thraxle, you wrote
"How do you measure the worth of a teacher? If not through standardized tests (which I agree are shit), then how do you determine the good from the bad? "

(have not read soo much after that in this thread so excuse me if I am mistaken)


the problem with standardized tests is that it measures only how good the teacher is to teach the standardized tests.

for me the point of a good school is not teaching the students how to reproduce facts, but to teach the students how to think, and how to use knowlage. I have heard college professors complain that their students are not able to solve problems that are different than the ones they have done before, but is not more difficult.

should not the optimal schooling be about teaching how to think and how to use and aquire knowlege, rather than how to reproduce facts?


the biggest complain I have heard about standardized tests is that if forces teachers to teach the students to meet the kinds of questions of a standardized test, rather than teaching them how to think about the subject.


there are alternative ways of measuring teachers, the easiest one is to alow for free school choise. we have that in Norway, and every school has its own quality reputation. this leads to that the bad teachers go to the bad schools and get the bad students. while the good teachers get the good schools and the good students, and the pleasant work situation. also, the students have ability to change class to change teacher, and also make official complaints about the teachers.

this is a way to measure the quality of teachers and schools

oh, thraxle, the norwegian education system is similar to the german one.

I never had a multiple choise test.

most exams were essay based.

random sample of students in each class had to take exams, so the teacher could not give random grades.

the underachievers get practical education from the age of 15/16.

"this leads to that the bad teachers go to the bad schools and get the bad students."

MRK, I love this idea, but most Americans won't go along with this because they will fear it discriminates against the "bad students". Politicians have to walk on egg shells here if they want to get re-elected, and nobody is going to look at the underachievers and say "sorry guys, you get the bad school now."

The money is there, its just in the wrong places (or in the hands of miserly admins). Education administrators like to throw money at a drop and test scores without looking at the root of the problem.

No amount of technology or special program can replace good teaching, but the people with the money seem to think it can. The kids have the necessary technology in their hands that they can further their education with (smartphones and iPods), but they do not know how to use it in a scholastic sense. Long story short: this whole integrating technology into the classroom is a bit of a farce. The school does not need to go by a $100k program that they saw at a workshop, they just need to use the tools that the students bring to the classroom.

Another huge complication for integrating a 'European' style education system is the fact that most of the population of America is stuck in a certain geographical location, especially when it comes to rural environments. They are not equipped to pack up shop and move to the best school district, they are more or less stuck with whatever public school happens to be in the area.

"But that view doesn't fit well with you politically. "

Are you referring to me? Because I actually love that idea and was glad my elementary school had a semblance of this with our GT (gifted and talented) program in elementary school.

Shit I remember my dad telling me about all the sorts of demarcation and assessments students went through back in his day. I remember best him telling me that he had a meeting with his high school counselor about what sort of career/course of study he should follow. My dad used to make extra money tutoring other students and had a knack for it and so the counselor told him he'd make an excellent teacher but if he really wanted to provide for a family then his best bet was engineering. So my dad became a chemical engineer and being that the educational system in the soviet union (at least in hard sciences, except for biology) was very good he was very successful in the United States as a chemical engineer for a while.

So no, this does not disagree with my personal political views whatsoever. In fact most schools already do this to a degree anyway, what with advanced and regular curricula.

What I think you're saying though is to weed out the lowest preforming students, leaving a middle tier of students that aren't smart enough for the advanced track but are smarter than the current aggregate we have in our "regular" curricula. Haven't had any coffee so I'm not sure how articulate I'm being. If the above is correct, I'm actually quite fine with that and think its an excellent idea - as I said it is hubris to NOT emulate the best educational systems and try to come up with something uniquely American when it isn't working.

Anyhow, as a progressive (and you should know this being that you're from Vermont) I only believe all students should be afforded the opportunity to get on the advanced track of education and stay on it if they're willing to put in the hard work and have the natural acumen.

"I think you'll find the best cars are made by workers in unions, likewise the best educational systems are run by teacher unions."

I think you'll find a lot of people would disagree with you about car quality. Please tell me you think American union-made cars are of consistently higher, or even equal, quality so I'll know to laugh.

.......

"No amount of technology or special program can replace good teaching, but the people with the money seem to think it can."

Actually, it's generally the people without as much money that want those with the money to keep throwing extra money at a problem that money can't solve.

Several people have mentioned waste or miserly administrators - I'd be curious to hear where you think money should be cut? On average, roughly 40% or more (depends on district) goes to teachers, so I don't you argue for cuts there. I'm curious to hear where in the other 60% you'd make a cut from.

"...and you should know this being that you're from Vermont..."

Thrax is from Vermont?

He's responding to both of us......me in general......you as the original poster