|
|
|
|
|
|
by art_wells
6599 days ago
|
|
|
Since current educational objectives in the U.S.A have shifted from genuine, classroom-centric education to national simplified standardized testing, and schoolteacher skills can only be evaluated on their ability to teach to the test, this result can hardly be surprising. Older, more experienced teachers are distracted by caring about students and schools rather than tests, and do weird things that most of us might recall as great educational experiences that only distract from filling in the right bubbles. Yes, inexperienced teachers are probably significantly better. Soon, computers with marginally skilled babysitters can take their place. Better yet, since standardized tests are all that matter now, we should just buy computers that can take the standardized tests for the students and be done with it. We'll get simple, easy-to-understand numbers and won't have to trust anyone so unstable as an experienced teacher. There are somethings we can't measure well, and measuring poorly is only going to deliver a false confidence. I don't propose another metric. I propose we don't measure something we can't. |
|
|
The above suggests that schools were ruined by the shift to "let's see if we're getting what we're paying for". While there may have been a time when schools were considerably better than they are today, they weren't significantly better right before the recent testing push. The testing push was a reaction to crappy schools, not the cause.
Note that the charter school movement makes it possible for folks to have "old style" schools for many definitions of "old" Feel free to demonstrate the superiority of your approach.