Article: EUOLogy about RPG Campaigns as Books

[42]

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?

[JP Dogberry]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Skar]

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.

[JP Dogberry]

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.

[Skar]

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.

[Skar]

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.

[42]

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.

[JP Dogberry]

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.

[Skar]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Skar]

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.