babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Did I say that evaluations should be focused on to the exclusion of all else. No.
You said yourself that:
The sole purpose of schools is learning -- you won't get any disagreement from me there.
But, as I said earlier, without evaluation it is impossible to determine if any learning is occurring!
Surely, you must agree with that?
There's already standardized testing AND teacher evaluations, so what more do you want? Your prescription for a radical change sounds more like an overthrow of the teacher's union. I think this hypothesis is more in line with your antipathy-filled comments.
So, j.m., you agree (unlike N.Beltov, apparently) that student performance can be evaluated?
There is no learning happening in schools, Sven. Everybody knows it's happening, from the dumbing down of society to the Stalinization of economic theory in universities some time ago. So I think you should just tell us what it is you're getting at - that our idiots in government can't handle public education anymore. And therefore, the only other possible solution is to privatize education and let free markets rule. Because if you aren't aware of that agenda, those on the political right are.
No, I believe that student and teacher performance are exhaustivley evaluated, and they skew the learning process dramatically (unless administrators protect their teachers from the bombardment of evaluations, but even still this is merely palliative).
If you are looking to produce some yardstick that I am willing to compromise with, you are truly mistaken.
Do a search on the BCTF website. And, if you have access to a university library ... well, im sure you know the rest.
Thanks
If you mean that I'm mocking those who think that students warming a seat with their asses is sufficient -- or perhaps even BETTER than our current system of tests and assignments -- then you're right. But I do so as an educator myself. I assume it's OK to disagree with their approach without this disagreement being categorized as somehow "anti-labour".
For the record, by the way, I'm very definitely pro-testing, but not necessarily standardized testing.
We need to churn out more bizness and finance school graduates. We don't have enough plastic people wearing chalk stripe suits in this world to deal with the bloated paper pushing liberal-fascist economy.
Waiter: Would you like to hear today's specials?
Patrick Bateman: Not if you want to keep your spleen.
Sven, you are not interested in evaluation of learning (which takes place in a number of ways, again you are obviously not well read on the issue because their is litterally thousands of papers in English alone on forms of evaluation in education) you are interested in measuring how well teachers "deliver" the curriculum to students. This is the same obsession that politicians, who have not been in a school since they graduated, have always had. This is what leads to EQAO scores and other standardized testing. These methods have been proven invalid and hugely skewed through scientific testing, yet they are used by governments of all stripes. This is mostly because, like you, they know nothing about education but feel that teachers are a bunch of overpaid babysiters. And, because they apply the business model that they use for all other aspects in their management to education of children, an area that has been repeatedly shown not to respond well to this style of management.
Comparing the education of young children and young adults to dentists is absurd. The example shows exactly what people like Sven and Snert get wrong about education of children and young adults.
You are taking an "article" from The Onion seriously?!? Although I wasn't the one posting the link, I think Snert meant it as a joke.
I disagree, but what you think I think is not really relevant.
How would you proposed student learning be evaluated? And, critically, how would you propose such evaluations be done such that one teacher in a classroom is not using a completely different standard for that evaluation than the standard being used by the teacher standing in the classroom next door who is teaching the same subject to the same grade?
I hadn't realized we were discussing only the education of young children. I'm not here to criticize teachers, nor take away their autonomy. I was just taking a well-deserved swipe at the notion that testing students isn't really necessary, and that we should just assume that sitting in a classroom where learning might be taking place will result in learning taking place.
Of course not. I was mearly pointing out that you and Snert think that "testing" is an important part of education. That is the essence of the disagreement in this thread in my opinion. You and Snert are applying a theory of education that says that students come to school knowing nothing, are given knowledge and can then be tested on how well they have retained this knowledge. This is training not education. This is what you would do to someone who was going to be doing root canals for instance.
I would ask teachers to develop their own forms of evaluation and feedback with their students. You should question your desire for some form of objective testing of learning. It doesn't exist, it is a falacy. People have repeatedly told you this in the thread and included links, there is a huge literature on the subject. Read up.
Eloquently put, Le T. I might add that Sven's cookie cutter approach is also a suitable topic for criticism. Good teachers tailor the curriculum to the level of ability of their students and, as anyone who has a passing familiarity with public school classrooms knows, these levels vary very widely.
Actually, I tend toward being more of a Constructivist than a Behaviourist or Cognitivist, so I don't support the idea that learners are empty vessels who must be filled with the wisdom and knowledge of the teacher.
But no matter how you teach or learn, I do think it's crucial that this be demonstrable. What could possibly be the use of any learning that cannot be demonstrated? Does it make any sense to say that Bob took a course and learned all kinds of things, but is completely unable to demonstrate or use any one of them?
Bob may learn things that do not come out for many years afterwards. Teachers do many things, not all of which can be put under the microscope. And, as I have mentioned on this thread already, both creativity and critical thinking are "learning" that is very, very difficult to evaluate or test. Does this mean to you, then, that both creativity and critical thinking as goals of education should be jettisoned? (Since the demonstration of learning is so difficult)
Of course, for authoritarian educators, critical and creative thinking may be positively HARMFUL. What they want is obedience to routine, and a society of consuming drones.