"It's Not My Job"
The Tribune, unintentionally, editorializes strongly in favor of accountability in public education. The editorial suggests the Legislature did a "bait and switch" in 1999 when it imposed testing requirements for graduation. Until that switch was made, apparently, no one really expected students to actually learn anything.
Aside from that oddity, I agree with the editorial's conclusion that the Legislature needs to fund remediation. I'm running a bill to do just that. However, my bill will fund results, not inputs. Only after a previously-failing student passes the UBSCT test will the provider of the remedial services (public or private) receive its compensation.
Aside from that oddity, I agree with the editorial's conclusion that the Legislature needs to fund remediation. I'm running a bill to do just that. However, my bill will fund results, not inputs. Only after a previously-failing student passes the UBSCT test will the provider of the remedial services (public or private) receive its compensation.
posted by steve u. at 1/17/2006
Subscribe
11 Comments:
What do you think of developmental education programs at the college level?
If a government mandated test is the final instrument to justify a deploma, then it appears to me to follow that the final justification for the educational system must be based on how effectively it teaches specifically to the test. It also appears to assume that the instructors will know in advance pricisely what will be tested. It further assumes that the government disigners of the test actually knows how to fairly and accurately determine the effectiveness of an entire educational system for a broad range of student backgrounds on a broad range of subjects within the short time allocated to administering the test.
some people decry the testing idea because schools will just "teach to the test".
The way I see it is
hey, at least they'll teach to something.
Ethan, I think you hit it. We're going to teach to something, right? As long as we have a test that properly assesses whether the subject matter is mastered, there isn't be a problem teaching to it. That's what we should do. But, I do think we'll constantly need to make sure we're teaching the best curriculum available and that the teaching and testing match up.
I like the idea of paying after the successful test. For an example of paying for inputs in stead of outcomes: In Norway all driver education is private. They have a number of levels of testing, each of which must be passed before moving to the subsequent level. Driving schools get paid for inputs at each level rather than results, so they make more money when students fail. Pay remediation services for outcomes, not for inputs.
Steve, this teacher thinks you have some decent ideas here. I don't always agree with you and some on some ideas (e.g. welfare payment ones), but this one I do. And Ethan, they do teach something. As a teacher, I don't just "teach to the test," but also go beyond it in reading, writing, and math (e.g. giving my students a good foundation in grammar). There are many good teachers out there. It's about time that we actually focused on them more rather than just the negatives as some liberal special interest groups seem to want to do at times.
Handsomeone,
By welfare payments and liberal special interest groups, do you mean tuition tax credits and their advocates? If so, I think I need some explanation on that one.
What if a student intentionally fails or refuses to do the work to pass their remediation courses and therefore their test? Is the service provider (in this case teachers and schools) to be stiffed for all their work? I realize this is a very complicated issue, but why is it that teachers and schools are always blamed and students are often held blameless? Granted one must give special exception to children as they often do not have the judgement to know what is best for them, but some students are combative to their education to the point that they refuse to learn. Is there an additional way to assess outcomes that is not based solely on a set of tests that could be extremely biased? For example, if a school has an accredited program that does, in good faith, work towards feasible educational goals but the student still fails is it fair to penalize the school for that work? As I said, it seems important that multiple assessment tools be in place. Please note that I am not calling for an abandonment of testing. I am simply wondering how we can fairly assess education. I know the following analogy will fail (as all analogies do) but would you as a lawyer agree to never be paid if you lost a case for you client, particularly if you worked very hard to win your case?
Anonymous,
You raise many good points. They boil down to the reality that we can't perfectly measure performance of teachers, students, and many other things in life. Some mistakes will occur in trying. But, as you acknowledge, we have to try to measure, in order to know how we're doing and how we can improve. Just today, I had a great discussion today w/ State Superintendent Patty Harrington and House Majority Leader Jeff Alexander on this topic: are we measuring the right things and are we measuring accurately? Likely, we will always be working to improve the accuracy of our assessments.
Your last question is very interesting (would I, as a lawyer, agree to only be paid on cases I win, despite significant efforts on all cases). Actually, that's what the wealthiest attorneys do. They work on contingency, only receiving money on cases they win (or that they settle for compensation to their client). The good ones tend to be very well rewarded for the risk they take.
I am the same anonymous as before: I am glad you are considering a variety of measurements for assessing education.
As for the weathiest lawyers not taking payment, that is a given. However, educators of at risk students are in a tough spot. They don't compare in that there is precious little capital in working with students who are at risk. The capital we can have is helping those students to build successful lives, and not become a further burder on society later. Yes, I am an idealist. But in this situation what is the alternative? That alternative frightens me, quite frankly.
In reply to your statements--yes, Steve, the reference is in part to ttc's, special interest groups, and such, though to me, it includes much more than that.
I could give a lengthy explanation, but since this thread was not about that, I won't.
I am mostly in favor with your sentiments here.
<< Home