Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: EUOL on March 04, 2005, 03:28:53 PM
-
So, what do you guys think? Reference to article:
http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=998
edit: because the link pointed int he wrong place.
-
You forgot one thing, the most successful RPG to novel(s) ever, Lodoss War. When there are about 12 novels, countless Manga, TV series, and several mini-series all based off this guys D&D campaings its worth noteing.
Also, I don't think Tage likes Dew, so #1 probaly wont work.
-
Note that I said "Good Fantasy Novels", Sprig.
Lodoss war is good manga, but it's pretty terrible fantasy. Derivative, uninspired worldbuilding mixed with cliched characters and overused plots. It gets by with interesting animation, good voice acting, and a nice sense of humor. I suspect that the novels aren't that great, however.
I could be wrong. However, I wasn't looking at success here--there are dozens upon dozens of D&D themed books. Most of them are terrible. A few are decent, and even fewer of those are actually good. (And even those have very little broad appeal--they're really only good if you're a young boy inside of their demographic. Even still, however, 'good' D&D themed books are usually pretty terrible fantasies)
-
Well, of course there are exceptions. I find Feist's writing quite likely to be similar (I can't prove it, but the nature of some of the exchanges and plot progressions scream RPG Adventure). ANd he's successful.
Just like Terry Brooks proves that you can get rich cloning Tolkien doesn't mean it's a remotely likely possibility.
Thing is, breaking into writing is hard enough. And compared even to that a book based on an RPG, that you're NOT publishing in conjunction with teh game designer has such a small chance of getting published that even eternally optimistic fiction writers say it's impossible to do.
And they're right.
-
Well to be fair you've never read the book since they're japanese only. I've read one, and it's better then the anime. Many of the Manga are very good. Also the manga/anime would have never been made if the books weren't somewhat good since no one in Japan reads novels.
And if you're going to rag on a book you've never read for useing Cliches then you should rag on 99% of everything written and just tell people not to bother to wite since they'll never be original.
-
Sprig,
If you'll notice what I wrote above:
I suspect that the novels aren't that great, however.
You'll see that that I used the word 'suspect.' And, on the very next line, I note that I could be wrong--precisely because I've never read the books. However, if the characters are the same as they are in the movies, then they're just not very original. Now, they might have been original in Japan at the time they came out, but that was probably because most people over there hadn't read the same stories from America that the author was borrowing his characters from.
People read fantasy BECAUSE of the originality, Sprig. And, indeed, I think you could call me an expert on what makes good fantasy. I get paid large amounts to be an expert on what makes good fantasy.
Right now, a large part of what makes good fantasy is original worldbuilding. Lodoss didn't have that. If those books got released in the US right now, they probably wouldn't sell very well. I could be wrong--perhaps they're far better than I assume.
However, how much better might the stories have been if, instead of lifting characters from other places, the stories had been more original?
You don't have to be completely new to be original. But, come on. Grumpy dwarf? Mysterious elf? Youthful, untested--but earnest--human hero? Wise-cracking thief? You don't have to stretch very far to get away from these worn-out cliches.
(Note, Sprig. I'm trying hard not to rag on Lodoss too much, since I actually liked the mangas a lot--the second more than the first. I'm just trying to tell newer writers why they probably won't have much success trying to publish a story based on their RPG setting.)
-
I know you're not ragging on them EUOL, I'm just defendnig my arguements a bit.
Yes many of the characters are very generic, they do come off better in the books/manga but about as much as any other fantasy with those archtypes.
As for the world itself, it's very cool and well done. Sadly you don't get much of it since the main story takes place on an island like Brittan or Japan. I would argue that's it's a well developed world history and civilzation wize that uses some generics.
Back to the actual article's point, I think you're very misguided in many of your statments. Basicaly you're argueing that no RPG campaing could ever be "original" which is wrong. I think you could write very good fantasy useing the basic plot and characters from an RPG group. Though you'd have to make some changes.
I wouldn't write the book as a steb-by-step recounting of the adventures. I'd instead take the general of what happened and use that, so cutting out all the silly thing players do, some of the sidetracks and not use much of the dialouge. There certainly would be other things to change, but it's a foundation to build on. Especially for plotting and working in conflicts.
I think it's very arrogent to say no "good" fantasy could ever come of it. Good is subjective. Yes you get paid to write, but good to most people (that aren't snobbs) is anything that sells well. Great things are different. And frankly EUOL you could write the greatist novel ever and have it bomb, and then you know what? you wouldn't be getting paid anymore to write "good" fantasty becaue you obvioulsy were good enough to sell. It never matters how great an author thinks their book is, all that matter is how good the public thinks it is.
See my point? It's more constructive to say "Learn from your RPG games" instead of "give up and try another method". I know you think good is breaking away from the norm, and many potential writers flex their creativity through RPGs (you certainly did).
-
I don't think his point was that RPG campaigns can't be original, just that novels based on RPG campaigns can't be good. Which I happen to agree with.
(And yes, good is subjective, but I have trouble believing that "anyone who isn't a snob" would say that sales equal quality.)
-
Sales do equal quality. You may not like it, but if people are buying it they like it. To them it quality. Something I learned a long time ago is just becaue I don't like it doesn't mean it's horrible it just means my tastes are different.
I would take a story and world like Lodoss over Harry Potter any day, that doesn't mean I think HP doesn't have any thing good about it, I just happen not to like it. Yet, sadly, many people think I'm stupid or have poor taste becaue of this, but the truth is I have different tastes. I care about how much something enertains me, not how artisitc it is.
EUOL, as for world building: I think plorting and character are imesureably more important then worldbuilding (which I know it your "thing"). I don't care how cool a world you designed is, if the story sucks and the characters are likable I won't like it. If the story and characters are good I don't care where it takes place.
-
I'm a bad example, but how many of you who are not self-described music snobs hate Britney Spears? YEah, Fell's point demonstrated.
The points made in the 12 item list are not to be taken as genuine, as I understand. No one is going to try to include Mountain Dew. That's a "duh" moment. But his point still stands that good examples of RPG Campaign-to-novel adaptations are far and few between. Take out anything remotely good published by Wizards of the Coast or another company in a game world they'd already created, and you're left with Raymond E. Feist and Lodoss War. I've not read the later, but the former is very hit-and-miss in terms of quality.
Interestingly, Feist's good ones are the ones where he develops new ideas, not where he takes from someone else, or even just rests on the ideas he came up with himself, which just solidifies the point: don't adapt an existing world, create a new one. It'll turn out better.
You then have a SINGLE example of a violation of the rule. Considering how many hundreds of fantasy books there are, I don't see how it can be argued that this sort of adaptation isn't almost always a bad idea.
-
Sales do equal quality. You may not like it, but if people are buying it they like it. To them it quality. Something I learned a long time ago is just becaue I don't like it doesn't mean it's horrible it just means my tastes are different.
However, just because your tastes are different does not mean that the thing you hate is good. Much of it is quite, quite bad.
-
Well yes SE, but if that thing is a comercial success then there has to be something good about it.
-
"Something good about it" does still not equal "good" in my eyes. Let's compare this to food: say that somebody wants to become a chef. EUOL's argument (translated liberally to a food medium) is that trying to do your best and create something original will result in a better meal. Your argument seems to be that McDonalds has served billions of burgers, so therefore they must be pretty frickin' awesome burgers. I can't buy into that.
There is good fantasy and there is bad fantasy--I think we can all agree on that point; I think we can further agree that bad fantasy outweighs the good by a significant margin. But the fact is that both kinds exist, and I am not being a snob when I point out the difference between them. Nor am I being a snob when I say that book A, which was exceptionally well-written, is better than book B, which was kind of derivative but had a better marketing team.
I'd say that the only real signifier of quality is time: 50 years from now, which book/movie/song do people still read/watch/listen to?
-
"Something good about it" does still not equal "good" in my eyes. Let's compare this to food: say that somebody wants to become a chef. EUOL's argument (translated liberally to a food medium) is that trying to do your best and create something original will result in a better meal. Your argument seems to be that McDonalds has served billions of burgers, so therefore they must be pretty frickin' awesome burgers. I can't buy into that.
I never said anything of the sorts Fell. What I'm saying is since McDonalds sells billons of burgers there good. Just plain and simple good. Not Friggen awsome. If there wasn't something to like about them then no one would eat there. I'm argueing if something is a comercial success then there has to be a reson people are buying it, and that reason is, to them, the item (in this case a book) is good. And it seams to me you're all argueing "if I don't like something anyone who does is a moron with no taste".
There is good fantasy and there is bad fantasy--I think we can all agree on that point; I think we can further agree that bad fantasy outweighs the good by a significant margin. But the fact is that both kinds exist, and I am not being a snob when I point out the difference between them. Nor am I being a snob when I say that book A, which was exceptionally well-written, is better than book B, which was kind of derivative but had a better marketing team.
No you're being a snob if you say book B is horrible and I'm surprised anyone likes it or it was ever made, yet book B sold 100 times what book A did. It's fine to have tastes and like other things. My Snob remark was directed at people that cannot see commercial success as a sign of some measure of quality, which I'm calling good. It dosen't mean the book is the best thing ever written, just that it deserves reconition of selling.
I'd say that the only real signifier of quality is time: 50 years from now, which book/movie/song do people still read/watch/listen to?
The only people that would read something from 50 years ago are students (becsaue their teachers are makeing them) or hard core fans. I think that's a horrible way to judge quality, especially for entertainment which changes so fast.
-
If you're equating sales with quality, then you have to say that incredible sales equals incredible quality. I don't see how you can get away from it.
As for discounting older media, I don't think you can do that--people read old books, watch old movies, and listen to old songs all the time. I can't tell you the number of people I knew in Junior High who said their favorite movie was Gone with the Wind, and that was made decades before they were even born. With books I think it's even more pronounced--how old is Lord of the Rings, and Dune, and Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov and tons of others? People still read that stuff, and I'd wager most of them are neither students or hard core fans--they're people just getting into sci-fi who've heard it's really good. That's how I got into it. If you're talking about a purely transitive form of popularity, where something is only "good" during the brief window where it's flying off the shelves and the author is interviewed on Good Morning America, then we're having two separate discussions here.
I woudl say it comes down to this (returning once again to EUOL's article): you can write a novel based on your RPG campaign, but it won't be as good as one based on original ideas and characters. You might reach some level of success with the former, but you'd acheive a greater level of success with the latter (assuming that we don't count direct licenses of media properties, which are a completely different animal that I don't believe EUOL was referring to). It's also extremely rare that an RPG-based novel acheives any kind of success at all--we've only been able to name two thus far in our thread.
-
Wait a second--I wasn't talking sales, I was talking success. That's something completely different.
Sprig, gaming fiction is a different market than the fantasy market. People reading those stories want different things. Something that makes good gaming fiction can make a terrible mainstream fantasy.
In addition, how many copies have the Lodoss war novels sold? Do you have hard figures? Because I can guarantee that Robert Jordan and Terry Goodkind BLOW AWAY Lodoss. They may sell well in Japan, but Japan is a much smaller book market than America.
I think it's very arrogant to say no "good" fantasy could ever come of it. Good is subjective. Yes you get paid to write, but good to most people (that aren't snobs) is anything that sells well.
Again, I think if you released the Lodoss War books over here, I think they'd tank big time. My opinion, but it's a very informed opinion. I know the market better than you do.
The only people that would read something from 50 years ago are students (becsaue their teachers are making them) or hard core fans. I think that's a horrible way to judge quality, especially for entertainment which changes so fast.
I think Sprig has a very good point here. Entertainment does change fast, which is why Terry Brooks sold so well in the 70's, but similar books now (without his name attached) tank.
However, none of this gets at the real point I was trying to make. I've seen A LOT of people try to turn their campaigns into books, and they generally fail worse than if they'd tried to do something from scratch. I FAILED when I tried to do it. The reasons relate to the ones I talked about in the lower portion of my column.
RPG campaigns have too much baggage, and are too unwieldy. Characters that would be considered 'cliche' in fiction are actually quite fun to play in a RPG. I do it all the time. Part of the experience, especially D&D, is to play that noble paladin or drunken dwarf.
Here's the thing: What's good in an RPG game doesn't make for what's good (or what sells) in mainstream fantasy. A lot of people don't understand this. Hence my argument.
(By the way--I think your defenses of your points have been very good so far, Sprig.)
-
my biggest problem with saying selling well means something is good is that it is farcical. Let's go back to McDonald's shall we? Kids like it. But they don't like the FOOD. They like that the kids in the commercials are having fun and that you can get toys and that there's a clown and that it's an exciting change from routine. Sift through the trash in the dumpster behind McD's and I'm willing to bet that the ratio of Happy Meal boxes and ham/cheeseburgers that are less than 50% eaten approaches 1. There will, in fact, be more ham/cheeseburgers because some kids keep the box.
Adults eat at McD too, I know. do you know anyone that says they love the food? No, adults go because it's convenient, fast, well-branded, and relatively cheap. This says NOTHING about the food, except that it doesn't typically make you throw up. Sorry, but I'll call you irrational if you say that means the FOOD is good. There's something well-executed about the process of getting people to buy that food, but that does not mean, in any way, that the food itself is good.
-
Actually, I quite like mcdonalds food, assuming I only have it about once a month at the very most.
-
It ain't the box the kids go for. It's the toys.
Back on subject: If people buy happy meals for the extras, what extras in terms of books persuades someone to buy what would otherwise be considered an OK or mediocre book?
-
pretty covers, cover quotes, exciting summaries, good marketing, availability
-
Wait a second--I wasn't talking sales, I was talking success. That's something completely different.
umm...no it's not. If something is successful it sells well. If's it's not successful then it's becsaue no one bought it. There are different levels of success, not evey book is going to sell 1 million copys.
Sprig, gaming fiction is a different market than the fantasy market. People reading those stories want different things. Something that makes good gaming fiction can make a terrible mainstream fantasy.
In addition, how many copies have the Lodoss war novels sold? Do you have hard figures? Because I can guarantee that Robert Jordan and Terry Goodkind BLOW AWAY Lodoss. They may sell well in Japan, but Japan is a much smaller book market than America.
I'm really not argueing that anymore, but ya I wouldn't hesitate to agree. Though one could argue if something that has a small market sold better percentage to that market then larger books it was more successful. So if book A was in a nitch market that usealy sold 1,000 book and Book B was in a market that usealy sold 10,000 books and Book A sold 2,000 while Book be sold 9-10,000 Book A would have been more successful, becsaue it sold 200% it's normal market.
As for good gameing fiction=horrible mainstream fantasy. They're different genras, I'm not argueing that either. I'm argueing that if something is a gameing fiction that does not mean it's a horrible book (not mainstream fantasy). The crux of the arguements going on with you and Fell is if it's gameing fanstasy isn't going to be a horrible thing and so why do people bother makeing them. My arguement is it's arrogent for you to brush everything off becasue your tastes are differet.
[/quote]Again, I think if you released the Lodoss War books over here, I think they'd tank big time. My opinion, but it's a very informed opinion. I know the market better than you do.[/quote]
I never said they wouldn't. I just argued they had to be successful and of some quality to be as popular in Japan thats all. Not that they were some book written by the gods.
-
To chime in...if something sells well, then there is usually something abuot it that could be considered good.
Course, there are varying definitions and consideration in deciding what is good. I think EUOL has presented one version of what could be considered good. In fact, most writers/artist/musicians seem to catch on to one thing that is good, it sells well, and then ride that one good thing for all it's worth.
I think fantasy readers look for familiarity as much as they look for originality. So I wouldn't really say that a book based on someones RPG campaign can't be good.
My other argument is kind of based on something in the art world. For a long time art teachers and sudents believed that great art could only come from a great individual effort. Some still believe that way. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong. The greatest achievements of mankind all come from group efforts.
So I actually don't think that basing your story in a world that someone else created would be a bad thing. However, acknowledging that it is someone elses world and working closely with that person's ideas is important. Just like working with any other person on a group project.
So I can see an RPG campaign becoming a great book, but I think it would take a lot of effort on the part of the writer and his/her players. I can see an RPG group that ran their campaign with the goal of turning it into a great book actually being rather successful. Not to mention it could be rather avante garde in it's own right. It would be kind of like a just having a group of writers trying to writing any other sort of fiction book.
Course, since the setting was published in another medium, it will carry a certain stigma forever.
-
Everyone here seems to be assuming that people all use pre-made settings. Homebrew settings do exist people.
-
The thing is, 42, that in the same way that women are physically weaker than men, books people write that are based in someone else's setting are weaker than original ones. Just as there are a few examples of women who are stronger than the average male, there are a few examples of books based on an RPG setting that are better than the average fantasy book, but those are rare exceptions to the rule, and their infrequency doesn't do much to change the point -- and they still aren't better than the best of the original books.
Peter David's best writing ever is in his Sir Apropos series. His ORIGINAL setting. It's even better than his work on Supergirl and it BLOWS AWAY his work on the Hulk. His work on Hulk is legendary among fans, but he can and does do even better when he does something else.
And Ent, even when a home brew setting is used, they are by nature of not inventing a game from scratch still adapting it from someone else. And I would even go so far as to say that even if they based it on an RPG they wrote from scratch, it wouldn't be a great idea. Simply because 99% of those worlds are built with the idea of gaming in mind, and the novel writing idea comes after they've had fun playing in it. ie, the world serves a purpose other than a novel setting, it is to accomodate certain game mechanics, and for a plethora of reasons, that almost always means a problem for a prose narrative.
-
I haven't watched or read any Lodoss, but it's entirely possible someone will license the novels in the next couple years.
I'm not happy with the marketing of the Slayers novels, but they're selling so-so, mostly to an anime/manga fanbase. Note: I don't believe Slayers plots are based on RPG sessions, but the universe ON THE SURFACE is very cookie-cutter RPG world. (The author outright says in the notes in book 1 that he's influenced by RPGs.) There's a deeper cosmology that makes things much more interesting though, plus some really wacky characters and nice plot twists that make it fun.
The other Japanese novels I worked on though, CLAMP School Paranormal Investigators, really sucked. Incoherent, jumpy plots, characters with all sorts of abilities for no reason, no motivations, etc...(though there was ONE story in the three volumes that was pretty good (2-3 stories per volume) that involved a time travel loop...I generally like stories like that...) Anyway in the author's notes for the third and blessedly final volume I found out why: they were novelizations of RPG sessions among the CLAMP members. Now, definitely not a standard D&D type RPG; the worldbuilding is very shoujo, so the universe is not the same old dreck, but the plotting and characters really show the mark of the RPG. The books just suck. Yet they sell better than Slayers because CLAMP is incredibly popular and anything you stick their name on is going to sell no matter what.
-
SE what I'm arguing is that when you look at all of the great inventions of mankind, they are rarely individual efforts. Look at the seven wonders of the ancient world. All huge group efforts.
So I actually think that a good novel could come out of using someone elses setting. However, it suffers all of the problems associated with doing a a group effort. Paying too much homage to the orgininal setting writing would probably set one back. Successful group efforts require a lot of give and take. Many writers are not willing to do such a thing.
So I can see a group of RPG players, sitting down and making a great novel. Course, they would all have to be willing to make sacrifices (like playing for fun) that they would probably all only be willing to make if they had the intent of writing the novel as the end result.
Writing just because you think your campaign was cool is probably not going to work as well because not everyone is on board. Groups where not all of the individuals contribute their best effort are a recipe for disaster. That is what I think EUOL and SE are getting hung up on. Often the RPG developer didn't contribute his/her best effort towards the writer's novel based on the rpg setting, or vice versa.
But the principle that group efforts always produces better quality than individual efforts when focused on a singlular task, remains true.
-
Uhm...
Tolkien?
Van Gogh?
-
Van Gogh was a hack.
-
Maybe not a hack but certainly not my favourite. I've been and seen his art first hand, in the musee d'orsai, and it was still somewhat unimpressive. That was a while back, and i've not looked at it since mind, but it was just so... boring. Flowers, yawn. I like my art to be more than that :)
The point still stands though. The impressionists may have all be a big friendly group but their paintings individually were solo efforts. You could group them all together but then if you do that then why not just group almost all genres together? Cyberpunk authors have always been dominated by a clique, so lets call cyberpunk one thing! :) Novels (excepting your bible) are generally solo efforts as well, with outsiders influencing the book.
That was a wierd museum as well. The interior seemed like one big cubist painting :/ All blocks and stuff.
-
You all keep wandering back and forth over a line here.
Writing a novel with ideas in it that you had during an RPG session is no different than writing a novel with ideas in it that you had while listening to the radio or while reading someone else's book. They're just ideas and I don't think this is what EUOL is talking about.
What is universally bad (nearly) are novels written in thrall to the RPG campaign. Trying to make a novel out of an RPG campaign would be as silly and likely bad as a first time writer trying to stick completely to his original outline, no changes, no room for new ideas after reflection. That is, after all, the process by which the RPG campaign was created, the first thoughts/impulses of the player characters.
As for the whole worldbuilding aspect... It's fun to read about a new world but a novel in a totally novel (grin) setting takes far more info-dump and therefore less focus on characters and plot than a story set in a familiar fantasy setting. It's a tradeoff you can only mitigate by writing really long novels where the info dump takes up about as much room as the novel is longer than a normal one.
I like well-written stories in new settings, I really like well-written stories in familiar settings, but when an author pulls off a really well written story, good characterization, good plot, etc... in a seamlessly integrated new setting where the info-dump feels like a part of the story...Well I LOVE that.
-
I was mostly kidding about Van Gogh being a hack, but he's certainly overrated. Nobody cared who he was until they realized that he was gonzo bonkers and cut off his own here and died young and insane; then he fit some sort of tragically romantic ideal and was suddenly very fashionable.
Which is not to say I that I don't think Starry Night is awesome. But that's probably because of the song.
-
To Sprig:
umm...no it's not. If something is successful it sells well. If's it's not successful then it's becsaue no one bought it. There are different levels of success, not evey book is going to sell 1 million copys
Actually, I think success and sales are quite different things. Fell wrote the best gothic vampire historical humor fiction novel I know--but even if it were to be published, it wouldn't sell like Jordan--or even, I suspect, like Farland. It's too narrow a subject field. Yet, I consider his accomplishment quite a success.
Success has to do with achieving certain goals. Sales can be one of those goals, but it doesn't have to be.
To 42:
I think most of what you said was quite lucid. Good arguments, and I think you cut to the core of some of the things I was saying. Yes, you're right--it isn't the fact that RPG books come from gaming settings that dooms them. It's the fact that most gamers aren't willing to sacrifice for story. It's the fact that the best quality usually isn't dedicated to gaming fiction.
It's that people who decided to translate their campaign into a story don't have the experience to do it. It COULD be done successfully--but I think it would actually be harder than writing an original piece. New authors mistakenly believe it is the easy route, and end up mired down in all the problems.
To Skar:
Well said.
-
in the musee d'orsai
Gordon Dickson is turning over in his grave
-
I remember that Musee. Lovely hot chocolate with whipped cream and shaved chocolate on top.
-
Mmmm, they do that in Scotland, too. And add pink marshmallows. Yeah, it's a little rich, but yum!
-
pink marshmellows in Scotland? That doesn't sound very ... manly. Does explain a bit about Ent though.
-
No, its just part of the grand scottish drive to die of massive overfatty and oversweet foods.
We have the most lethally unhealthy diet in europe apparently. And the highest rate of drug abuse and teenage pregnancies IIRC. Lovely country, come visit sometime! :P
-
yeah, but you have to DYE them to get them that way. So you get pink on PURPOSE. that's what's unmanly
-
Actually, most marshmallows found in the wild are naturally pink. It's because they eat so many shrimp.
-
See, that's a common misperception. But I minored in Marshmellogy (the study of Marshmellows) with a focus in the wild Marshmellow of the North-east Atlantic Isles. The Marshmellow that roams the islands in Scotland, and in fact most of Europe, only eats BLUE Shrimp, since a strange evolutionary quirk left them color-blind to pink, and pink shrimp are completely invisible to them. Thus the Scottish marshmellow is naturally blue, though sometimes a touch green from the parsley which supplements their diet in lean times. Pink Marshmellows have to be imported from more southern lands, like Chile. Or else dyed by gay Scotsmen.
-
I suppose the fact that blue shrimp are, of course, male only makes the imagery worse.
-
only if they're all balled up.
-
To change the topic a tad bit, I found this interview/article with Tracy Hickman at Enworld. Going to quote the instresting part, if you want to read the whole thing check it out here (http://www.enworld.org/article.php?a=85). Though it's not so much of an interview as a guy paraphraseing what Hickman told him.
While he appreciates the positive reviews Mystic Warrior has received, Tracy agrees with the view that critics do not seem to appreciate fantasy as legitimate literature. Tracy has received letters from high school students assigned to write about their favorite author, asking him if he is a legitimate author; their teachers say he is not. Tracy said, the question is asked, "because I write science-fiction and fantasy, which is populist fiction, not true "literature". In comparison, he pointed out that Charles Dickens was a populist fiction writer in his own time and was paid by the word.
Tracy says he and Laura "are not concerned with being considered legitimate'authors' by someone else's arbitrary standard. Our sole concern is to write a story that people can enjoy and feel like they have gone somewhere, done something, and learned something through the experience"
-
Can I say how much I am disgusted with the public school system? The picture of some public-school-teacher-drone declaring to his/her students that Tracy Hickman is not a "legitimate" author just infuriates me. Especially when the statistics coming out of public schools today show that it's pretty likely that the only thing that TEACHER has ever done is make kids dumber than when they entered his class.
Not that I like Tracy Hickman's work all that much...I loved dragonlance when I was 14 but I'm pretty much over it. He still accomplished a great deal then and since. For him to be dismissed out of hand by a mindless...sigh.
I must stop letting such things upset me so.
If anyone's interested there's a good book here:http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm that makes a pretty convincing argument about the sources and nature of the problems we have in the American Public School system.
-
the core problem, I think, (and I haven't had time to read that article) is that teachers are not paid enough. This means that fewer people want to get in which means that the systems have to be less selective about who they want in. You have to have those 100 3rd graders taught this year. You can't put it off. So SOMEONE has to be hired.
Plus teachers are given tons of extra panel and committee responsibilities. I'm not talking about how they have to get a certain number of education credits. I'm for that. But I hear my mom (public school teacher)go on and on about how she's had to do all this extra admin work and has to be on these committees that take her away not from planning and grading, but from actual TEACHING each week. How does that make sense? Plus they're putting kids with special needs (not wheelchairs, but things like mental retardism and autism) into standard classes -- with teachers not trained to deal with it. And before you go off on it, Fairfax County Public Schools is consistently rated among the 10 best in the nation (scored by standardized testing and students that go on to college).
How do I draw my conclusions? Well, despite all that irrelevant crap that teachers have to do here, the county pays 5-10 thousand more a year for teachers than most other places. It makes a difference.
Think about it, we pay starting teachers $35000/yr to teach for 6-8 hours a day. To do that, they have to spend many hours at home preparing. My mom gets to work at 8. She doesn't get to leave till after 4:30. She's there for 8.5 hours. Then she comes, and on the average spends 2-3 hours per DAY grading or preparing lessons. We're asking for more than 10 hour days for teachers and we're paying 'em phone center rates.
Well, how the heck else did we think our education system was going to turn out? The best of the best don't come to it because they can live much better working elsewhere.
-
While I think teachers need to be paid more, I think there are many other problems with our school system. Bill Gates just gave a great speach on what he sees are the problems.
As for the Tracy Hickman thing, that has nothing to do with pay, that has to do with teachers thinking fantasy is "beneath" them becasue that's what they learned in college.
Oh, I'd like to add that in my HS there was a Sci-fi/fantasy class you could take as your litature requirement. The teacher there announced in the first day of class that one day EUOL would be published.
-
No, it's not directly related to pay. But the good teachers wouldn't think that. If you pay more, you can be more selective and you get good teachers.
-
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Education/
the first blurb is an excerpt from the speach I was talking about.
-
I agree 100% that teachers are not paid enough. However, the answer is no longer to simply up the pay rate for teachers. The reason it's not that simple is that the low-paid worthless teachers we have now (I'm not saying that ALL teachers are worthless, there were wonderful exceptions in my school experience) have been the norm for so long that the entire system has morphed into a beast that caters to them.
Witness the hysterical anger that the teacher unions react with to any suggestion of more/better utilization of standardized testing to guage student's educational state. The current reward punishment system for teachers is in no way merit-based. They have managed to remove the actual results of their work from the equation that judges their fitness to be employed in that work.
A factor in that phenomenon, of course, is political ideology. A teacher cannot be held 100% accountable for a student's education. They can't force a student or his parents to care. An objective(standardized) look at the educational state of all the students in the country would reveal that, generally, students who come from low-income and dysfunctional homes do rather poorly, and it's because they don't care about school and neither did/do their parents. Where the ideology comes in is when people notice that the poor/dysfunctional data has a tendency to mirror race data. I don't want to get into a discussion on why there are disproportionate numbers of blacks and hispanics in the poor/dysfunctional categories. "Why" is not germaine to this topic it's enough to acknowledge that it's true. But when that correlation is made, and standardized testing would make the connection obvious (Note that I'm not talking about IQ testing here, I'm talking about testing the knowledge gained in school) you get an immediate outcry of racism and teachers and administrators are faced with the choice to either pass a PC number and ratio of students, no matter their ability, or get vilified and perhaps fired for discrimination.
So to pay the teachers we have now more is just to throw good money after bad. But you can't attract good teachers with the low pay in the system now. A major overhaul is needed. I don't know the answer. I still support our local public schools with my taxes (and I probably would even if I wouldn't get thrown in jail should I try to avoid it) but I don't subject my kids to it. My kids are home-schooled. And after two years of it I can say with authority that they are missing out on nothing.
-
Witness the hysterical anger that the teacher unions react with to any suggestion of more/better utilization of standardized testing to guage student's educational state. The current reward punishment system for teachers is in no way merit-based. They have managed to remove the actual results of their work from the equation that judges their fitness to be employed in that work.
I don't think this is self-evident. I'll need a concrete example. The teacher's union (national and state-level) literature I've read that was sent to my mother doesn't reflect this attitude at all.
see, many teachers in the system are in a position with authority to disagree with your perceptions of how the system works. The union doesn't disagree with every standard put out there. But most of the testing standards are just additional tests that get in the way of teaching -- and they are rarely complete measures of what can and should be accomplished with teaching. I'm sorry, but I fail to see that as real evidence that the teachers and their union oppose improvements to the system, which frankly, comes off as quite ridiculous. What benefit, exactly, does standardized testing give us anyway? After 13 years in the system and several more watching it develop both for my kids and in my mom's experience, I still can't comprehend the benefit that pulls kids out of 3-5 days of actual teaching so they can fill in bubbles for tests that don't take into account several important factors that have nothing to do with the quality of the education their getting (for example, their attention span and ability to sit there and take those tests at all, regardless of whether they know the answers).
Being familiar with my mother and many of her firends from work, I can tell you that the good teachers would also like to get rid of the bad teachers.
Your complaint about paying more being ineffective fails to take into account the fact that every year more teachers are hired. So maybe there's not an immediate and complete change. But that won't happen in ANY political situation short of a violent overthrow, which I hope I can safely say is not something we want to happen in our school systems. There will be an immediate beginning to gradual change. Teachers retire, new ones are hired. If we make the job both desirable and competitive to get to, only the best will be introduced. In the course of 10 years, there will be a major improvement. I don't think any faster change is feasable, and I can't think of a way to do it.
And despite what Mr. Gates says, the school systems, their approaches, their policies, and their methods change from year to year. School administrations try to stay on top of the best methods. It's difficult to make wholesale change in such large structures, but there are numerous gradual changes every year in approaches.
No, I don't think that pay raises are the ONLY way we can improve it. But I do think it's a very viable, necessary, and driving force for positive change. It will not just result in bad teachers being paid more. It will result in better teachers over all, using better practices that they learned in increasingly difficult college curriculums.
Note that I have no problem with home schooling. I've considered it myself. My mom doesn't like it, though I suspect that's professional reasons. But I don't think that the public school system has all the educational problems that are constantly ascribed to it. (Now, if you want to talk about the negative influence on morality and ethics, that's another matter, but that doesn't have enough to do with the bureaucratic structure or policies to make legislating something make enough difference.
-
As I've mentioned before, I'm pretty opinionated when it comes to education. I'm heading to lunch right now, so I'll post something more in-depth this afternoon, but I just wanted to make one comment.
As far as pay raises go:
1) The Masters of Education program I was in only required a 400 score on the GRE. Though they might have had good reasons for this, my guess is that it was because they were desperate for anyone to fill the seats. Teaching has to provide some kind of attraction. I actually dropped out of the program because I got offered another job that paid more than teaching. I would have preferred to teach, but I prefer providing for my family more.
2) However, one of the first rules of business (described in detail in the book Good To Great) is that money shouldn't be a factor in drawing people to your company. Instead, your company will only thrive if you get people who believe in the company -- people who are in the job solely for a paycheck won't ever give you the kind of results you want.
In teaching this is even more important. As I was taking education classes I came more and more to the realization that being a good teacher cannot be taught -- it requires a deeper commitment and a certain type of person. Offering more money won't necessarily draw these types of people. It might draw a few, but, in my opinion, it's most likely to draw people who are concerned more about money than about teaching.
-
In my opinion, primary education (K-12) is starting to swing more heavily toward fantasy and sci-fi--maybe because of the big surge in YA over the last few years, or maybe because the kids who grew up on it are now becoming teachers. It seems that teachers have finally realized the obvious--fantasy is what kids like to read, so restricting it only makes their job harder. Harry Potter opened a lot of people's eyes to the fact that kids can be voracious readers if you just give them something they enjoy. I predict that this type of attitude will continue to grow quite a bit over the next decade or so.
I think attrition will have a lot to do with it--once the stodgy "old-school" teachers retire, the vast majority of the anti-fantasy stigma will be gone from primary education. I'd still like my kids to read "Literature" at some point, but for the first several years I don't care what they read as long as they're reading.
Skar, I need to talkto you about home schooling sometime. I'm very interested in how you work it and what your experience has been.
-
I don't think this is self-evident. I'll need a concrete example. The teacher's union (national and state-level) literature I've read that was sent to my mother doesn't reflect this attitude at all.
My experience is, of course, limited and I'd be thrilled to find that I was wrong. I've heard frantic objections to standardized testing from both the Indiana state teachers unions when I was in High School and here in Utah when my sister-in-law was an assistant to the Education guy on the Governor's staff. I really hope that your experience is more indicative of the wider state of affairs.
see, many teachers in the system are in a position with authority to disagree with your perceptions of how the system works...What benefit, exactly, does standardized testing give us anyway?
I don't mean to say that standardized testing is the end-all be-all answer. All it would do (if it was intelligently done, obviously) is connect teachers to their end result. Their is a big disconnect their right now. The attitude I'm hearing more and more is "sure they can't read or write but their self-esteem is high because we've never failed them at anything so it's OK" It's not OK and standardized testing would force the emphasis back onto actual performance.
And I'm afraid I have to disagree with your implication that teachers should do something more than teach their curriculum. Teachers have long viewed themselves (please keep in mind that I'm not talking all, just the majority in my experience) as some kind of mentor or role-model or social guide. That is not their job. It happens more and more today as more and more kids have parents who just don't care and the kids look elsewhere for good examples. Those kids who are forced to look to their teachers for things they should be getting from their parents are not best-served by teachers who focus on that aspect at the expense of core curriculum. The good example a teacher should be setting is not as a surrogate parent, they are not the kid's parent. It's as a productive and upstanding member of society, a good committed teacher who does his job well and honorably. If they try to be surrogate parents at the expense of their job all the kid sees is an adult who abandons his duty in order to go for the warm fuzzy.
After 13 years in the system and several more watching it develop both for my kids and in my mom's experience, I still can't comprehend the benefit t...
The benefit is that the kids and their teachers get feedback on how well they've learned the material. If there's a lack they can adjust. If a teacher seems incapable of getting kids to learn enough to pass, they get fired. Without the test, there is no feedback and no ability to adjust appropriately for the kid. Without the test there is no connectin between the teacher and his performance and thus no Quality Control.
Arguments that say stanardized testing is a poor measure of the "imponderables" that teachers impart to their students are correct but they gloss over the fact that a teacher's job is not to inject children with imponderables. It's to teach them to read, write, do math, and problem solve. That's it.
As for the several important factors that have nothing to do with the quality of the education their getting that are defacto tested by the bubble tests (attention span, providing answers while under pressure (other-wise known as "test-taking")) Two things. First, the tests are not to measure the quality of the education they're getting. They're to measure mastery of the subject material. Important distinction. Second, sitting and focusing is a rather important skill to have. It doesn't matter if you have the ability to solve the problems life and jobs present you if you can't bring that ability to bear (because you have a short attention span or whatever). And answering questions under pressure is what adults do all day everyday. If you can't do it you need to learn to fix it. Those things you listed are as important as the subject matter. So...testing them is reasonable.
Being familiar with my mother and many of her firends from work, I can tell you that the good teachers would also like to get rid of the bad teachers.
I never doubted that for a second. And it makes me happy to hear it from you.
Your complaint about paying more being ineffective fails to take into account the fact that every year more teachers are hired. So maybe there's not an immediate and complete change. But that won't happen in ANY political situation short of a violent overthrow, which I hope I can safely say is not something we want to happen in our school systems. There will be an immediate beginning to gradual change. Teachers retire, new ones are hired. If we make the job both desirable and competitive to get to, only the best will be introduced. In the course of 10 years, there will be a major improvement. I don't think any faster change is feasable, and I can't think of a way to do it.
Now that you put it that way, I think you're right. The only hurdle left is getting past the administrators (those who do the hiring) who have been trained to reject hardnosed curriculum focused teachers in favor of PC touchy-feely types.
-
Any time Fell.
-
well, I should clarify some of the things I mean. I perhaps take it personally, because I took a beastly standardized tests almost every single year of my elementary school experirence. I was ADD. Not diagnosed, but I would rather have gone to the dentist AND gotten a proctology exam rather than sit through 4 hours of standardized, bubble-filling tests. I can't honestly believe that an 8 year old should reasonably be expected to sit in silence for 4 hours filling in bubbles iwth a number 2 pencil. Let alone not to make stray marks that will throw off the scoring.
I'm also not talking about "imponderables" or self-esteem. I'm talking about certain critical thinking skills. I can think of a dozen times when I was marked wrong for an answer to a multiple choice question on a critical thinking tests, only to be able to mount a rational argument (at age 9) why my answer was legitimate.
Also, spelling, why is this tested? As we can see from Spriggan, it's not required to be a good speller (sorry, Sprig, couldn't resist it). Why do I need to know the capital of Vermont if I'm not trying to accomplish something that involves their state government? I can look these things up. Especially in today's electronic availability of information, trivia like this, the sort of thing often tested on standardized testing, is irrelevant and doesn't reflect the intelligence of the test taker or how well he was taught. Again, of what use is it, practically, to know what a Gerund is? Memorizing the "to hit" tables in the first edition Dungeon Master's Guide has had MUCH more use in my life. There has not been an instant in my life when knowing what a gerund is has given me or anyone around me any benefit.
I'm not a fan of standardized tests. I find their use to be a substitute for something more effective. Teacher evaluations should be performed more often perhaps, by independent government officials who are trained and also have a continuing education requirement. This would ensure impartiality, both for or against the teacher. Teachers should be taking the standardized tests to show they know their material. I strongly resist any sort of standardized lesson plan, but I have no problem with lesson plans requiring approval, to make sure that certain minimum requirements are met in the material they are presenting and that they are using effective methods.
Of course, to put them under such stricter scrutiny, I again think compensation should be raised for it. In fact, compensation should be based on how well they meet their requirements. There would be a minimum to be retained as an employed teacher, and bonuses for hitting even higher standards.
-
well, I should clarify some of the things I mean. I perhaps take it personally, because I took a beastly standardized tests almost every single year of my elementary school experirence. I was ADD. Not diagnosed, but I would rather have gone to the dentist AND gotten a proctology exam rather than sit through 4 hours of standardized, bubble-filling tests. I can't honestly believe that an 8 year old should reasonably be expected to sit in silence for 4 hours filling in bubbles iwth a number 2 pencil. Let alone not to make stray marks that will throw off the scoring.
When I said the standardized testing would have to be done intelligently this is exactly what I was talking about. You're talking about standardized testing done stupidly and I'm talking about standardized testing in general. Of course it would have to pass the common sense test in order to be effective.
I really think that a test that measures whether a student of whatever grade level has a sufficient grasp of the relevant subject material is within reach.
As for the whole ADD thing, so what? We can/have learn to cope with kids that have ADD, and all the other Learning Disorders we'll discover in the future. Part of that coping will necessarily be figuring out a way for them to overcome their disability. And maybe being able to focus long enough to complete a standardized test would be a good measure of that. The challenge is not in the test it's in the preparation. Teachers (the higher paid skilled ones we're both hoping for) would have to teach the kids how to succeed at the "length" portion of the test too.
I'm also not talking about "imponderables" or self-esteem. I'm talking about certain critical thinking skills. I can think of a dozen times when I was marked wrong for an answer to a multiple choice question on a critical thinking tests, only to be able to mount a rational argument (at age 9) why my answer was legitimate.
Also, spelling, why is this tested? As we can see from Spriggan, it's not required to be a good speller (sorry, Sprig, couldn't resist it). Why do I need to know the capital of Vermont if I'm not trying to accomplish something that involves their state government? I can look these things up. Especially in today's electronic availability of information, trivia like this, the sort of thing often tested on standardized testing, is irrelevant and doesn't reflect the intelligence of the test taker or how well he was taught. Again, of what use is it, practically, to know what a Gerund is? Memorizing the "to hit" tables in the first edition Dungeon Master's Guide has had MUCH more use in my life. There has not been an instant in my life when knowing what a gerund is has given me or anyone around me any benefit.
Yes, critical thinking is one of the most important things that must be learned in school. Standardized tests can measure it. They have to be good tests, and they can't be administered by morons. Your example from 9 years old could easily have been handled by a proctor with the power to listen to you and mark the answer correct. If it only happened a dozen times in all those years of testing such exceptions could be adjusted for. But not by morons who use the testing as some kind of sick substitute for actual teaching.
As for the whole capitol of Vermont vs. D&D hit table thing, how would you have memorized the hit table if you had never memorized anything before and weren't even aware it could be done? Using your memory is a valuable skill that is integral to learning in general. So what if you're not interested in memorizing the state capitols? If that's what your teacher decides to use as the tool to exercise that capacity, deal with it and memorize what you want to, with the skills your teacher helped develop, on your own time. That is the idea after all.
-
I'm not a fan of standardized tests. I find their use to be a substitute for something more effective. Teacher evaluations should be performed more often perhaps, by independent government officials who are trained and also have a continuing education requirement. This would ensure impartiality, both for or against the teacher. Teachers should be taking the standardized tests to show they know their material. I strongly resist any sort of standardized lesson plan, but I have no problem with lesson plans requiring approval, to make sure that certain minimum requirements are met in the material they are presenting and that they are using effective methods.
And I have a big problem with even lesson plans being subject to approval above the supervisor level. Let the teacher teach however he wants. If he's effective his kids will pass the test. If he's not he will get fired (or better yet not hired in the first place). If it's a good test (and it could be) the fact that students can pass is mute testimony to their mastery of the subject material. Who cares how they got there?
Of course, to put them under such stricter scrutiny, I again think compensation should be raised for it. In fact, compensation should be based on how well they meet their requirements. There would be a minimum to be retained as an employed teacher, and bonuses for hitting even higher standards.
The idea of compensation being raised for performance we agree on. I, however, don't care whether the teacher has a certification or any kind of higher or continuing education. The only thing that matters is how well they teach their students. Good intelligently implemented standardized testing is the only objective way I can see to set that standard.
-
I'm firmly in the camp of "standardized tests are a poor measure of education." A standardized test is too artificial, and the environment is too predictable--if they become the measure then teachers will start training their kids to take tests rather than teaching them the information contained in the tests.
Have you ever flipped through one of those SAT or ACT prep books? They're 5% knowledge, maybe 5% application of knowledge, and 90% "how to think like the guy who wrote the test." I have no doubt that this is the direction our schools would go if we made teachers professionally accountable for their student's test scores.
On the other hand, a better way of making teachers accountable is a great idea. I just don't think standardized testing is the way to do it.
-
As for the whole ADD thing, so what? We can/have learn to cope with kids that have ADD, and all the other Learning Disorders we'll discover in the future. Part of that coping will necessarily be figuring out a way for them to overcome their disability. And maybe being able to focus long enough to complete a standardized test would be a good measure of that. The challenge is not in the test it's in the preparation. Teachers (the higher paid skilled ones we're both hoping for) would have to teach the kids how to succeed at the "length" portion of the test too.
The problem is that I can outperform most of my "peers" and always have been except in standardized testing environments, which are artificial and don't represent anything most people are ever going to have to deal with. Sorry, no, sitting in silence in one spot for 4 hours is not applicable to anything in most people's lives but standardized tests. That's why the ADD is relevant, it throws something into the mix that the standardized test cannot account for. I have adapted quite well to it, thank you very much, and it's NOT by training myself to sit in silence. It's by finding that there are other, more effective routes for accomplishing tasks.
As for the whole capitol of Vermont vs. D&D hit table thing, how would you have memorized the hit table if you had never memorized anything before and weren't even aware it could be done? Using your memory is a valuable skill that is integral to learning in general. So what if you're not interested in memorizing the state capitols? If that's what your teacher decides to use as the tool to exercise that capacity, deal with it and memorize what you want to, with the skills your teacher helped develop, on your own time. That is the idea after all.
I memorized those tables by frequent use and familiarity, not by sitting down and memorizing them, and that has rarely been an effective method for most people of memorizing anything. Therefore no, I don't think memorizing anything is an effective means of teaching even memorization. And if we're going to teach well, and they have to memorize something, it may as well be memorizing something that I'm actually going to use. Say, by using it so I can see that it has use. It's irrelevant the interest, i'm looking at the usefulness of a task.
And I have a big problem with even lesson plans being subject to approval above the supervisor level. Let the teacher teach however he wants. If he's effective his kids will pass the test. If he's not he will get fired (or better yet not hired in the first place). If it's a good test (and it could be) the fact that students can pass is mute testimony to their mastery of the subject material. Who cares how they got there?
The problem with that is that you hurt the students BEFORE you found out if it's acceptable. The idea is to maximize the efficacy long before any student loses out due to have a rotten teacher. I'm not saying that lesson plans have to fit certain molds of process, I'm just saying that they need to be reviewed so they hit important points.
The only thing that matters is how well they teach their students. Good intelligently implemented standardized testing is the only objective way I can see to set that standard.
and I'm still entirely unconvinced that Standardized testing of the students will achieve anything other than what Fell says: spitting out what the test writer thinks like.
-
I agree that the standardized testing we have today is a pale shadow of what we could have and what it would have to be to be effective. (not harder just more effective)
Are you of the opinion that it is impossible to craft a test that would measure grasp of the subject material rather than test-taking-technique and the ability to think like the tester?
This test I'm imagining would be such that if (in the extreme case) a teacher actually had a copy of the test and taught his students whatever it took to pass it and nothing else, the students would still end up with a good grasp of the material.
Cheating would still, of course, be a problem, but one easily solved with minimal oversight and a good supply of pink slips. I knew plentyof teachers who would happily have handed out copies of the SATs their students would be getting and then gone on vacation until test time.
As for the critical thinking skills SE is talking about, it's easy to write questions that measure that and which would be impossible to cheat (unlike the rote memorization questions we have on the tests now). The difficulty comes in the grading thereof.
You'd have to make the grading distributed somehow rather than sending all the tests to a central facility. Maybe (and this is right out of my butt so make fun of the idea gently) crafting the test and then, once everyone's taken it, anonymously swap them with other school districts for the grading and have a mechanism for appealing answers marked wrong.
Here's where the current state of affairs would be detrimental. I could easily see whole districts of the low-paid, lowest commond denominator, I can't do therefore I teach, teachers we've got now colluding to derail such a process. Whether it's by being extremely tough in the grading process in the hopes of lowering the average so their performance looks better or by being really easy in the grading process so the students don't feel too bad (whimper) But I think the kinks could be worked out.
But then this is just another of my "If I were in charge..." issues so...
-
Well, obviously, there is no perfect system, we can all agree on that. However, my experience with standardized tests, both in school and for advanced education (SAT twice, ACT, GRE, LSAT {with 4 practice tests using actual previous questions}, and many, many, many practice Network+ exams), I've found nearly all questions to be open to some interpretations. If the tests were graded by an independent party, not interested either in the system's marks OR the specific state's achievement, the test would be more acceptable. But currently they're graded by machine, which is about the only way to do it efficiently, and the machine doesn't have sufficient AI for interpretive mechanisms needed for this. Thus I reject the current possibility of writing such a test/process in the immediate future, yes.
To rephrase, I still don't like the idea of standardized tests being the primary measure of performance, but a distributed human grading system, like you mentioned, would make it a little more pallatable. Not enough to get on the bandwagon, but more pallatable.
-
The problem is that I can outperform most of my "peers" and always have been except in standardized testing environments, which are artificial and don't represent anything most people are ever going to have to deal with.
OK. Give up on the idea that I'm advocating the use of stupidly designed tests. I'm not and I've said it more than once. Take the meaning of the words "standardized" and "test" and put them together. I'm not talking about the stupid tests you keep describing. I'm talking about a test that measures a student's grasp of material and problem solving ability against a standard. And a good test that fills that purpose would take into account how long you have to sit at one time and how to deal with ADD kids. We don't have them now, but we could.
I memorized those tables by frequent use and familiarity, not by sitting down and memorizing them, and that has rarely been an effective method for most people of memorizing anything. Therefore no, I don't think memorizing anything is an effective means of teaching even memorization. And if we're going to teach well, and they have to memorize something, it may as well be memorizing something that I'm actually going to use. Say, by using it so I can see that it has use. It's irrelevant the interest, i'm looking at the usefulness of a task.
Again, I'm not talking about taking the stupid techniques the teachers we have now are using and making them the standard. You're arguing that teaching through rote memorization is pointless. I agree with you. But you also say that the ability to memorize has been useful. So do whatever it takes to teach kids how to memorize and then test the skill. Teachers will only innovate and become more effective at teaching if they have a vested interest in the end result. Accountability.
The problem with that is that you hurt the students BEFORE you found out if it's acceptable. The idea is to maximize the efficacy long before any student loses out due to have a rotten teacher. I'm not saying that lesson plans have to fit certain molds of process, I'm just saying that they need to be reviewed so they hit important points.
I know for a fact that kids are not permanently damaged by having a bad teacher one year, I had quite a few of them and did just fine. If teachers were accountable, as in having to turn out students that learned up to a certain standard, the bad ones would show up very quickly and could be dealt with.
I think we agree. (I took lesson plan to mean the day to day outline rather than a general subject set) And there would be nothing wrong with defining a subject set that the teachers needed to cover. That would be accomplished by having a standard, which is tested by...dunadada... the Standardized Test.
and I'm still entirely unconvinced that Standardized testing of the students will achieve anything other than what Fell says: spitting out what the test writer thinks like.
See the post I wrote while you were writing yours. ;D
-
And, sorry to go on and on, I think many of the problems you have with current standardized testing are the result of the process rather than the concept.
The test questions have to be multiple choice so a machine can grade them, since there are so many. You have to sit for 4 hours straight because the tests are not designed into the system, they're an add on. All this could be fixed by the distributed system I described. Role of the government in education could be restricted almost entirely to coming up with good tests and seeing that the grading is organized in such a way to make it fair and possible to ask meaningful questions.
But I still think that even the archaic and badly designed system we have now is better than the total lack of teacher accountability we're headed for.
-
I guess my big complaint with what I think you're trying to say (and sorry, but many of your statements seemed to defend the format, particularly when you defended making kids sit through a long test) is that part of standardizing tests is standardizing grading. That can only be done two ways: through a computer as it is now or having one person grade all of them. Distributing the grading won't work, because it destandardizes the "standard" you want to achieve.
So we're back to either number 2 pencils or non-standardized tests.
-
I guess my big complaint with what I think you're trying to say (and sorry, but many of your statements seemed to defend the format, particularly when you defended making kids sit through a long test)
Not my intent. Making an 8 year old sit through a long test is just silly. Making a High Schooler sit through a long test could certainly be informative for the reasons I pointed out. It all goes back to designing the tests intelligently. Which they aren't, but I think they could be. And as you said, they could never be perfect. But anything would be better than no standard at all, which is where it sounds like you're heading.
is that part of standardizing tests is standardizing grading. That can only be done two ways: through a computer as it is now or having one person grade all of them. Distributing the grading won't work, because it destandardizes the "standard" you want to achieve.
So we're back to either number 2 pencils or non-standardized tests.
I disagree. If that were true, the same grad student would have to grade everyone's test in college. (actually the professor would probably have to do it) Not the way it works.
Forcing them all to be graded by the same person just transfers the "learn to think like the test-writer" paradigm to the grader. The thing being graded should not be how well you can parrot the ideas of the test-writer/teacher (which the current system fosters) The thing being graded should be whether you can answer the question.
Essentially the standard would be something like this:
Read the following 1000 word excerpt and demonstrate comprehension and communication ability by answering one of the following 5 questions about it in essay form clearly and completely.(Edit: realized essay form could be construed to mean something other than just clear and complete. Clear and complete is more universally judgable and what is necessary in real life)
If you don't have the ability you won't be able to answer the question and if you do it will be obvious.
or
Demonstrate comprehension of the following class of math principles by correctly answering one of the following problems.
etc...
Questions like this, while forcing the student to actually have developed the ability to answer them, (it's nearly impossible to prepare for long answer questions by doing anything other than learning the material) lend themselves to pretty uniform grading when what you're looking for is comprehension and communication ability as opposed to whether they drew the "right" conclusion. And it would be easy to provide guidelines for the humans doing the grading while creating the questions.
If you leave it up to the teachers and administrators we have now to determine whether their own students are "educated" everyone will pass with flying colors and the federal money will flow like water.
So how do you ensure that the students the teachers are passing are actually learning the material?
-
Hmm...it seems like you are in favor of a system of testing which does not currently exist, yet you are upset with the teachers who are against the current system of testing.
-
Yes. I am in favor of a system of testing that does not currently exist but could be called "standardized testing" Thank you for putting it so clearly, I was failing...miserably.
And yes I am upset with the teachers who are against the system that currently exists. My reasoning is as follows: The teachers who speak against standardized testing offer no solution, they just want to do away with it. That would be worse than the ganked up system we have now. I'm afraid I don't trust the teachers in the system today to hold themselves to any standard at all.
And I've heard no alternative to "testing that measures students against a standard" offered by anyone on this board or in the system at large.
It seems obvious to me that the problems inherent in the current system are easily soluble if we can get away from the knee jerk reaction against "testing that measures students against a standard" otherwise known as "standardized testing" practiced by people who hate the current system that bears the name and teachers who know they suck and would lose their job if they became accountable and away from the federal government's need to micromanage the educational system.
If the federal government focused its money on creating and administering intelligent standardized testing it would do more to fix the system than anything it's trying to do now.
I mean for heaven's sake, the highest literacy rate this country ever had was in the beginning of the public school system when the "teaching tools" were a chalkboard, two or three books, and a desk. Now all that money gets spent on football equipment and diversity training. If we taught kids how to think BEFORE we tried to teach them how to use a computer or why it's not OK to tease Jimmy about the color of his skin everything else would fall into place.
-
So, it's late and I realize I've not been very clear to this point.
Forgive me if I offended, it wasn't intentional.
The question I've been ranting on for so long reduces to this:
If you don't want to test to a standard, what mechanism do you want to use to insure that students are being taught what they need to know?
-
telepathy
-
Skar, I think you raise a good point. There should be some way to ensure that kids are learning what they are supposed to be.
I don't have any suggestions for carrying that out. I do know that I have always been very good at taking tests and that I've used that ability to as much advantage as my innate timewastering allowed, but that I've recognized several times that I scored higher than someone else who I knew actually learned the subject better or more practically applicably than me, thus indicating that all I'd learned was how to score well on the test. So at least for that reason I'm quite leery of the present system.
Yet I think it likely that the people who are out there designing the current and near-future standardized tests do have many of your goals and ideals in mind--they just aren't doing a very good job of it. Maybe making tests that really do what they're supposed to do is a lot harder than it seems.
Anyway, at the moment I do not feel strongly about the issue. I'm sure I will feel more strongly about it when I've got kids going into school. But personally I am much more afraid right now of my own kids being taught immorality in schools (from both curriculum and peers) than of them not being taught the academics (mostly for genetic reasons).
-
I disagree. If that were true, the same grad student would have to grade everyone's test in college. (actually the professor would probably have to do it) Not the way it works.
Well, no. Grad student examinations are rarely standardized, even in the same class.
Whenever you have a question that is not "C is the correct answer" you've got grading based on interpretation. If that interpreation is not done in exactly the same way, you are losing standardization. That's the main flaw with your proposal. You want to test against a standard, but you're system suggests a wide variation in interpretation of that problem.
Another problem: you can't test for two things at once. What if a student fully understands a biological process but can't write worth a crap? So when he describes it on paper for the test, it's incomprehensible. So he fails a science test and gets sent to more science training. But he doesn't need that at all. He needs writing training. Under your proposed test, this is not only possible, but, I would argue, probable. The same goes for someone who has sloppy writing. Yes, clear (or at least comprehensible) handwriting is a necessity. But if he writes out an accurate answer to a math question and the ones look like 7s sometimes or the 3s and the 2s get confused, it may look like he doesn't have a clue about his math. Yet that's not the training he needs.
Also, the federal government actually isn't allowed to control what is taught in the public school systems. The Constitution does not grant that priveledge to Congress, and it does grant any priveleges not specifically delineated to the states. So basically, I think they should butt out of making states take any sort of procedure unless they make an amendment to the Constitution.
-
Though it is not completely "standardized," I think that the AP testing system would work pretty well for what you're describing--it demands comprehension and knowledge more than simple test-taking ability (though some of that is inevitable), and includes both multiple-choice and essay sections. The essays are graded by a group that is well-trained and large enough to smooth out any personal irregularities.
On another note, one which we've kind of passed by already but which I'd still like to contribute to, I'd like to point out that I am the opposite of SE when it comes to taking bubble tests--I was born to blacken an oval. It comes insanely easy to me: for example, I was a National Merit Scholar and received 100% tuition for all four years of college thanks to a test that I took in 9th grade (the PSAT) with no studying and, in fact, no prior notice that I was even taking the test until the morning of. That's not because I'm a genius, it's because I know how to take tests and thrive in that environment. In a world that revolves around bubble sheet test scores, I would crush detritus like SE under the heel of my number 2 pencil-colored boots. Which, now that I think about it, wouldn't be that bad.
-
and then I would use my actual genius to destroy your pathetic graphite-and-wood structure and force you to live the life on an indigent. Oh wait. You majored in English. You already have that.
-
Well, no. Grad student examinations are rarely standardized, even in the same class.
So college students are not tested to a standard? Someone ought to tell the accreditation board. I think they'd be upset to find that out.
Obviously I'm being sarcastic. My point is, if we can get fair and adaptive grading to a standard on complex issues in college, surely we can get fair and adaptive grading to a standard on far simpler issues in K-12. The single objection you seem to be bringing up is the idea that in order to have "standardized testing" (which you invariably seem to define as what you went through with the bubble-sheets and ADD) you have to have multiple choice bubble-sheet tests.
You don't. Witness college. The only reason the current standardized testing people have MC Bubble-sheet tests is so they can use a computer to grade the tests. If you could assume a minimum level of competence in all teachers you could use a distributed method like I suggested for the grading. Yes, it's more subjective than an MC bubble-sheet but you'd be able to tell if the kids could perform the task/had the knowledge and that's all that matters.
Whenever you have a question that is not "C is the correct answer" you've got grading based on interpretation. If that interpreation is not done in exactly the same way, you are losing standardization. That's the main flaw with your proposal. You want to test against a standard, but you're system suggests a wide variation in interpretation of that problem.
Yes, but it's not a flaw. Wasn't that your whole objection with the story about the question you got wrong when you were 9? The grading wasn't flexible enough to recognize a correct answer that was different from other correct answers? I think the disagreement here is I'm talking about grading to a standard and you're talking about the "standardized testing" you had when you were a kid. I haven't been terribly clear with my distinction until my last couple of posts (thank you Ookla) but I am making a distinction.
Another problem: you can't test for two things at once. What if a student fully understands a biological process but can't write worth a crap? So when he describes it on paper for the test, it's incomprehensible. So he fails a science test and gets sent to more science training. But he doesn't need that at all. He needs writing training. Under your proposed test, this is not only possible, but, I would argue, probable. The same goes for someone who has sloppy writing. Yes, clear (or at least comprehensible) handwriting is a necessity. But if he writes out an accurate answer to a math question and the ones look like 7s sometimes or the 3s and the 2s get confused, it may look like he doesn't have a clue about his math. Yet that's not the training he needs.
Again you're talking about stupidity on the part of the organization doing the testing not a flaw in the concept of testing to a standard. If the kid can't communicate clearly he's failing communication tests long before he's failing a biology test because he can't write clearly. What you describe has no doubt happened but that's because we have english teachers too incompetent to administer anything other than MC bubble tests that ask their students what a "gerund" is. (and they still have their jobs because their students are not tested to a standard and they are not held to one)
And as for the 7s looking like 1s, under a system where the kids are tested to a standard a kid whose 7s looked like 1s would still be in the first grade for that very reason. It's because we have teachers who don't actually teach that kids are making it through the system without actually learning. Testing to a standard would prevent that.
Also, the federal government actually isn't allowed to control what is taught in the public school systems. The Constitution does not grant that priveledge to Congress, and it does grant any priveleges not specifically delineated to the states. So basically, I think they should butt out of making states take any sort of procedure unless they make an amendment to the Constitution.
You make a good point here. Unfortunately our schools, from elementary through University suckle at the federal money teat and unless they do what the feds want the money dries up and teachers and administrators lose their jobs. There is, after all, nothing in the constitution that requires the feds to give money to the school systems either.
To be effective on the K-12 level the feds should either:
Cut off the money to everyone all at once, thus making the schools answerable to their local communities in one fell swoop. I think that would end up answering most of my concerns.
Or
Somehow ensure that the teaching going on is effective. I don't know so I ask again, how do they do that without testing to a standard?
-
My point is, if we can get fair and adaptive grading to a standard on complex issues in college, surely we can get fair and adaptive grading to a standard on far simpler issues in K-12. The single objection you seem to be bringing up is the idea that in order to have "standardized testing" (which you invariably seem to define as what you went through with the bubble-sheets and ADD) you have to have multiple choice bubble-sheet tests.
You obviously misunderstand me, because I have NOT always defined it that way. I am saying that no, colledge tests are NOT standardized. Each class is usually held to the same general standard, but the standard that a class in the Bible is going to be significantly higher at say, Notre Dame than it will be at a community college. Yet they both offer degrees. Wonder why that is? Oh yes, it's because college isn't held to a single nationwide standard. There are minimums to be accredited, but that doesn't in any way say that it's standardized in terms of how the classes are graded and the assignments/tests scored.
If you could assume a minimum level of competence in all teachers you could use a distributed method like I suggested for the grading.
The very serious problem with this is that we're using the tests to DETERMINE the minimum level of competence of the teachers. Thus you cannot assume that there will be a minimum level of competence in the graders, because that hasn't been assessed.
You mentioned before that one year of bad teaching won't permanently damage a student. That contradicts in a way what you're saying. If that won't do any long-term harm, why are we worried about getting rid of those teachers? There are still very many very good teachers. My point is that you have to verify that the teachers are good before they go into the program. If you can verify that the teacher is doing what he should BEFORE he goes in to teach, you will do a lot more good than letting him go out there, teach poorly, then assess how well he did. It may not permanently harm, but it doesn't help either, and that, frankly, is waste of taxpaying dollars.
Yes, but it's not a flaw. Wasn't that your whole objection with the story about the question you got wrong when you were 9? The grading wasn't flexible enough to recognize a correct answer that was different from other correct answers? I think the disagreement here is I'm talking about grading to a standard and you're talking about the "standardized testing" you had when you were a kid. I haven't been terribly clear with my distinction until my last couple of posts (thank you Ookla) but I am making a distinction.
No, that's not at all what the disagreement is. I'm saying that once you insert the interpretive elements, especially ones as vast as you are proposing, you destandardize the grading, and thus the test is no longer standard for all students. The grading process is part of the larger testing process. That's why my complaint about the wrong answers before is valid: standardized tests are at their heart flawed in some ways, and are not a useful way of checking minimum competence.
Again you're talking about stupidity on the part of the organization doing the testing not a flaw in the concept of testing to a standard....And as for the 7s looking like 1s, under a system where the kids are tested to a standard a kid whose 7s looked like 1s would still be in the first grade for that very reason. It's because we have teachers who don't actually teach that kids are making it through the system without actually learning. Testing to a standard would prevent that.
No, that's very much a deep flaw in the system. You are proposing that a messy writer, no matter how capable of processing the concepts and understanding them and putting them to use cannot ever be moved out of the first grade. That is absolutely absurd. I've had a LOT of handwriting training. I got a lot of focus on it because I have particularly bad handwriting. It never got better. It's just not somethign I do. Yet I was able to graduate college. It would be an awful shame were I to still be in 1st grade at age 31 because my handwriting was poor. Sorry, no, that doesn't fly. The grading needs to be separated more before it's anywhere near acceptable.
Somehow ensure that the teaching going on is effective. I don't know so I ask again, how do they do that without testing to a standard?
I don't know either, however, I feel the case is strong enough against more standardized testing, however the test is structured, that we can determine it is not the answer, and to look somewhere else. Just because we don't know the right way to act does NOT mean that we should act wrongly.
However, while I don't know the solution, I go back to my program evaluation. Have the plans and material reviewed before the teacher goes into the school year. Have the TEACHER take tests. While I don't agree that a student will have legitimate problems with any form of standardized tests, any teacher who has those same problems isn't qualified to teach.
-
Each class is usually held to the same general standard
To clarify, I mean the students within one class are usually held to the same general standard as each other, but even at the same college in the same department, there are often disparities in the standards that each class is held to. The tests are different, and often not just in format, but in the difficulty of the material. This is not standardized testing.
Which brings me back to my solution for creating minimum qualifications for teachers. The accreditation board for colleges accredits according to the material that is being taught. It is the instittution's procedures and demands that are accredited, not the performance of the students. Let's examine what are teachers are putting into the system.
-
However, while I don't know the solution, I go back to my program evaluation. Have the plans and material reviewed before the teacher goes into the school year. Have the TEACHER take tests. While I don't agree that a student will have legitimate problems with any form of standardized tests, any teacher who has those same problems isn't qualified to teach.
Which brings me back to my solution for creating minimum qualifications for teachers. The accreditation board for colleges accredits according to the material that is being taught. It is the instittution's procedures and demands that are accredited, not the performance of the students. Let's examine what are teachers are putting into the system.
This proposed solution will not work for the very same reasons you say standardized testing of students will not work. If testing students to a standard is not a good measure of what they know and are capable of how is it a good measure of your teachers?
The desired results of a public school system are students who can read, write and think. How do you determine whether the techniques being used to accomplish that goal are effective if you refuse to measure against a standard? It has to be a feedback loop and without input from the back end you can't have a loop.
The minimum standards you mentioned that unify same subject classes within departments and across universities are exactly what I'm talking about. A minimum standard. Today we have almost 10 percent of high-school senior who read no better than 2nd or 3rd grade level if at all. Yet they're graduating with diplomas.
I don't know either, however, I feel the case is strong enough against more standardized testing, however the test is structured, that we can determine it is not the answer, and to look somewhere else. Just because we don't know the right way to act does NOT mean that we should act wrongly.
What would be wrong, in your opinion, with asking high-school seniors to demonstrate that they can read and comprehend, say... Of Mice and Men (the actual book is not important just the level of complexity. heck, give teachers a list of 5 books a month before the test and let them or the students choose) before you give them a diploma. This is testing to a standard.
All I'm saying is that there has to be some measure at the back end of what the teachers are accomplishing. Are you really saying we should screen our teachers carefully at the front end and then completely ignore the back end?
We both agree that the system is broken. You seem to think (correct me if I'm wrong) that applying standards to the teachers would so surely force the results we want at the backend that there is no need to check and see.
I think that measuring the results would force the changes at the front end required to obtain the desired results.
I'm curious if you see a difference between "standardized testing" and "testing to a standard" and what that difference is.
-
1) my solution will work better because while you can't separate testing subjects (like handwriting and say, literary analysis), because it isn't fair to student who excel in one of those areas but are very poor in the other, those limitations do not exist for good teachers. Someone who can't pass both of those should surely be able to progress if he excells at one but not the other, however, we surely can't let that person be in charge of training others. That's an important difference.
2) If we take standard to mean "Serving as or conforming to a standard of measurement or value." ie, if it means the same across the board, then I see no difference in those terms. And my problem with it is primarily that a uniform test across the board is going to point out weaknesses that don't really exist. I take it that you mean the same thing, since you have used them interchangeably before. Or else you have changed opinions and terminology since then and not made it clear that you are arguing something different.
All I see coming out of standardized testing is pointing out that there is a problem SOMEWHERE. It will have problems pin pointing what that problem is, and it will not even really tell us if the problem is with the students or the teacher. Not with any precision anyway. In some cases, like where 50% of the students from one teacher are failing in repeated years, then I would assume it's the teacher, but if it only happens once, I have a great deal of "reasonable doubt" as to whether she just was assigned a lot of poor students or if she just did a bad job of teaching that year. It's not conclusive until after the teacher has had many years to do his/her damage
3) but my biggest contention with your proposal is that you call it "standardized" when in fact, it is NOT standardized. When the grading is not standard (which would be the case with a very widely distributed grading system), the test is then not standard.
-
Ok.
I take it that you mean the same thing, since you have used them interchangeably before. Or else you have changed opinions and terminology since then and not made it clear that you are arguing something different.
I don't think they mean the same thing. And I only used them interchangeably until it became clear you had a very different interpretation of the phrase "standardized testing" than I did. And I've said that 4 or 5 times in the last several emails posts.
What I mean by testing to a standard is very simple. You don't pass students who can't bloody read, write, and do arithmetic to the appopriate level. And if a teacher can't get a reasonable number of students to that level each year then the teacher suffers consequences along with the students.
Making sure that teachers have at least a certain level of competence or training is, of course, part of the solution. It just can't be the only part.
It doesn't matter how many classes a teacher has taken on teaching and their subject. If they can't teach they shouldn't be in a position to inflict themselves on students. The only way to determine if a teacher can do their job (and this applies to all jobs not just teachers) is to look at results. What are the results we want? Kids who can Read, Write and do Arithmetic. So how do we find out if kids can do that? We test them. At least some of that testing has to come from a source other than the teacher himself otherwise bad teachers pass enough kids to keep their job and stay in the system forever.
If you make a worker's employment and compensation completely separate from the results of his work you get crappy work. The same holds true for teachers.
How can you get around that?
-
I don't think you assign a quota for how many kids pass. That involves a lot of factors other than the teacher's ability -- the only way to measure that ability is to test THEM. Look at how they prepare, observe them in class. The rest is the students.
And I've never had a problem understanding that you didn't always mean bubble test, I think this is an impression you are putting on me because you can't understand any other way I would ever disagree with you if I was using the same terms: this is not the case, I understnad you, I just think you're wrong.
IF they're so different, then I cannot understand why you can fault teachers unions for resisting more standardized testing. Because the current tests don't do what you say, and they are even less helpful than what you're saying. I'd darn well resist them too. They are a burden and not accomplishing even what they are intended to accomplish. They're only in the way and it seems that the unions are doing the right thing if they're resisting tooth and claw to have more of it.
-
Rereading your post SE I also see that we are on different pages when it comes to the scope of the testing we're talking about.
At a primary and seconday school level I have absolutely no interest in whether or not a student can analyze literature. All I want to know is whether or not he can read and communicate clearly using the written word. And if he can do math problems correctly. And if he has a grasp of basic problem solving. If he can do those things he has the ability to teach himself whatever he wants to know, be it history or computer programming.
It seems to me that you could easily define a standard in each of those areas and fairly test students to that standard. To avoid all the complications that come with the SAT style questions and grading methods you'd have to include humans in the mix who would be flexible enough to interpret the answers given intelligently and that would take some kind of distributed system.
-
What if that kid can NEVER learn to write well? What if it is always sloppy? Is he stuck in elementary school forever? That's absurd. There's no reason to hold him there if he's capable of critical thinking but he just can't write.
And no, I didn't misunderstand that either. I just disagree with your stance.
If you ask two men to build a house, and you give one a pile of well constructed bricks and the other a pile of mud, one is going to build you a house that passes a minimum standard of living. The one with the pile of mud will not, even if he is the best construction worker on the planet.
Another example: The Las Vegas and Salt Lake missions consistently baptize more converts than any other part of the country. Particularly the northeast and the deep south. Is this because there are only good missionaries in Las Vegas and Salt Lake? Does it make the missionary who baptizes 50 people in Brazil a better missionary than the one who baptized 2 in Norway? Of course not. It is not a reflection of their righteousness or their ability to work. It is a matter of what they have to work with.
If you get a kid, or more likely, a group of kids that refuse to do homework, no matter how skilled you are at teaching, they will not get the skills they need. You want to punish teachers for those children's obstinance. The teacher has prepared well, has done all reasonably possible to catch their attention and to motivate them, yet they refuse. Kids don't pass, teacher loses his job, because the criteria for his job depends entirely on the performance that ultimately, he does NOT control.
Yes, you can influence people, but you CANNOT make them perform. You also canont make them do anything they are incapable of, no matter how much both you and the person in question WANT to do it. How can we rationally judge a teacher's performance by the light of so many factors that they cannot control?
-
I don't think you assign a quota for how many kids pass.I never said anything about quotas. That involves a lot of factors other than the teacher's ability -- the only way to measure that ability is to test THEM. Look at how they prepare, observe them in class. The rest is the students.So you ARE in favor of insulating the teachers from the results of their work?
And I've never had a problem understanding that you didn't always mean bubble test, I think this is an impression you are putting on me because you can't understand any other way I would ever disagree with you if I was using the same terms: this is not the case, I understnad you, I just think you're wrong.I know you think I'm wrong. I must say that if you honestly think that teachers (or any group for that matter) will hold themselves to a high standard while being totally unaccountable for the results of their work it doesn't bug me at all that you think I'm wrong. You do realize of course that under your system ADD kids would have just ended up in the dust bin right? If teachers are the only ones tested and a teacher is doing a good job according to the defined standard and kids are never tested, they just move on through the system learning nothing and are vomited forth on society totally unprepared. Now if the teacher was tested and found good AND the kid was tested and found wanting, that kind of disconnect would raise a warning flag. What's wrong with this kid? How can we help him?
IF they're so different, then I cannot understand why you can fault teachers unions for resisting more standardized testing. Because the current tests don't do what you say, and they are even less helpful than what you're saying. I'd darn well resist them too. They are a burden and not accomplishing even what they are intended to accomplish. They're only in the way and it seems that the unions are doing the right thing if they're resisting tooth and claw to have more of it. They are, as far as I can see, resisting tooth and claw having any of it. I've never heard a teacher propose any kind of alternative, they just don't want to be accountable.
You're right. Teachers need to be held to a higher standard and thus need to be compensated more to attract people that can achieve that higher standard. But without measuring the results of the teacher's work, kids learning, you'll never be able to detect or fix problems.
And if you start upping teacher's salaries without measuring results (the only way to cut out the bias and possible incompetence of teacher evaluators is to look at results) you'll just be paying the crappy teachers more money.
-
What if that kid can NEVER learn to write well? What if it is always sloppy? Is he stuck in elementary school forever? That's absurd. There's no reason to hold him there if he's capable of critical thinking but he just can't write.
And no, I didn't misunderstand that either. Well, apparently you did, I never held up handwriting as a standard.
And this is a straw man. Any kid who's capable of critical thinking is capable of clear handwriting. He may have to concentrate on it more than other kids but he's certainly capable of it. I just disagree with your stance.
If you ask two men to build a house, and you give one a pile of well constructed bricks and the other a pile of mud, one is going to build you a house that passes a minimum standard of living. The one with the pile of mud will not, even if he is the best construction worker on the planet.
The most skilled construction worker will make a much better house out of the mud than an unskilled construction worker. It's easy to tell a badly made mud house from a well made mud house. ergo: All those factors that make kids like a mud house in your example could be taken into account when judging the teacher by an intelligently designed and flexible system. But just because the kids are a pile of mud doesn't mean they should be advanced anyway.
Another example: The Las Vegas and Salt Lake missions consistently baptize more converts than any other part of the country. Particularly the northeast and the deep south. Is this because there are only good missionaries in Las Vegas and Salt Lake? Does it make the missionary who baptizes 50 people in Brazil a better missionary than the one who baptized 2 in Norway? Of course not. It is not a reflection of their righteousness or their ability to work. It is a matter of what they have to work with.
And how about the missionaries in Salt Lake and Nevada who never baptize anyone, is it what they have to work with too? How about the missionaries in Norway who get 1 discussion when the average is 100? Is it who they were given to work with too? Of course not. The only way to tell if it's the missionary or the investigator is to examine them both. Translated to education: you have to measure both the kids and the teachers against a standard of some sort.
If you get a kid, or more likely, a group of kids that refuse to do homework, no matter how skilled you are at teaching, they will not get the skills they need. You want to punish teachers for those children's obstinance. The teacher has prepared well, has done all reasonably possible to catch their attention and to motivate them, yet they refuse. Kids don't pass, teacher loses his job, because the criteria for his job depends entirely on the performance that ultimately, he does NOT control. Here you've got a point I agree with. A reasonable system would also have to be able to tell if the teacher was doing a good job but had been handed a crop of "bad" kids. Two factors must be kept in mind to address this. Compare the student's test results to other classes and schools in the area. And see if it happens consistently. Problem solved.
Yes, you can influence people, but you CANNOT make them perform. You also canont make them do anything they are incapable of, no matter how much both you and the person in question WANT to do it. How can we rationally judge a teacher's performance by the light of so many factors that they cannot control?See above.
-
sigh, actually NO. not at all. ADD kids would not be left behind because they are diagnosed outside, and then put into programs where they have teachers that are trained for it.
Yes, you did talk about quotas, you said "certain numbers" had to pass, which, forgive me if I'm wrong, is more or less a synonym for a quota.
and yes, you did suggest that handwriting was a metric. When I stated that poor handwriting would be a major hinderment to a standardized test that didn't include bubble filling, you suggested that they would have had to have learned clear handwriting. It's not a strawman at all.
"Again you're talking about stupidity on the part of the organization doing the testing not a flaw in the concept of testing to a standard. If the kid can't communicate clearly he's failing communication tests long before he's failing a biology test because he can't write clearly. " YOU said that, in response to comments I made about handwriting proplems. Again, with writing so that it's difficult to read the numbers you said "And as for the 7s looking like 1s, under a system where the kids are tested to a standard a kid whose 7s looked like 1s would still be in the first grade for that very reason."
I have neither misrepresented you nor misunderstood what you said. If these things were not your intent, then you haven't passed the written communication skills portion of your curriculum, and need to be in elementary school.
I think that you have a very pessimistic (and inaccurate) view of the school system. I can understand that about Utah, which scores relatively low in the rankings, but it's not the case for every school system. we have soem very bright kids, and some very wonderful teachers out there. YOU turned out all right. *I* turned out all right. so did most of the people here.
And approving plans and observing the class DOES hold the teacher accountable for his work. The only difference is that it holds the teacher accountable for what he DOES, not what he cannot control
and no, I don't think that bad missionaries necessarily have less baptism. I knew some very disobedient missionaries who knew little about how to teach who had many baptisms.
Now, you haven't addresed my last major issue, where I asked why you had such a problem with teachers objecting to having more standardized tests that don't measure even what you want to measure? why is that such a problem? This is why I think you overstate the case of how bad the system is. YOu have teachers who are trying to have more time to teach and work with the children, rather than take more useless tests, and you are angry with them for that. The unions aren't objecting to your proposal, they're objecting to more bubble-filling, useless tests.
And even if they were, I don't find it irrational at all for them to object to it. i disagree with you, but that does not mean I am being irrational about it.
-
You know, I'm rather amused that this thread on why RPG campaigns don't make for good trade fiction has devolved into a discussion on standardized testing.
-
ADD kids:
They weren't diagnosed by [gasp]testing[/gasp] were they? It's OK, you can admit it.
Quotas:
You're right. You've caught me in a misstep. I did in fact claim that I had not mentioned quotas when I did say that certain numbers had to pass. Forgive me. I had an irrational negative reaction to the emotional baggage I have buried under the word "quota". Yes I think quotas ought to be applied to the results of a teacher's work. In the same breath I'd like to add that I am not in favor of stupid quotas that don't reflect the reality of the teacher's situation.
Handwriting:
Again, you've caught me. I was trying to imply that the problem with bad hand-writing and the 7s and 1s would have been caught and corrected in the first grade, not that I believed people with bad hand-writing should never be advanced to 2nd. I don't believe that a person capable of critical thought can be incapable of drawing letters clearly. But, since you claim to be such a person I will say that the appeal process I mentioned way back in the beginning when I first proposed the distributed grading system would catch and correct the problem first try.
I have neither misrepresented you nor misunderstood what you said. If these things were not your intent, then you haven't passed the written communication skills portion of your curriculum, and need to be in elementary school.
I think that you have a very pessimistic (and inaccurate) view of the school system. I can understand that about Utah, which scores relatively low in the rankings, but it's not the case for every school system. we have soem very bright kids, and some very wonderful teachers out there. YOU turned out all right. *I* turned out all right. so did most of the people here.
And your view of the school system is more accurate than mine because... I disagree with you?
And approving plans and observing the class DOES hold the teacher accountable for his work. The only difference is that it holds the teacher accountable for what he DOES, not what he cannot control
It doesn't address the possibility that the teacher and the evaluator both learned the same stupid and ineffective techniques. If the teacher is judged solely on his ability to match the techniques taught in educational programs there is no way to discover if those techniques are bad. Ineffective techniques produce unlearned kids but the teacher gets glowing reviews. And any teacher that tries new techniques in an attempt to reach the kids that don't respond to the book techniques gets bad reviews.
and no, I don't think that bad missionaries necessarily have less baptism. I knew some very disobedient missionaries who knew little about how to teach who had many baptisms.
Are you now saying that the skills of the teacher are irrelevant? Let me get this straight. With this addition to your analogy you're saying that the educational state of a child at the end of the year doesn't reflect the skills of the teacher AND that the skill of the teacher has no effect on the educational state of the student at the end of the year. Really?
Last major issue:
I understand your objection to my objection. I don't believe the teachers are really interested in having more time to teach and work with the children for a couple of reasons. 1. The standardized testing we have now does not take up that much time. My teachers wasted more time by being unprepared than was taken up by state testing by an order of magnitude.
2. They offer no alternative solutions. Their results are currently very poor and getting worse and their response is to suggest that results ought not to be measured? Come on. There's a rat in there somewhere.
You have not answered my main question either. How can you expect good results when the employment and compensation of the teacher are completely insulated from those results?
-
You know, I'm rather amused that this thread on why RPG campaigns don't make for good trade fiction has devolved into a discussion on standardized testing.
Yes, it is amusing but I am enjoying myself immensely.
-
I am incapable of writing legibly.
The best testing system I've seen so far is Queenslands for the end of Secondary school. Over two years, the students undergo a choice of subjects that are approved by a board. The teachers teach these subjects however they want, so long as it follows the outcomes set out in the curriculum. They design their own assessment tasks and give them to the class, and mark them, and these marks form part of the total assessment which are sent away to a board. Lot's of maths and such is done on these numbers so we don't get students excelling because of easy or hard marking teachers. At the end, students undergo a long, standardised test designed to prove they learnt what they were supposed to. This test cannot be studied for, as it tests skills and abilities, not facts and stuff. For example, writing something in repsonse to stimulus materials, or problem solving tasks.
-
Sounds pretty close to what I was looking for. Is this destined to doom teachers to being punished for their wicked wicked, and stupid, students?
-
Nope, not really. Though I don't understand quite what yopu mean by that, and I admit I don't fully understand the Queensland system, having come from NSW which has a very similar but, IMO, inferior system. The main difference being that Queensland allows teachers greater creative freedom to tailor the course for their particular students, instead of, say, having a set list of books for White Anglo-Saxon audiences that mean nothing to any other student.
-
Though I don't understand quite what yopu mean by that, ...
SE's contention to date, at least as far as I can tell, has been that testing students to see if they've learned what they were supposed to leads to teachers being unfairly punished when they get a raft of stupid students who couldn't pass the test if God himself had taught them.
I was needling him.
My contention is that we should use something like what you describe from Queensland and then use the data on how well the students know the material to hold the teachers accountable for their work, in some reasonable and not stupid way.
-
This may only apply to Australia, as I know little about the US education system, but...
There are a lot of really crappy teachers out there, who are useless and overpaid. This is a problem that has led to NSW giving government grants to any teacher who can prove themself not up to date, in order for them to leave the NSW education system. Yes, it's as backwards as it sounds.
There are also some very excellent teachers out there who do a great job and are very underpaid.
My course is excellent. I have no doubts than anyone who graduates my course is going to be an up to date, responsible teacher with the required skillset and a knowledge of the most recent educational developments. I also do not discount the skills of teachers who are experienced, but note the best ones are the ones who keep on professionally updating themselves with the latest research and methods.
Based on this, I think teachers need some accountability, but I also note that the education system is backwards and outdated, and needs serious reform, from the 3 r's (Reading, writing and Arithmatic) to a method based around the four r's as made up by some guy I can't remember to reference. (Recursion, Relation, Rigor, and I forgot the last one. I'll look the article up again sometime). Now, the good thing is that most progrssive schools are moving towards this sort of curriculum, as opposed to a discrete curriculum in which "english" and "maths" are entirely seperated and never cross paths. A more holistic method embracing outcomes and problem solving skills rather than remembering facts, that is.
For example, I *Like* open book tests because they're closer to real world conditions. I fully plan as a teacher to use open book tests whenever I can, and instead base the questions on actual understanding of the material, as opposed to memorisation. I also won't use multiple choice questions if I can help it.
Now, in light of this, I don't think testing is the way to prove teachers accountable, because teachers should be teaching skills that are difficult to test in any standardised way. The Queensland end of year thing is a good example, but I still find testing an inefficient process of measuring a teachers skills.
It sorts itself out naturally, in a way, since bad teachers end up getting jobs at worse schools, as better schools don't want them. The problem is these bad schools have the students that probably need better teachers far more to deal with the students there.
EDIT: Five minutes later, I look at one of my assigned readings which shows the sort of thing I'm talking about:
http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/~jonassen/courses/CLE/index.html
-
I have heard from people who have heard from teachers that the tests DO take a lot of time. All their time, more or less. Because they are forced to teach how to pass the tests, instead of teaching actual useful knowledge and skills.
And I think SE's winning this argument, but if I were him I'd have been tired of the argument long ago.
-
The standardized tests do take quite a bit of time. In most systems I've seen there are two to three rounds of this a year, and each one pretty much makes an entire week useless for anything else. And that's just for administering the tests.
A week is a pretty significant ammount of time for teaching.
I'd like to see how those tests measure and are administered, JP
as for how they can be evaluated: they may be separated from results they don't control, but they are not separated from processes they do. Of course there's the possibility that the observer and the teacher learned the same crappy methods, that's why you can have different people doing the observations and the approvals. The same thing applies to the people developing your test. What if they don't develop it to good standards. Eventually, you keep improving the system and that sort of thing starts to fade out. I don't have a problem with being divorced from uncontrollable results if the person is doing all they can to influence the situation.
-
Here's a comic relevant to the discussion (http://www.herdthinners.com/gifs/2005/0312.gif)
-
RPGs and books, hmm. Yeah, I will say that they don't covert back and forth too well. Books and movies convert better, and even that doesn't work so hot. You can even turn it around the opposite way. I've used tons of ideas from books, movies, video games, etc for campaigns, but a strait conversion makes a pretty lame attempt for a RPG. You just have to basically use some of the ideas you like. So if you had some great idea while roleplaying, nothing wrong in cannibalizing it. But a strait conversion would usually be dumb.
I think worldbuilding is one of the big ticket things for selling fantasy novels atm, probably for at least the last decade or so. Eventually it will probably cycle back around to something else, like plot or characters or whatever. I'm more of a character guy myself. I think the worldbuilding is liked so much by the big guys, cause it can be reused. With all the movies, books, etc coming out nowdays, you always get sequals, series, stuff like that. So I'm guessing that is at least part of why worldbuilding is big. I'm even going to say the same world can be used for many kinds of media. It would of course take some talent, however the Muse would only have to call once per conversion. Once one person took a book series and made a good movie out of it, another person good at movies could continue to make good movies even if he knew little or nothing about coverting books to movies, cause the foundations for that part would have already been set by the first person.
-
Interesting. My experience with state testing was a single afternoon twice a year. No doubt it could be done badly and has been. It doesn't have to be.
If the teachers have to drastically change their curriculum in order to be teaching what is tested on the standardized test then, I have to ask, what the heck they were teaching before?
Perhaps this is the desired result of the standardized test in action. To force the teachers to teach a curriculum that is actually useful rather than whatever they were teaching that didn't prepare a kid to solve math problems, comprehend what he reads, and problem solve. I suspect that teachers who have to drastically change their curriculum to prepare their kids for testing may have fallen into the "I am their mentor" "I am their friend" "I am their surrogate parent" trap that I brought up before. A teacher should be none of these except incidentally. They are primarily instructors, not life-guides.
Of course there's the possibility that the observer and the teacher learned the same crappy methods, that's why you can have different people doing the observations and the approvals. The same thing applies to the people developing your test. What if they don't develop it to good standards.
True enough.
Eventually, you keep improving the system and that sort of thing starts to fade out. I don't have a problem with being divorced from uncontrollable results if the person is doing all they can to influence the situation.
And perhaps this is where we agree to disagree. I still don't think that separating processes from their results will result in better processes or results. Isn't that one of the definitions of insanity: Performing the same action and expecting a different result? You can't improve the system if you don't know what results it produces and since the desired results from an educational system are educated kids you have to find out if they have, in fact, been educated at the end of the day. I don't see any other way to do that than to test their skills and knowledge.
You have made it pretty clear that you don't believe teachers can significantly influence the educational state of their students. (your missionary analogy) If that's the case then why are we paying people to teach at all?
I don't agree with you. I think a teacher has a huge influence on kids. The better the teacher the more influence he can exert and vice versa.
Since Ookla is just about the most reasonable and level-headed person I know I'm going to take his implication that I'm not making sense to heart. Forgive me if I've offended.
-
And as for the comic. All it does is show that teachers need to exercise flexibility in their teaching methods. Regulating how they teach, as you suggest, is just going to lock teachers into "traditional" methods. (whatever the methods are, they will become traditional and will not work for everyone). Poor Rudy, the exception, would be just as screwed.
If the system is crafted to reward teachers for teaching according to a certain methodology your going to get teachers who teach to that methodology (If the methodology doesn't help Rudy, Rudy's out of luck.)
If the system is crafted to reward teachers for producing educated children you're going to get educated children. The teachers themselves will seek out ways to teach Rudy that work for him because they get rewarded for doing so.
-
Bad Teachers are Instructors primarily. Good teachers are a number of things, and if I had to pick one Primarily it would not be an "Instructor" but a "Facilitator." They don't so much teach things as facilitate activities and situations that cause the students to teach themselves. Much more effective, and if you do it well enough, the students never realise they're doing work.
It is the sign of a good teacher that has a class who says "Oh, he's a terrible teacher, all his classes are a total bludge" and then they all go and score well on the test.
Which is sort of hypocritical to what I'm going to say, and that's that if you're teaching to a test, you're teaching one thing, and that's how to pass the test, rather than the greater variety of skills that are more useful to the student. This of course comes into test design, which is why I heartily approve of the QCS. It's not easy to make a test that to prove the ability to solve problems, express yourself using writing, comprehend a variety of text types using multiliteracy skills, perform arithmatic and do it all succesfully, but any test that does it fine. The problem is you don't get tests like that, you get stuff with multiple choice questions. You can test one thing with Multiple choice questions: how skilled they are at multiple choice questions.
Case in point: I didn't go to the lecture or do the readings. In the Tute, I was given an eleven question multiple choice pop quiz. I got ten.
-
I had to look up "bludge" on dictionary.com...never would have guessed that though perhaps from context. It made me think of "bludgeon"...
-
Wow, I have to start using bludge in my everyday vocabulary now.
My job is such bludge.
My boss is a total bludger.
I'm still going to avoid discussing the standardized testinng issue. I have lots of issues with it. Mostly because they never answer what will be done with kids who don't meet the standard and never will.
-
Yeah, sorry, forgot that Bludge is Austrlian slang. We use it rather a lot here, but not THAT much. We decribe a lazy person as a bludger, but we rarely use it as an insult. I always describe classes as a "Bludge class", or I used to when I had bludge classes. Now I'm at uni, if I had bludge classes I'd simply not go.
-
By instructor I meant someone who sees their primary goal as teaching. This is opposed to a teacher who sees his primary goal as making kids like him, or feel good about themselves, or teaching them about social norms, or how to be good citizens, or lecturing or keeping them from having fun.
-
Mostly because they never answer what will be done with kids who don't meet the standard and never will.
What would you do with them?
-
I don't know.
The special education system is bogged down as is. Yet failing to pass standardize tests comes with a huge handicap to go on top of whatever handicaps they already have. Giving out waivers to some kids can be construded as unfair, or allow some kids to underachieve. I'm not a big fan of them being placed on welfare, most welfare systems just feed the "not good enough" stigma. I think they could have a very productive life and probably would in another society. So deportation?
-
See, teaching all of that stuff IS a part of teaching, and a big part. A good teacher, while yes, they see teaching as the most important goal, doesn't ignore the lesser aspects.
-
InterestingAnd perhaps this is where we agree to disagree. I still don't think that separating processes from their results will result in better processes or results. Isn't that one of the definitions of insanity: Performing the same action and expecting a different result?
See, that's the thing. I'm not suggesting, at ALL, that we keep doing the same thing. I'm suggesting that we monitor teacher performance, not kid performance, to make sure we have the best teachers. That means changing behavior.
My missionary comments were very poor, I agree. I do think teacher's have influence. I think a good teacher (or missionary) has a better CHANCE of having better results. However, I don't think that success is a given. Even when most of the building material is good, you may still end up with the worst bits of it. and since the teacher doesn't choose which students he works with, his ability to appriase that material doesn't mean he'll have the better results in the end. Plus there are many other external events in any child's life. Puberty, divorcing parents, marrying parents, marrying siblings, family or friends getting into mental/physical/legal trouble. These can hurt performance. sure the kid'll bounce back, but in the mean time he's hurt the teacher's performance evaluation.
Another problem. Are the students to be evaluated by these same tests? let's say they do, and they live in a wealthy area. then even if they have a rotten teacher, they have a vested interest in performing well on this test, so they buy outside help, in the form of an outstanding tutor, thus artificially raising the teacher's performance evaluation. ANd if they don't, the kids don't have a vested interest in doign well on the test. Maybe they have a teacher who is teaching well but they don't like personally (or who caught them misbehaving), so they intentionally do poorly on the tests to hurt the teacher. Or they just don't care and slack off. whether the test/evaluation is timed or not, the typical kid will want to get out of there and will hurry it, reducing their actual performance.
And yes, I think both of these are likely scenarios, especially when we're dealing with testing teenagers.
I agree to disagree with you, though. No reason why our politics can't be different. We both know we have similar recreational and professional interests.
I do want to say one thing about ADD. ADD is a behavioral disorder that, due to it's nature, affects learning. A teacher who knows the basic signs, or a parent, or a coach, or a doctor, can recommend that a child be examined by a trained professional to diagnose the disorder. By no means is a school examination (written, bubbled, oral, or whatever) a necessary or even likely means of noticing the child needs attention. Some children with ADD test very well in many environments, but they still need help, esp. if they're particularly bright. I just wanted to add that, because what i remember about our discussion of ADD it seemed to be a vague area.
-
See, that's the thing. I'm not suggesting, at ALL, that we keep doing the same thing. I'm suggesting that we monitor teacher performance, not kid performance, to make sure we have the best teachers. That means changing behavior.
I also think that teacher performance should be monitored. I think the key is in putting teacher monitoring and kid monitoring together. Unless you monitor kid performance there is no way to tell if the standards you are holding teacher's to are effective, or if the teacher is effective when using the techniques prescribed. As you've pointed out, and we've both experienced, many of the techniques teachers use today are ineffective. So these teachers could be monitored and found to be checking all the boxes and performing the correct techniques yet their students aren't learning. If we don't find out that the students aren't learning, because we don't monitor students, these ineffective teachers stay in the system forever.
Yet your point that basing teacher evaluations solely on student performance would unfairly hurt a teacher who gets saddled with unruly, stupid or malicious students is a valid one. It seems to me that both ends of the loop need to be monitored. Even a moderately intelligent evaluator, given evaluation of the teacher in the classroom and armed with the student's test results could determine where any fault lay.
A standard needs to be imposed from outside to keep bad or ineffective teachers from stacking the deck in their own favor. Given the choice, anyone would be sorely tempted to lower their standards in order to keep their job or get the bonus. Bad/ineffective teachers even more so.
I asked my father-in-law, a high school teacher of some thirty years experience, about this whole issue. He said that teachers must be held accountable for the performance of their students. And the next thing he said was that, given that accountability, they needed to have the means/right to discipline their students. Toss disruptive kids out of class. Fail kids who refuse to try and don't want to be there. etc...
I just don't think you can TOTALLY seperate the teachers from the results of their work. In the end, what we want from the educational system is not employment for teachers, it's educated kids. Unless you know what the results of the processes are you can't take any action to improve them.
Holding teachers to an outside standard inherently limits their flexibility, especially when that standard is not evaluated by measuring its effectiveness with students. I would rather give the teachers that flexibility by defining a goal, and letting them get there any way they can. In the end I think students would be better served by teachers (and administrations) who are primarily concerned with getting them educated to a certain standard by hook or by crook than by teachers who are primarily concerned with teaching in a way that will please the evaluators.
-
SE, you're talking about something I had a lecture on last week - risk factors. Problems with the parents and such are risk factors. Now, there are also Protective factors, like having a close circle of friends. If protective factors > risk factors, the student has resiliance.
There usually isn't a lot to be done about risk factors, but a good teacher should be able to foster resiliance by encouraging protective factors. And yes, that is an important part of being a teacher - just as important as actual instructional ability, since without resiliance, the student's will just end up failing anyway.
-
See, teaching all of that stuff IS a part of teaching, and a big part. A good teacher, while yes, they see teaching as the most important goal, doesn't ignore the lesser aspects.
I agree. Problems arise when teachers become more concerned with the lesser aspects than with the teaching. I would, frankly, rather have a teacher who was deeply committed to effective teaching but didn't care a lick whether his students liked him or not than one who reversed that order. The ideal of course is a teacher who cares about everything, including whether the kids like him or not, only so far as it enhances his effectiveness.
-
I don't know.
The special education system is bogged down as is. Yet failing to pass standardize tests comes with a huge handicap to go on top of whatever handicaps they already have. Giving out waivers to some kids can be construded as unfair, or allow some kids to underachieve. I'm not a big fan of them being placed on welfare, most welfare systems just feed the "not good enough" stigma. I think they could have a very productive life and probably would in another society. So deportation?
Yes. Deportation. That's a brilliant sugge... did I get ya? Ha ha. Maybe what needs to happen is to get rid of the stigma that falls on people who can't hack the educational system. Of course they can have a productive and valuable life, just not one that leads through college by the traditional route, if at all. Once we get rid of the stigma maybe kids like that would stop being told and stop telling themselves that TV addiction is the answer. Then we'd see some REAL outside the box thinking.
-
Well, getting rid of the stigma would be great. But it's a stigma that has existed for a long, long time. Just look at how condescending certain Universities can be towards graduates of other certain Universities. And employers from those Universities often take the same stance. Hence, they won't hire so and so because they didn't attend such and such University.
And people without a High School degree have to fight 10 times harder just to get the bottom rungs of the social ladder.
So how do you provide equal oppurtunity for those who seemed destined to fail?
The people I teach at Wasatch Mental Health kind of fall into this catagory. The only way any of the clients there are going to learn is if they make some huge efforts to be teachable. Though, there are many there who I doubt could possibly make such an effort. For example, one of my students from last week can only remember things for about 2 minutes as a result of severe brain-damage. How do you teach someone like that?
I don't really have a problem with teacher being held accountable, but I would ask that teachers then have the right to refuse students that they feel they can't teach. It just like how a business owner is held accountable for the results of his/her company, but also has the right to refuse service to any customer that he/she feels is detrimental to the business. Right now in the public school system, teachers have no say as to who they get as students.
-
Yes. In Queensland where I live, a lot of schools will hire anyone who graduated from my university, Queensland University of Technology, because the education degree there is believe to be far superior to the one at the University of Queensland. Many of the same schools would be very reluctant to hire a UQ graduate.
-
Oh, now that's interesting. Teachers being able to refuse students. Hmmm...
There would be a niche there for teachers who specialize in teaching students other teachers have refused. It would take more work on their part but could also be compensated better. But then, how do you stop teachers from collecting the rejects, getting paid more, then not making any special effort and blaming the abysmal test scores of his students on the fact that they're all rejects.
Sticky.
-
yeah, the permission to reject students... that is fraught with more problems than I'm willing to approach.
Skar, also, we've reached a point where i want you to be privy to something JP and I were talking about last night:
[23:24] Beelzebubba: I am intentionally taking a harder line in that argument then I feel, incidnetally
...
[23:26] Beelzebubba: however, I find it absolutely absurd to ask teachers to accept more standardized tests when they have too many that aren't good and nothing better to replace them with.
[23:27] JP - I Love You Egg!: I'm kindq with you. I hate standardised tests. But I really like the QCS, it seems very effective
[23:28] JP - I Love You Egg!: and it doesn't limit teachers
Uhm... I guess that's all we said on it. I guess I could have just quoted myself (Beelzebubba).
Yes, there have to be tests. And every teacher may as well be testing the same set of knowledge. or at least the same knowledge/skill/ability minimums. In classes where the knowledge is better, they should be allowed to test tougher, I think.
And we also need better controls for factors out of the teacher's reasonable ability to deal with. I'm not sure what those controls will be, but a discussion could be started to discover potential controls.
But it's not time to add more testing. Not until the major kinks in the current testing system are worked out and we have details for how to better administer and grade it. It doesn't have to be perfect: we obviously won't find some of the flaws until we implement the program. But we need to develop soemthing much better than what we have before we insist teachers accept more/different testing.
-
Agreed that the current testing system no worky. See my comments as to why I have a problem with the teachers unions fighting against it so vehemently despite that.
Sounds like were in near total agreement otherwise.