8 Myths That Undermine Educational Effectiveness

[nota bene]

There's a wide difference between cut-throat competition and no connection between results and compensation and reward. I'm not advocating cut-throat competition, which is an extreme, but do believe that some sort of connection between student results and the teacher's compensation needs to occur.

Given the current obsession with "measurement and assessment," I would really hate to see a tie-in between teacher compensation and student performance. More tests would simply be created to insure "student success." Even professors these days are being told that all that matters is that each student feels confident that he or she can be "successful." Practically speaking, what this means is that whatever it takes, including obscene grade inflation, there must be demonstrable proof of "success" for all.

And this is why you now have a generation of college students who are the most poorly educated students I've ever seen. And not only do they lack foundational knowledge and critical thinking skills, they are intellectually incurious. It's all about the grade rather than about learning and the acquisition of knowledge. Unless that knowledge benefits them directly at the bank, not too many college students are interested in actually educating themselves.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I'd like to see college freshmen GPA incorporated into some sort of formula, if not directly related to compensation at least to some sort of local school system rating. Doing so it would be easier to see which school systems best prepare their student for higher education and which don't.

It takes away the argument of weighing down scores / ratings by students that aren't college bound anyway.

I suppose that you could put in place a similar rating scale for compensation of high school graduated that don't continue on to college.

If nothing else, at least it's a thought.

People that are not in the field, rarely understand there is little teachers can do in a year's time when we talk about cognitive ability and standarized test scores. GPA prediction is the cumulative effect of many years of schooling...not one year with one teacher. That is the problem. Schools need to work together as a whole to raise scores through the life of a child. That is when collaboration is key and not competition. Two very different concepts.

 

[eohrnberger]

Given the current obsession with "measurement and assessment," I would really hate to see a tie-in between teacher compensation and student performance. More tests would simply be created to insure "student success." Even professors these days are being told that all that matters is that each student feels confident that he or she can be "successful." Practically speaking, what this means is that whatever it takes, including obscene grade inflation, there must be demonstrable proof of "success" for all.

And this is why you now have a generation of college students who are the most poorly educated students I've ever seen. And not only do they lack foundational knowledge and critical thinking skills, they are intellectually incurious. It's all about the grade rather than about learning and the acquisition of knowledge. Unless that knowledge benefits them directly at the bank, not too many college students are interested in actually educating themselves.

I'm seeing this post as endorsement of the idea of rating or ranking school system performance based on their graduated freshmen GPA results. Or not?

I think it'd support education more to the general rather than the specific. The school systems aren't going to know which colleges their graduates are going to apply to and enter.

 

[eohrnberger]

People that are not in the field, rarely understand there is little teachers can do in a year's time when we talk about cognitive ability and standarized test scores. GPA prediction is the cumulative effect of many years of schooling...not one year with one teacher. That is the problem. Schools need to work together as a whole to raise scores through the life of a child. That is when collaboration is key and not competition. Two very different concepts.

I don't see where raking / rating school systems based on their graduated college freshmen GPAs would do that. Eventually the market would take care of it, in people would stop attending and moving to the school systems that consistently performed badly.

 

[sangha]

Guess you missed that part of my post.



Now of the other factors listed above, which are the ones that the state should have an influence on?

• socioeconomic status? No, the government is already giving away too much money to too many and is going broke doing so.
• neighborhood? No, can the government afford to move everyone to up scale neighborhood and pay for it?
• psychological quality of the home environment? No, the government is already too intrusive in people's lives
• support of physical health provided? Again, at great expense and great imposition

So what can the state do? Pretty cheap to collect data and publish a report to let people know what the results are, and let them make their own decisions.

IOW, in spite of the fact that other factors are more important, you want to focus on a factor that is relatively weak and then complain about doing the same (wrong) things over and over while hoping for a different effect :screwy

Good intentions don't change the weather. Here's the reality concerning student acheivement

The most significant variable is socioeconomic status, followed by the neighborhood, the psychological quality of the home environment, and the support of physical health provided.

The reality is that if you ignore the most important variables, anything you do is doomed to be ineffective. You can let your political bias blind you to reality, but that doesn't make ineffective policies become effective

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I don't see where raking / rating school systems based on their graduated college freshmen GPAs would do that. Eventually the market would take care of it, in people would stop attending and moving to the school systems that consistently performed badly.

People currently try to move into wealthier communities in order to have a leg up in their child's education. Shhhh, it's about socio-economics at the end of the day and little to do with market. People get brain washed into this market takes care of everything spiel. Socio-economics has to do with resources.

 

[eohrnberger]

IOW, in spite of the fact that other factors are more important, you want to focus on a factor that is relatively weak and then complain about doing the same (wrong) things over and over while hoping for a different effect :screwy

No, how about focusing on something that would be cost effective, would have a positive impact, and can be done by the state rather than a rainbow and unicorns solution requiring and over bearing state :screwy

vGood intentions don't change the weather. Here's the reality concerning student acheivement

Yes, student achievement is what it's all about.

The reality is that if you ignore the most important variables, anything you do is doomed to be ineffective. You can let your political bias blind you to reality, but that doesn't make ineffective policies become effective

Again, how about focusing on something that would be cost effective, would have a positive impact, and can be done by the state rather than a rainbow and unicorns solution requiring and over bearing state :screwy

People currently try to move into wealthier communities in order to have a leg up in their child's education. Shhhh, it's about socio-economics at the end of the day and little to do with market. People get brain washed into this market takes care of everything spiel. Socio-economics has to do with resources.

How about using what the market does best to improve the situation? Or is that too far afield to be considered? Sure, socioeconomic has it's part to play in the factors. Never said that it didn't.

But we can see how failed the results when government tries to alter the socioeconomic for a group of people, it generally makes things worse.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

How about using what the market does best to improve the situation? Or is that too far afield to be considered? Sure, socioeconomic has it's part to play in the factors. Never said that it didn't.

But we can see how failed the results when government tries to alter the socioeconomic for a group of people, it generally makes things worse.

Please explain how the market approach will work. TIA

 

[eohrnberger]

Please explain how the market approach will work. TIA

Did in previous posts. I refer you to those.

 

[sangha]

No, how about focusing on something that would be cost effective, would have a positive impact, and can be done by the state rather than a rainbow and unicorns solution requiring and over bearing state :screwy

There is no evidence that it is cost effective or effective in any way. Your suggestion is nothing but a rainbow and unicorns solution

Yes, student achievement is what it's all about.



Again, how about focusing on something that would be cost effective, would have a positive impact, and can be done by the state rather than a rainbow and unicorns solution requiring and over bearing state :screwy

Your solution is not effective so it can't be cost effective. It is nothing but a rainbow and unicorns solution. Soon you'll be suggesting that the free market will solve the problem.

How about using what the market does best to improve the situation? Or is that too far afield to be considered? Sure, socioeconomic has it's part to play in the factors. Never said that it didn't.

And sure enough, there you are suggesting that some haze notion of market forces will solve the problem, even though you don't have a shred of evidence to support your proposal.

But we can see how failed the results when government tries to alter the socioeconomic for a group of people, it generally makes things worse.

As demonstrated by the incredible increase in the standards of life for the poor since the govt has tried to alter the SES status.

Unsurprisingly, all you have is anti-govt sloganeering which runs counter to the reality that it was the govt, and not market forces, which increased the educational level of the US population.

The market failed to educate our population. It was not until the govt provided education that we acheived the high levels of literacy that we see today. To cling to the idea that the market can solve any education problem is just another example of the rights preference for unicorns and rainbows even when reality and history have proven them wrong.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Did in previous posts. I refer you to those.

Not really. Opening up schools for choice and then getting rid of the low achievers doesn't really accomplish much except makes social stratisification worse.

 

[nota bene]

I've posted this before, but I believe it's worth thinking about:

Excerpt on Education from The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis

"…the spirit of I'm as good as you has already become something more than generally social influence….The basic principle of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. That would be 'undemocratic.' These differences between the pupils--for they are obviously and nakedly individual differences--must be disguised. This can be done on various levels. At universities examinations must be framed so that nearly all the students get good marks. Entrance examinations must be framed so that all, or nearly all, citizens can go to universities, whether they have any power (or wish) to profit by higher education or not. At schools, the children who are too stupid or lazy to learn languages and mathematics and elementary science can be set to doing the things that children used to do in their spare time. Let them, for example, make mud pies and call it modelling. But all the time there must be no faintest hint that they are inferior to the children who are at work.. Whatever nonsense they are engaged in must have--I believe the English already use the phrase--"parity of esteem."

…"In a word, we may reasonably hope for the virtual abolition of education when I'm as good as you has fully had its way. All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will vanish. The few who might want to learn will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway the teachers--or should I say, nurses?--will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching. We [the demons of Hell] shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men. [They] themselves will do it for us."

 

[sangha]

I've posted this before, but I believe it's worth thinking about:

Excerpt on Education from The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis

"…the spirit of I'm as good as you has already become something more than generally social influence….The basic principle of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. That would be 'undemocratic.' These differences between the pupils--for they are obviously and nakedly individual differences--must be disguised. This can be done on various levels. At universities examinations must be framed so that nearly all the students get good marks. Entrance examinations must be framed so that all, or nearly all, citizens can go to universities, whether they have any power (or wish) to profit by higher education or not. At schools, the children who are too stupid or lazy to learn languages and mathematics and elementary science can be set to doing the things that children used to do in their spare time. Let them, for example, make mud pies and call it modelling. But all the time there must be no faintest hint that they are inferior to the children who are at work.. Whatever nonsense they are engaged in must have--I believe the English already use the phrase--"parity of esteem."

…"In a word, we may reasonably hope for the virtual abolition of education when I'm as good as you has fully had its way. All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will vanish. The few who might want to learn will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway the teachers--or should I say, nurses?--will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching. We [the demons of Hell] shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men. [They] themselves will do it for us."

All you've done is shown that, like the complaint that "kids today behave terribly", the whines about how the concern for self-esteem is ruining education are perennial despite the lack of evidence that they are realistic.

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
ATTRIBUTION: Attributed to SOCRATES by Plato, according to William L. Patty and Louise S. Johnson, Personality and Adjustment, p. 277 (1953).

 

[eohrnberger]

There is no evidence that it is cost effective or effective in any way. Your suggestion is nothing but a rainbow and unicorns solution

Collecting information and publishing it isn't cost effective? How so? It's kinda what the government does ad nauseum, and it's bound to be far less costly than anything else increasing government spending and government intervention, manipulation and control.

Your solution is not effective so it can't be cost effective.

AN out of hand dismissal of an idea that you support. I expect nothing less of you, nor of any others from the left end of the political spectrum.

It is nothing but a rainbow and unicorns solution. Soon you'll be suggesting that the free market will solve the problem.



And sure enough, there you are suggesting that some haze notion of market forces will solve the problem, even though you don't have a shred of evidence to support your proposal.



As demonstrated by the incredible increase in the standards of life for the poor since the govt has tried to alter the SES status.

Unsurprisingly, all you have is anti-govt sloganeering which runs counter to the reality that it was the govt, and not market forces, which increased the educational level of the US population.

The market failed to educate our population.

I'd say that the government managed education system failed to educate the population, and it's time to try something different. Clearly continuing to bet on the same horse is a losing proposition.

It was not until the govt provided education that we acheived the high levels of literacy that we see today. To cling to the idea that the market can solve any education problem is just another example of the rights preference for unicorns and rainbows even when reality and history have proven them wrong.

Granted, govt provided education did gain us the literacy levels that we see today. But it's not adapting to the evolved and evolving situation so it's failing, where other nations appear to have education systems that are, so we are falling behind and need to try something different, except for the entrenched bureaucracies won't permit change, as it threatens their bureaucracy.

Or do you believe that the education system here in the US is perfectly fine, that the level of student academic achievement is sufficient and neither is in need of change?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Granted, govt provided education did gain us the literacy levels that we see today. But it's not adapting to the evolved and evolving situation so it's failing, where other nations appear to have education systems that are, so we are falling behind and need to try something different, except for the entrenched bureaucracies won't permit change, as it threatens their bureaucracy.

Or do you believe that the education system here in the US is perfectly fine, that the level of student academic achievement is sufficient and neither is in need of change?

Hmmmm, name a nation that has a market based educational system.

 

[sangha]

Collecting information and publishing it isn't cost effective? How so? It's kinda what the government does ad nauseum, and it's bound to be far less costly than anything else increasing government spending and government intervention, manipulation and control.

Collecting and publishing info about teacher performance is not cost effective because it's not effective at all in increasing student performance.

AN out of hand dismissal of an idea that you support. I expect nothing less of you, nor of any others from the left end of the political spectrum.

I support? I don't, and never have, support merit pay

I'd say that the government managed education system failed to educate the population, and it's time to try something different. Clearly continuing to bet on the same horse is a losing proposition.

Reality has proven you wrong. We have one of the best educated populations on the planet, which wasn't the case until the govt stepped in.

Granted, govt provided education did gain us the literacy levels that we see today. But it's not adapting to the evolved and evolving situation so it's failing, where other nations appear to have education systems that are, so we are falling behind and need to try something different, except for the entrenched bureaucracies won't permit change, as it threatens their bureaucracy.

Our continued economic and technical leadership on the world stage demonstrates that we are doing pretty well at adapting and evolving with a changing world. As far as our school system not permitting change, as we speak our public schools are implementing a radical change known as the Core Curriculum.

Once again, reality proves that the unicorn and rainbows approach the right wing prefers is disconnected from the facts.

Or do you believe that the education system here in the US is perfectly fine, that the level of student academic achievement is sufficient and neither is in need of change?

Unlike the right, I do not believe in utopian thinking or perfection. It takes a queer sort of thinking to make the perfect the enemy of the good and then invent an alternate reality to justify unproven unicorn and rainbow solutions

 

[eohrnberger]

Not really. Opening up schools for choice and then getting rid of the low achievers doesn't really accomplish much except makes social stratisification worse.

The market component I was referring to was to measure / rank school systems by their graduates college freshmen's GPA.

It would be a clear and impartial indication of how well the school system prepared their students for higher education. As this impartial information is collected and published, pressure would mount on failing school systems to better prepare their students, or the market response would be for parents to chose to live in other school systems that were. The failing school system would be wound down and students absorbed into neighboring school systems that would be more successful. No muss. No fuss. No excessive expenses. Success is rewarded. Failure isn't. Simple.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

The market component I was referring to was to measure / rank school systems by their graduates college freshmen's GPA.

It would be a clear and impartial indication of how well the school system prepared their students for higher education. As this impartial information is collected and published, pressure would mount on failing school systems to better prepare their students, or the market response would be for parents to chose to live in other school systems that were. The failing school system would be wound down and students absorbed into neighboring school systems that would be more successful. No muss. No fuss. No excessive expenses. Success is rewarded. Failure isn't. Simple.

Parents do currently chose to live in places that better educate their children if they can afford to do so. They go for the resources.

 

[eohrnberger]

Collecting and publishing info about teacher performance is not cost effective because it's not effective at all in increasing student performance.

Do please read what I post. That's not what I said. I propose to collect the school system's gadruate's college freshmen GPA as a measure. Were in that do you read "teacher performance"? It's the entire school system's performance.

I support? I don't, and never have, support merit pay

How positively Soviet of you. Have you ever gotten a raise? Gave it back did you?

Reality has proven you wrong. We have one of the best educated populations on the planet, which wasn't the case until the govt stepped in.




Our continued economic and technical leadership on the world stage demonstrates that we are doing pretty well at adapting and evolving with a changing world. As far as our school system not permitting change, as we speak our public schools are implementing a radical change known as the Core Curriculum.

The federal take over and dictation and implementation of weak academic standards that have liberal / progress indoctrination wirtten all over it. Yeah. Right.

If our education system is doing so well, why is it that the US is only in this middle of academic achievement ranked against all the rest of he world, but spends by far the most money? That is a typical union level of performance and excessive cost for what you get.

It's also why so many H1B visas are requested, to import education foreign labor, because there aren't enough educated Americans available to fill the demand? Yeah, those sure are points that don't support your position, and in fact run counter to your position.

Once again, reality proves that the unicorn and rainbows approach the right wing prefers is disconnected from the facts.


Unlike the right, I do not believe in utopian thinking or perfection. It takes a queer sort of thinking to make the perfect the enemy of the good and then invent an alternate reality to justify unproven unicorn and rainbow solutions

Guess I could same the same of your lack of change.

 

[eohrnberger]

Parents do currently chose to live in places that better educate their children if they can afford to do so. They go for the resources.

True, they do. This would give them unequivocal and irrefutable data on which to make those decisions. What's wrong with that?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

True, they do. This would give them unequivocal and irrefutable data on which to make those decisions. What's wrong with that?

Just give all schools better resources instead just those communities that have the money to do so.

 

[eohrnberger]

Just give all schools better resources instead just those communities that have the money to do so.

The US spends more on education than any nation in the world, and get's mediocre results for it.

Solution: Spend more money.

Yeah, right. As if that's going to improve the results.

How about an organization change? One that will make better use of the resources that it's given and will achieve better results with them?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

The US spends more on education than any nation in the world, and get's mediocre results for it.

Solution: Spend more money.

Yeah, right. As if that's going to improve the results.

How about an organization change? One that will make better use of the resources that it's given and will achieve better results with them?

The distribution of resources is very uneven in this country.

 

[eohrnberger]

The distribution of resources is very uneven in this country.

More resources do not equate to greater effectiveness or success.
The more even distribution of resources does not equate to greater effectiveness or success.

There are plenty of countries around the world which spend less than then US and and achieve greater results.

How about we change the organization from what it is to more like what those other countries have, perhaps we can get our money's worth from the education system we have?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

More resources do not equate to greater effectiveness or success.
The more even distribution of resources does not equate to greater effectiveness or success.

There are plenty of countries around the world which spend less than then US and and achieve greater results.

How about we change the organization from what it is to more like what those other countries have, perhaps we can get our money's worth from the education system we have?

In the US it does. Wealthier districts by and large out perform poorer ones. Comparing different countries to the U.S. and educational spending is comparing apples to oranges.