that is true, i found these stats for that Page 206)
http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/48630868.pdf
That is a bit weird, since you pay your high school teachers less than, for example, Germany, as far as i know. So the question is where all that money ends up (Except paying for loads of standardized tests of course)
According to those stats (a bit later in the PDF) the main thing that is more expensive in the US than everywhere else is tertiary education. While there is a slightly over average spending on secondary and primary education, tertiary peaks way above anyone else.
So your high schools are actually not that much more expensive than in other countries.
|
Fifteen state attorneys general filed a court petition in Washington on Thursday to block the Environmental Protection Agency's new rules to curb carbon emissions from power plants, in the first of several expected legal challenges to the Obama administration measure.
States from Alabama to West Virginia that oppose the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan filed for the stay in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and asked for a ruling by Sept. 8, one year before states need to submit compliance plans to the EPA.
“This rule is the most far-reaching energy regulation in the nation’s history, and the EPA simply does not have the legal authority to carry it out,” said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey.
The Obama administration unveiled the final version of the Clean Power Plan on Aug. 3, which aims to lower emissions from the country's fleet of power plants by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. President Barack Obama called the rule the biggest action the United States had taken to date to address climate change.
Under the proposal, each state needs to submit a plan to the EPA detailing how it intends to meet the target the agency set for it. States, particularly those that have relied on coal for electricity, have vowed to fight the rule, arguing the EPA has overstepped its regulatory authority.
Source
|
On August 14 2015 11:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2015 11:32 cLutZ wrote:
I think a lot of those things you guys are talking about are nibbling at the edges without addressing that we are already spending too much on education. Spending less won't make education any better. Sure spending is a problem, but too much money isn't an education problem, it's a separate issue. We should have the best results before we bother looking to spend less. Reallocating is a legitimate issue, but reducing spending altogether is a problem that gets addressed after we are performing better.
Spending isn't what is causing the problem of underachievement, agreed, but I disagree after that. That the system is so flush with cash that is mostly unaccountable is a systemic factor that works against implementing effective reforms. The same is true in higher education and in healthcare. When you have the kind of money that is at work here, your incentive is to expand "features" to vacuum it up, and more subordinates is more prestige and a bigger salary for you. I don't think slashing federal spending in half would make those schools better, but it would force them to make choices. That we have had so long without public school systems making meaningful choices is why we are where we are.
Plus, spending less should be an independent goal, and since it wont make the situation any worse, there is no reason not to do it.
On August 14 2015 11:44 Introvert wrote:
I think per student we spend more than all but two countries.
OECD #2
http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/International Education Spending Data_Image_0.png
|
Very briefly on education:
1. state (and national) department of education mandates are poorly thought out and implemented even more poorly. Regulations change fluidly on the whims of directors and are not equally applied. This leads to higher stress and hours of wasted time for teacher and administrators.
2. Standardized tests waste significant classroom time. I counted this year; if every day that had a modified schedule due to standardized tests was an absence instead, you would be in danger of automatically failing for the year. (15+ days). The push for increased testing (every year, minimum twice a year) is going to make this worse.
3. Standardized tests represent huge costs. The data they provide is questionable at best - teachers don't need them to tell you who is doing well or not. They are a political tool.
4. Useful training and professional development opportunities are limited.
Source: I'm a teacher in the USA :D
|
On August 14 2015 11:32 cLutZ wrote:
I think a lot of those things you guys are talking about are nibbling at the edges without addressing that we are already spending too much on education.
As far as the money is concerned (which wasn't really an issue I was aiming to address in my previous posts about education), there is definitely a lot of money going into education, but there's also a decent about of mismanagement of funds. That doesn't mean we're spending too much on education per se, but we should definitely make sure that we're funding necessary resources and infrastructure and not wasting it.
|
On August 14 2015 12:07 Bigtony wrote:
Very briefly on education:
1. state (and national) department of education mandates are poorly thought out and implemented even more poorly. Regulations change fluidly on the whims of directors and are not equally applied. This leads to higher stress and hours of wasted time for teacher and administrators.
Agreed. I think the biggest reason for this is because it's run by politicians and rarely by educators or educational researchers.
2. Standardized tests waste significant classroom time. I counted this year; if every day that had a modified schedule due to standardized tests was an absence instead, you would be in danger of automatically failing for the year. (15+ days). The push for increased testing (every year, minimum twice a year) is going to make this worse.
Agreed. In New Jersey, teachers spent nearly a full month preparing students for standardized tests, not to mention the extra weeks taken up by the actual tests. Teachers already have the impossible task of teaching jam-packed curricula in 180 days; it's impossible to do it in 150.
3. Standardized tests represent huge costs. The data they provide is questionable at best - teachers don't need them to tell you who is doing well or not. They are a political tool.
Agreed. On new standardized tests (like the PARCC), many districts even spend money and time on additional professional development because of new technology or protocols being used.
4. Useful training and professional development opportunities are limited.
Agreed. Emphasis on "useful". Many districts can't afford professional development at all, and plenty of districts that can afford it, end up wasting resources on things that teachers don't need or can't use anyway.
Source: I'm a teacher in the USA :D
Awesome! What do you teach? What grades?
(5/5 would read again)
|
On August 14 2015 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2015 12:07 Bigtony wrote:Very briefly on education: + Show Spoiler +
1. state (and national) department of education mandates are poorly thought out and implemented even more poorly. Regulations change fluidly on the whims of directors and are not equally applied. This leads to higher stress and hours of wasted time for teacher and administrators.
Agreed. I think the biggest reason for this is because it's run by politicians and rarely by educators or educational researchers. Show nested quote +2. Standardized tests waste significant classroom time. I counted this year; if every day that had a modified schedule due to standardized tests was an absence instead, you would be in danger of automatically failing for the year. (15+ days). The push for increased testing (every year, minimum twice a year) is going to make this worse. Agreed. In New Jersey, teachers spent nearly a full month preparing students for standardized tests, not to mention the extra weeks taken up by the actual tests. Teachers already have the impossible task of teaching jam-packed curricula in 180 days; it's impossible to do it in 150. Show nested quote +3. Standardized tests represent huge costs. The data they provide is questionable at best - teachers don't need them to tell you who is doing well or not. They are a political tool. Agreed. On new standardized tests (like the PARCC), many districts even spend money and time on additional professional development because of new technology or protocols being used. Agreed. Emphasis on "useful". Many districts can't afford professional development at all, and plenty of districts that can afford it, end up wasting resources on things that teachers don't need or can't use anyway. Awesome! What do you teach? What grades? (5/5 would read again)
I've taught World Language for the last 5 years (4 years high school, 1 year 8th grade), but I am also certified to teach English/Language arts. Still looking for a job for September, so take that as you will.
|
On August 14 2015 12:27 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2015 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 14 2015 12:07 Bigtony wrote:Very briefly on education: + Show Spoiler +
1. state (and national) department of education mandates are poorly thought out and implemented even more poorly. Regulations change fluidly on the whims of directors and are not equally applied. This leads to higher stress and hours of wasted time for teacher and administrators.
Agreed. I think the biggest reason for this is because it's run by politicians and rarely by educators or educational researchers. 2. Standardized tests waste significant classroom time. I counted this year; if every day that had a modified schedule due to standardized tests was an absence instead, you would be in danger of automatically failing for the year. (15+ days). The push for increased testing (every year, minimum twice a year) is going to make this worse. Agreed. In New Jersey, teachers spent nearly a full month preparing students for standardized tests, not to mention the extra weeks taken up by the actual tests. Teachers already have the impossible task of teaching jam-packed curricula in 180 days; it's impossible to do it in 150. 3. Standardized tests represent huge costs. The data they provide is questionable at best - teachers don't need them to tell you who is doing well or not. They are a political tool. Agreed. On new standardized tests (like the PARCC), many districts even spend money and time on additional professional development because of new technology or protocols being used. 4. Useful training and professional development opportunities are limited. Agreed. Emphasis on "useful". Many districts can't afford professional development at all, and plenty of districts that can afford it, end up wasting resources on things that teachers don't need or can't use anyway. Source: I'm a teacher in the USA :D Awesome! What do you teach? What grades? (5/5 would read again) I've taught World Language for the last 5 years (4 years high school, 1 year 8th grade), but I am also certified to teach English/Language arts. Still looking for a job for September, so take that as you will.
That's cool, good luck!
|
For whatever it's worth, standardized tests kinda saved me. I have AD/HD, undiagnosed for many years until things got hard enough I couldn't easily "smart" my way through them (late high school). But I got mediocre grades all through primary and secondary education, and without standardized tests I would never have known I was actually really good at a lot of this stuff. Testing in school I always did well on, but it never gets counted separately... e.g., no-one says, "what was your history test average," they just asked "what was your history grade" and mine was always pushed down by homework, attendance, etc. Then, I went to college in humanities, where tests and essays were all you did, and I did great.
Again, I really don't know the prescription for our broken educational system, but I'm all for anything that recognizes the differences in the way students learn. Would really hate to have something like the German or Korean system, which would have early on sorted me as a "dumb kid."
|
I'm curious on teachers opinions in general but I'm of the opinion grades are totally stupid.
One teacher/professors "A" is another's "C" or "F". Which means identical performance/learning can be measured very differently. This can have dramatic impacts on their future in a variety of ways especially at the high school and college level. That's pretty much the only thing I like about standardized testing. That and some of what Yoav mentioned regarding evidence I was good at things that were otherwise not brought to my attention.
Accommodating different learning styles is probably my number one complaint about our education system, with segregation and lopsided funding in a close 2nd and 3rd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
