Source: worked in ed covering this subject, studied assessment in ed school with one of the creators of the standards.
If you don't even want to be successful and/or wealthy, and you don't try, your chance of becoming so is definitely much lower.
The more you prepare specifically for a test, the harder it is to determine how much of your score is based on your general understanding of what is being tested, and how much is based on you exploiting the test.
If I wanted to know how well the average person on the street can clean a toilet and my test involved asking a bunch of people for a demonstration without pay nor feedback of any kind I don't suspect I would find a lot of clean toilets. I would instead have learned that people don't like cleaning toilets and gained no insight into their ability to do so.
If I dont study for the test, then you basically measure how long ago it was when I was revising the material last time (if it was last week I get much better result then if it was month and half ago) and you have even more random in terms of whether my learning coincided with I focused on what would count as "exploitation" of this test or different test. For example, was you focusing on speed during easy exercises or ability to solve hard problems last three weeks? It is pretty much random choice and preparation lets you get back to other mode relatively fast - while without it you get worst results with kids who accidentally did wrong thing and it has nothing to do with understanding of material, just a random chance.
Motivation to actually prepare yourself removes that random.
The exploitation of specific test, especially if you dont understand base material, gets you only so far compared to that.
This doesn't seem like that bad of an idea. One of the bigger problems with tests is that they tend to become a terrible metric once people start preparing for them specifically (and test-prep can suck the oxegyn out of real education). If the students and teachers don't care about the test, it is much easier (but still difficult) to make a test that gives useful feedback to the school system. Of course, you want students to take it seriously enough while there taking it.
I remember when I was a senior in college, my professor asked me to take a test one day. She said it had nothing to do with my grades and it was to compare the outcome of our college's program with other colleges (BS Math). I still gave it my best shot even though I don't remember if I got to see the result.
I don't like how you need so many licenses to be a teacher. Most college lecturers do not have a background in education and definitely don't have a license and we do just fine. The licenses just feel like a way to limit supply.
Teaching adults who pay for the privilege of being in your class is VERY VERY different from teaching children who are forced to be in your class.
The latter requires a very special skill set that can only be described as 'managing psychopaths'.
The former just requires you to show up and tell them they're on "responsible for the material" (i.e. they're on their own).
And without exception, every teacher I've ever spoken with (including several in my family) has told me that this skill is something you have to learn on the job. All of them, regardless of what route they took to become a teacher, were unprepared for managing classroom discipline.
And it took all of them a year or two to learn how to manage classrooms (some teachers never learn this skill).
I strongly agree that the licensing is just a way to limit supply. I'm not against unions per se, but in this matter, the teacher's union is a serious impediment to educational achievement in this country. It should be much easier to hire and fire teachers in this country. And teachers should be much better paid.
I'm going to argue against that idea.
1. The bar to become a teacher is quite low.
2. Most of the teachers I've met certainly didn't not have the necessary skills, but they, and the students endured.
Being an outstanding teacher required a very special skill set.
There are transferrable skills, but they're transferrable in the way that making buildings out of LEGO is transferrable to building actual buildings. There are large differences and a whole host of other challenges.
[I'm not a teacher, but I have a few friends that are teachers or training to be teachers.]
Sorry for going off-topic but I come from a small school and I don't understand how it is acceptable for class size to be huge (40+ students in a class is considered acceptable). I mean I get it if the class is led by someone extraordinary like Richard Feynman and everyone wants to be in his lectures but as others have said most teachers are not celebrities.
Plus, I don't think just because someone went through the motions of getting a license thirty years ago and all the certification conferences means that they are decent teachers today.
So basically we have no friends. The unions are not our friends obviously but the people who want to break teacher unions are also not our friends because they want to profit at our expense.
The problem is that education reform is an common empty promise in politics. Education is underfunded in most countries, and better funding (and then more education for teachers) would be very helpful.
Babysitters don't have to get the kids to DO anything.
Saying these are the same is like saying a manager in a business is only supposed to check if employees showed up and clocked in.
Sure, some managers are that bad at their job, but it is also very clear that their job is supposed to be much more than that.
Same with teachers. Getting 30 children who did not choose to be there to actually DO something is a very different skillset than babysitting.
/rant
Otherwise, there are two basic possibilities depending on the kid's parents. Either the kid is expected to try and DO something (and does), or the parent only expects child care. In the latter case, avoiding willful destruction and interruption is all that is required … tada, babysitting!
The manager analogy doesn't make sense because managers are much more directly accountable for whether the employees achieve anything for the company while clocking in. If managers' mostly subjective assessments were the only tangible output of employee time and other impacts were felt years later and weren't directly ascribable to an individual manager, then maybe the analogy would work.
Not exactly. When a test becomes study-able, it becomes a good metric for how hard people try and how much time/effort people put into their studies/career. And that is arguably what people making tests were trying to or would want to measure.
I went to school in Marin, though, so I don't know how that compares to anywhere else.
For all the complaining, I'm curious what a better solution would be for finding out how much kids are learning.
Please forgive what might be construed as quibbling, but I'm increasingly dismayed by the doxa that poor scores on tests reflect poor testing practices.
To be clear, testing practices in the U.S. are crappy, but so is the secondary education system in general (at least, compared to much of Western Europe).
More to the point: these results point to a problem either with the test or with the educational system, or with the cultural values surrounding education in the U.S.
My bet, having lived on both continents, is on the latter. I invite the reader to read Assimov's 1980 essay A Cult of Ignorance, as it provides a good description of what I believe to be the fundamental problem.
There was a recent scandal where half way through A levels (final two years of high Scholl) if you where not predicted to get a B you got kicked out to protect the schools ranking.
No incentive.
Yes. Having gone through public education in California the tests were treated as a total joke. They had no weight to your grades and there was zero incentive to do well. Often you wouldn't even get the results. In elementary school it was common for a teacher to say "When you have finished with this test, you can go to lunch" -- well kids would just start filling in bubbles. These tests were also accompanied by a sheet to see if you have tried drugs or sex all anonymous. My entire 3rd grade class did heroin.