It doesn't surprise me that your "argument" has ultimately devolved to this:
nice try, loser.
What makes a great teacher?
Mon, 2010-02-22 01:05
#52
Sven
Mon, 2010-02-22 01:09
#53
N.Beltov
Sven: Yes, and your fundamentalist testing ideology, which you have completely failed to defend, is a stinky mess in the corner. Anytime, lightweight.
Mon, 2010-02-22 01:10
#54
Sven
Another example of an excellent argument strategy:
Anytime, lightweight.
Mon, 2010-02-22 01:12
#55
Sven
The question I have is: Is the purpose of schools to keep teachers employed (regardless of results actually delivered) or is the purpose of schools to educate students?Well if Judge Elihu Smails is anyone to go by, there will always a need for ditch diggers. And remember this. A flute with no holes is not a flute, and a donut with no holes is a danish.
Another fine example of Fidel's famous non sequiturs.
Mon, 2010-02-22 01:13
#56
N.Beltov
So defend your view ... which I have, sensibly, called a testing fundamentalism. What's stopping you, big boy?
Mon, 2010-02-22 01:15
#57
The question I have is: Is the purpose of schools to keep teachers employed (regardless of results actually delivered) or is the purpose of schools to educate students?
Well if Judge Elihu Smails is anyone to go by, there will always be a need for ditch diggers. And remember this. A flute with no holes is not a flute, and a donut with no holes is a danish.
Mon, 2010-02-22 01:15
#58
Sven
Lemme ask you a very straight-forward question, N.Beltov: Do you believe that teachers are either "qualified" or "not qualified" and that there are no varying degrees of "qualified" such that if two people are "qualified" they should be paid the same (unless, of course, one has been occupying the job for more years than the other)?
Mon, 2010-02-22 01:25
#59
Sven
Well, while you noodle on that question I just posed and while you struggle to articulate an answer that won't directly answer that question, I'm going to hit the hay.
Mon, 2010-02-22 01:27
#60
N.Beltov
OK, so you`ve conceded that this view of education that is characterized by a zealotry for testing is, well, a failure. You don`t want to defend that view, anyway. Can`t say as I blame you.
When it comes to teachers, let me ask you a reply in the form of a question. Don`t you think that the rates of pay of workers - any workers - especially those represented by a bargaining agent, should be something worked out between the two parties?
My understanding of teachers is that they bargain for more money for more years of experience. simple, really. That way, favourtism and all that crap goes out the window. lots of workers, not just teachers, want objective standards for their pay increases. And you`ve conceded, (wisely), that the results of the testing of students is not that objective standard. so they use years of experience. why not?
This enthusiasm for ranking, testing and the like is an imported idea from the US. Like a lot of ideas from that country, they can keep it and stop polluting our country. weve seen the horrible- not to say worsening - situation in the US educational system.
Mon, 2010-02-22 02:09
#61
Lemme ask you a very straight-forward question, N.Beltov: Do you believe that teachers are either "qualified" or "not qualified" and that there are no varying degrees of "qualified" such that if two people are "qualified" they should be paid the same (unless, of course, one has been occupying the job for more years than the other)?
You're asking N.B. for an answer to a very large question. Do you think it possible to measure the ability of one person to produce good learners in any one year of their careers as instructors teaching one or two subjects? What are the conditions and parameters for this experiment? Did Teds Bundy and Kaczynski have the same bad grade three teacher? Is there a teachers college somewhere churning out retarded Yodas? Who or what is the source of these bad seeds in society and having no other purpose than to do Satan's work?
When we grew up and went to school
There were certain teachers who would
Hurt the children any way they could
By pouring their derision
Upon anything we did
And exposing every weakness
However carefully hidden by the kids
But in the town it was well known
When they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives would thrash them
Within inches of their lives
Mon, 2010-02-22 09:53
#62
Sven
OK, so you`ve conceded that this view of education that is characterized by a zealotry for testing is, well, a failure.
Actually, I've not conceded that. Testing -- any testing -- is imperfect. But, unless a student's mere presence in the classroom, by itself, is a sufficient indicator that the student understands a subject, we are going to have to evaluate the student's knowledge. So, the question becomes: How do we evaluate students' understanding of a subject? We give them tests (both standardized and non-standardized tests).
But, if you think tests are terrible indicators of what students are learning and if we should, therefore, stop giving students any tests, how would you propose schools evaluate students' progress?
Or, like teachers, do you think students should simply not be evaluated?
Mon, 2010-02-22 10:17
#63
N.Beltov
Ha ha. Squirm and wriggle, Sven. I like how your mock concern about genuinely evaluating teachers has been completely jettisoned in favour of evaluating students.
Again, wise. If you can't win the debate then change the subject.
Maybe, as a form of "wrap up" you could go back to attacking teachers? Full circle and all? Bwa-ha-ha.
Mon, 2010-02-22 10:19
#64
Le T
But, if you think tests are terrible indicators of what students are learning and if we should, therefore, stop giving students any tests, how would you propose schools evaluate students' progress?
Or, like teachers, do you think students should simply not be evaluated?
Your problem, Sven, is that you are completely uncritical of status quo education but remained focused on "bad teachers". You take for granted that students know nothing until they enter the classroom and are filled with "knowledge". The amount of knowledge that they have been filled with surely must be able to be measured. You view students as empty beakers and schools as great jugs of knowledge, you are searching frantically for the measurement on the beaker so you may determine which teacher has filled which student with the right amount of knowledge juice (so you may determine teachers' proper pay scale).
Basically, you are just like all the politicians who frequently completely re-arrange how teachers are asked to teach. You know nothing about education, pedagogy and have obviously never set foot in a classroom as a teacher. Your fundamental understanding of what school is has been completely taken apart in literature but you are ignorant of the body of literature around education. Despite your ignorance you have appointed yourself inquisitor of "bad teachers", who must be the cause of all educational faults, a conclusion that could only be reached by someone who holds an uncritical perspective on education and has not read any literature on standardized testing, socio-economic levels and schooling or race and colonialism in schooling.
Mon, 2010-02-22 11:31
#65
Sven
I like how your mock concern about genuinely evaluating teachers has been completely jettisoned in favour of evaluating students.
Indeed. My concern is with educational results: What have the students actually learned?
But, I've "jettisoned" nothing: The whole argument I've been making (if you bothered to actually read and to think about it) is that we want teachers who actually deliver positive results -- delivering positive results is precisely what makes a "great teacher".
Student evaluations of progress and teacher evaluations of success are inseparable. Part of my point is that if you can evaluate student learning, then you can evaluate teacher effectiveness.
So, I return to my question: How would you evaluate student learning? Or, is such a task simply impossible?
Mon, 2010-02-22 11:48
#66
Sven
Your problem, Sven, is that you are completely uncritical of status quo education...
Actually, I'm highly critical of the status quo. Under the status quo, there is a virtual absence of rational evaluation of teacher performance...and poor teachers remain, like sticky garden slugs, firmly embedded in the educational system. All, of course, to the grave detriment of the students they are responsible for.
So it is, in fact, really time to look at radically changing the status quo.
Mon, 2010-02-22 12:13
#67
Your problem, Sven, is that you are completely uncritical of status quo education...
Actually, I'm highly critical of the status quo. Under the status quo, there is a virtual absence of rational evaluation of teacher performance...and poor teachers remain, like sticky garden slugs, firmly embedded in the educational system. All, of course, to the grave detriment of the students they are responsible for.
So it is, in fact, really time to look at radically changing the status quo.
Sven, thank goodness you are not an administrator. You haven't a clue what is expected of teachers in terms of meeting all aspects of the curriculum and evaluating students, and how detrimental this is to the learning process. There isn't time for teaching in the world you imagine. Second, hiring more administrators to scrutinize teachers in an imperfect system is just revanchist bullshit that serves the very people who want transparency and tests: teachers who don't follow the rules entirely will get punished for not following the rules (whether or not they are good teachers) and those who do will have students who are professional test-takers.
People like you know very little about teaching, about the multiple facets of the job, the long hours after teaching hours are over and the constant berating of the parents who feel that the babysitting service is going horribly.
Mon, 2010-02-22 12:23
#68
But, that all being said, the purpose of education, of course, is to actually deliver results. So, a "great teacher" delivers results. Period.
A while back I ran into a retired former colleague who asked, "How are things at the factory?" He's a little bit bitter, I suppose. We instructors are constantly at odds with gnomish administrators who view what we do as the production of graduates who will be able to enter the work force. They seem to have no clue about education.
Great teachers typically view their work in one of the following 5 ways:
1. Teaching as a way of being.
2. Teaching as a creative endeavour.
3. Teaching as a live performance.
4. Teaching as a form of empowerment.
5. Teaching as an opportunity to serve.
I see what I do in class as a form of theatre. On the other hand, marking is a type of creative drudgery.
I really dislike the term "empowerment."
Mon, 2010-02-22 12:36
#69
You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy! 
Mon, 2010-02-22 12:48
#70
I'm just going to give my own personal experience, which is really all I can do anyway:
My son is in Gr. 4 this year, and his first year in a gifted program. He has had both wonderful and horrible teachers in his time at school; not wonderful or horrible overall, or for all students, but just for him. My wife and I are both very involved in his education, and we have a good understanding of what he enjoys, what comes easily, and what is difficult or just plain boring. So when we get a report card or have a teacher interview, we don't consider it so much an indication of how he is learning, but a measure of how well his teacher understands him, his type of learning, and his strengths and weaknesses. As my wife puts it, how much the teacher "gets" him.
So in my opinion, a "good" teacher is the teacher that "gets" your child, and teaches in a way that your child finds enjoyable but still challenging. A "great" teacher is one who can do this for a variety of learning and personality styles. Those are few and far between, and I don't know how we make more of them.
Cheers,
Mon, 2010-02-22 12:49
#71
It's funny how many times in class I've been able to refer to that meatgrinder scene in The Wall to make a point.
Mon, 2010-02-22 12:58
#72
Sven
...teachers who don't follow the rules entirely will get punished for not following the rules (whether or not they are good teachers)
Following "rules"? The fixation with "rules" seems to come from unions (i.e., very complex and intricately-defined "work rules," which have everything to do with protecting teachers but approximately zero to do with educational outcomes).
I'm not interested in "rules"...and I don't think teachers should be judged on whether or not they "follow the rules".
As professionals, teachers should be given very wide latitude in their classrooms to achieve overarching performance objectives, objectives that are rooted in increasing student performance. The precise manner in which a particular teacher accomplishes those objectives should be left to the teacher's professional judgment. And, as professionals, they should be accountable for the results they achieve or fail to achieve.
Mon, 2010-02-22 13:16
#73
...teachers who don't follow the rules entirely will get punished for not following the rules (whether or not they are good teachers)
Following "rules"? The fixation with "rules" seems to come from unions (i.e., very complex and intricately-defined "work rules," which have everything to do with protecting teachers but approximately zero to do with educational outcomes).
I'm not interested in "rules"...and I don't think teachers should be judged on whether or not they "follow the rules".
The normalizing, rule-making institution is the government, actually. Strange that a libertarian is so blinded by anti-unionism that he would forget enemy #1: the government.
Mon, 2010-02-22 13:19
#74
It's a great music video, and I think most primary and secondary school teachers earn their pay. I'm more worried about kids being able to access higher education today. Grade twelve level of achievement used to be a ticket to a good job. A college diploma or B.A. were once considered to be tickets to a decent job not so long ago. Our kids are now competing globally for jobs of the future, and there is no shortage of well educated young Asians who've never known student loan debt and high interest paid on those debts like young Canadians have had to deal with since the 1990's. I can see where there need to be labour agreements between countries. We need to raise the bar in this country, and I think US economist Dean Baker has an excellent idea to create a free labour market in teachers and doctors to bring down the cost of higher education and health care etc. Then again, I think the lack of interest-free money in our economies is a root cause of this current debt crisis. According to some economists, there will be significant change over the next ten years wrt economic theory and how we finance the important things around the western world. But for now I think teachers and college professors are the future as much as young people are. Children are the future, and I see teachers as those who pass the torch to them for them to hold high. The important stuff is happening in our schools every day.
Mon, 2010-02-22 13:32
#75
N.Beltov
I see what I do in class as a form of theatre. On the other hand, marking is a type of creative drudgery.I really dislike the term "empowerment."
I'm thinking of the philosophy of teaching, as in, e.g., Paulo Friere, in which the empowerment of the students is considered an important factor in the methods of teaching as well as the content. I dislike the fashionable use of this term probably as much as you do.
Anyway, since Sven, who started this thread by linking to some article about education in a right wing US magazine, hasn't really done anything but repeat the repulsive mantras of the Fraser Institute - especially their disgusting use of Standardized Testing - maybe a better link is in order.
ooh rah.
Standardized Testing Moratorium and Task Force
Brief 2009
BC Teachers' Federation
It's a 5 page .pdf file.
Some highlights:
1. The census application of the tests and the promotion of test scores as the objective of schooling leads to a competition for marks, and the identification of standard practice and standard curriculum. This competition sacrifices curriculum breadth and depth, academic rigour, and the ability of teachers to design instruction to meet individual student needs.It compromises sound pedagogy.
This last point is extremely telling. Many teachers in the public school system have, in their classes, students over a gigantic range of levels and abilities. These teachers rely upon Educational Assistants and all sorts of help to address the learning needs of such children. Standardized tests are an obstacle here.
2. Regarding the misuse of test results by the (fascistic) Fraser Institute to create school rankings ... All the parties in education have condemned the way these results are used.
3. What is needed are assessments and an evaluation process appropriate for a particular objective. There is, therefore, a need for an analysis of the educational value of existing provincial and local assessments. There is a need to assess the assessments.
4. In regard to Standardized Testing, the Finnish example is particularly significant. Their randomized method of assessment, based on a supported community of teachers (instead of vitriolic hostility to educators and an anti-intellectual neaderthalism) is outstanding and works well.
5. Standardized tests impact on the joy of teaching and learning for children. It narrows the curriculum to teaching the test, destroys deep learning, and attacks the already marginal students with another blow. Recent evidence indicates that more students drop out and fail to graduate ... compliments of standardized testing.
6. Standarized tests emphasize what students cannot do. They don't help teachers teach; they narrow the scope of learning. Important learning such as creative and critical thinking cannot be standardized and measured, and therefore doesn't "count".
Babblers ought to care about such things as creativity and critical thinking, for obvious reasons. The right wing shit bags of the Fraser Institute, and their cheerleaders, do not.
----------------
But enough already. Clearly, as Le T pointed out, our friend Sven has never been in a classroom doing any of the real work of teaching.
Mon, 2010-02-22 13:41
#76
Sven
...teachers who don't follow the rules entirely will get punished for not following the rules (whether or not they are good teachers)
Following "rules"? The fixation with "rules" seems to come from unions (i.e., very complex and intricately-defined "work rules," which have everything to do with protecting teachers but approximately zero to do with educational outcomes).
I'm not interested in "rules"...and I don't think teachers should be judged on whether or not they "follow the rules".
The normalizing, rule-making institution is the government, actually. Strange that a libertarian is so blinded by anti-unionism that he would forget enemy #1: the government.
In your zeal to disagree with the concept of holding teachers accountable for delivering educational results, you seem not to understand that I agree with you that it is silly to micromanage teachers by imposing a myriad of complex rules on them.
What needs to be done is to set educational objectives and then let teachers determine the best way to accomplish those objectives.
Mon, 2010-02-22 13:47
#77
N.Beltov
Sven: how about the objectives of creative and critical learning? (i.e., creativity and critical thinking) Please tell us how to "test" and measure these objectives.
Mon, 2010-02-22 13:51
#78
Sven
N.Beltov, what you're basically saying is that teachers' performance can't (or shouldn't) be evaluated and, even if it can be evaluated, there should be no adverse consequences for failing to perform (nor even positive consequences for superlative performance).
Is that correct?
Mon, 2010-02-22 13:55
#79
Sven
Sven: how about the objectives of creative and critical learning? (i.e., creativity and critical thinking) Please tell us how to "test" and measure these objectives.
So, if it is, indeed, impossible to test or measure subjective learning (such as a creative writing piece), then I guess all students should be given an "A" (for effort).
Mon, 2010-02-22 14:07
#80
N.Beltov
So, if it is, indeed, impossible to test or measure subjective learning (such as a creative writing piece), then I guess all students should be given an "A" (for effort).
Not a bad idea. In fact it's been done. A professor at a Canadian University is currently appealing his layoff/dismissal under these circumstances. His arguments are pretty good ones, too.
But my point was a much smaller one. Simply, that trying to measure all important learning is impossible. But the learning still takes place. The issue of grading is, therefore, of secondary importance.
Learning is more important. That's it.
Mon, 2010-02-22 14:12
#81
Snert
[url=http://www.theonion.com/content/news/montessori_school_of_dentistry]Mont... School Of Dentistry Lets Students Discover Their Own Root Canal Procedures[/url]
Mon, 2010-02-22 14:14
#82
Sven
Learning is more important. That's it.
But, if there are no evaluations, you won't even know if learning is occurring!!
Mon, 2010-02-22 14:17
#83
Yes but if the evaluation criteria are abitrary and rigid then attempting to meet them may actually interfere with the learning process.
Mon, 2010-02-22 14:33
#84
Sven
Yes but if the evaluation criteria are abitrary and rigid then attempting to meet them may actually interfere with the learning process.
Then the focus should be on developing appropriate evaluation criteria, not throwing our hands up in the air and declaring, "Student performance, and thus teacher performance, simply cannot be evaluated."
Mon, 2010-02-22 14:35
#85
Snert
I also think you are trying to be antagonistic to labour issues today.
How is testing or not testing students a "labour issue"??
More specifically, how is expecting that students will be tested on what they may or may not have learned "antagonistic" to labour??
I think you're crying wolf.
Mon, 2010-02-22 14:37
#86
[url=http://www.theonion.com/content/news/montessori_school_of_dentistry]Mont... School Of Dentistry Lets Students Discover Their Own Root Canal Procedures[/url]
If your goal is to discipline students so that they can replicate a set of practices, then yes, this criticism is valid. Am I going to go to a welding class for the purpose of learning by exploring my own experiences and their relationship to the rest of the world?
I think this is a grave conflation between being trained and education.
I also think you are trying to be antagonistic to labour issues today. Do you think your contribution isn't an obvious siding with the antipathy towards educators and their goals for producing learners - not standardized products of the currriculum?
Mon, 2010-02-22 14:41
#87
N.Beltov
Sven, you've been shown that an myopic focus on testing and/or evaluating has all kinds of problems associated with it. The evidence is really quite overwhelming.
Maybe you could better use your time by reading what people who actually spend time in the classroom think about all this stuff. Try to put aside any knuckle-dragging instincts and - gulp - see what real teachers actually think about all this.
Mon, 2010-02-22 14:42
#88
Sven
I also think you are trying to be antagonistic to labour issues today.How is testing or not testing students a "labour issue"??
More specifically, how is expecting that students will be tested on what they may or may not have learned "antagonistic" to labour??
What is presumably "antagonistic" to labor is that student evaluations could be used to evaluate teacher performance -- which is, of course, something to be avoided at all costs (even if the costs include less-educated students).
Teacher jobs über alles!!
Mon, 2010-02-22 14:44
#89
I also think you are trying to be antagonistic to labour issues today.How is testing or not testing students a "labour issue"??
More specifically, how is expecting that students will be tested on what they may or may not have learned "antagonistic" to labour??
I think you're crying wolf.
Your contribution is belittling to those who are educators, who have obviously stated a position that you are mocking with that example. It is quite obvious that you are trying to score a cheap shot against the positions of educators on this board with that little addition - or was it just a randomly placed joke?
I have already articulated how standardized testers are trying to find fault within the classroom by trying to reduce student performance to the ability of teachers to reproduce and teach the curriculum. This is anti-educational, and it is an attempt to attack teachers who do not conform to unrealistic expectations placed upon them.
Mon, 2010-02-22 14:46
#90
N.Beltov
Yawn. Got any more articles under that greasy jacket of yours that you want to import from the US?
Mon, 2010-02-22 14:47
#91
I'm rather curious about knowing more about the Finnish method of student evaluation alluded to in Beltov's post #74. Unfortunately the linked article was fairly brief. Does anyone know more details about this specific evaluation method or alternative methods in general?
Mon, 2010-02-22 14:47
#92
Sven
Sven, you've been shown that an myopic focus on testing and/or evaluating has all kinds of problems associated with it.
Did I say that evaluations should be focused on to the exclusion of all else. No.
You said yourself that:
Learning is more important. That's it.
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?
Mon, 2010-02-22 15:00
#93
Sven
So, j.m., you agree (unlike N.Beltov, apparently) that student performance can be evaluated?
Mon, 2010-02-22 15:00
#94
Sven, you've been shown that an myopic focus on testing and/or evaluating has all kinds of problems associated with it.
Did I say that evaluations should be focused on to the exclusion of all else. No.
You said yourself that:
Learning is more important. That's it.
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.
Mon, 2010-02-22 15:04
#95
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.
Mon, 2010-02-22 15:06
#96
So, j.m., you agree (unlike N.Beltov, apparently) that student performance can be evaluated?
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.
Mon, 2010-02-22 15:09
#97
N.Beltov
I'm rather curious about knowing more about the Finnish method of student evaluation alluded to in Beltov's post #74. Unfortunately the linked article was fairly brief. Does anyone know more details about this specific evaluation method or alternative methods in general?
Do a search on the BCTF website. And, if you have access to a university library ... well, im sure you know the rest.
Mon, 2010-02-22 15:11
#98
Thanks
Mon, 2010-02-22 15:20
#99
Snert
Your contribution is belittling to those who are educators, who have obviously stated a position that you are mocking with that example. It is quite obvious that you are trying to score a cheap shot against the positions of educators on this board with that little addition - or was it just a randomly placed joke?
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.
Mon, 2010-02-22 15:22
#100
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.
Mon, 2010-02-22 15:28
#101
Le T
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.