May 04, 2010 05:58 PM UTC
Beverly Ingle (CEA) Interview
58 Comments- by: DavidThi808
( – promoted by Colorado Pols)
I got the chance to interview Beverly Ingle, president of the Colorado Education Association today. The interview occurred because of SB-191 but actually discussed a lot more. She is a really nice person and was very gracious with her time. And so on to the interview.
My first question was sum up in one sentence what the CEA's goal is. Beverly had an immediate answer – "Great public schools for every child." This was something that came from NEA and she said it immediately resonated with everyone. She then went on to describe that a great school encompasses the community, the children, the teachers, the system – everything.
My next question was how do we think our K-12 system serves our poor children. She started off saying that she isn't going to assign a number because it depends on the school. She first talked about some schools that do a superb job, and added to that that those environments tend to burn out teachers over time because it is such a hard job.
She then talked about schools that do poorly. Her points on this were that there is a lot of moving people around (children, teachers, schools) when instead they needed a more constant environment. And that grading schools had a negative impact because people would look at the grades rather than the progress the school had made.
My $0.02: Beverly raises legit points here, but I wish she had been willing to speak more specifically to this question. (Or maybe I should have pushed harder.)
I next brought up the question of what most impacts how a child does in school, laying out the conventional wisdom that the mother's educational level and the child's teacher are the major items. Beverly first said that she had also heard the child family's income level was major. She then discussed the system/culture in place in the school. How the community is brought in to are the kids fed well to how the school operates.
I asked from her statements on this if "the environment for the teacher is every bit as important as the environment for the child because that's what lets the teacher do her job the best." Beverly's reply was "absolutely." She then discussed how the classroom environment, and the teacher knowing how best to get kids to engage, is critical to a good classroom.
Beverly then went in to discuss how the state has a requirement for a mentoring system where each new teacher is assigned a mentor who is an experienced teacher at that school. The idea is this gives the new teacher help on how to best reach the kids in that community and make best use of the system within that school. And she then added – ? of the new teachers met with their mentor once. Once! She added that Cherry Creek does run this program well.
She then went in to teachers having to figure out what to do. Finding out what programs, lesson plans, projects, etc will work best for the children in their class, taking in to account the way the school works, etc. And to most effectively teach in a classroom this needs to be done, on top of everything else the teacher needs to do over the course of the day. Having a strong mentoring program, both in the field being taught and in the school and type of students in the class is gigantic for helping teachers accomplish this.
My $0.02: This is censored ridiculous. There is no benefit to pretending to have a mentoring program. There is gigantic benefit to having one. School districts that fall down on this, principals who fall down on this, teachers who are assigned as mentors and blow it off – do your job. Not doing this well is inexcusable. In addition, while every class is unique, there are probably a few basic approaches where the teacher can start with one of those and tweak it a bit. But that requires schools & districts make this info available. (Hint, there's this thing called the Internet…)
I next asked her about Senator Evie Hudak's plea on her amendment that if they removed the "back to probationary" part if the bill, then it would be ok. Beverly replied that the existing system is to "protect competent teachers from incompetent principals." And the bill does not give teachers a way to challenge results and show that they are competent. She then talked about the existing due process system to have a poor teacher removed and how she thinks it is reasonable, walking me through it.
We then returned to my question about removing that one part and Beverly said "that is our major concern." She also raised three secondary concerns: 1) that they will teach to the new standards but be judged by the old standards, … and she then changed the subject to, and was quite emphatic about this, that they do think the evaluation system needs to be improved. That they have been on board with previous initiatives to improve evaluation. She also mentioned that in all this evaluation, there never seems to be any actual evaluation of administrators. She finished with "we believe in evaluation." (I just realized now I never got the other two secondary points – so we both forgot about that during the interview.)
My next question was if we do have a good evaluation system, how will administrators find the time to properly evaluate the teachers. Evaluating people, working through what they need to improve on, following up on that, etc takes time. How can this be done? Beverly feels this is very doable as long as the principal makes this a priority. She worked at a school where the principal did this and she says it made a gigantic difference in how well the school runs. In addition she says this attention (or lack thereof) sends a clear signal to the teachers as to their importance.
I asked next about how many non-probationary (don't call them tenured) teachers there are in the state. What was really interesting is Beverly didn't know. There are about 47,000 teachers in the state, and she says we have a high turnover in the state (that may be higher than average) and so we have a lot that are on probationary status. Some schools have a 50% turnover rate every 2 years. She then talked about the need to reduce this turnover rate because a lower turnover rate leads to better results.
Beverly then brought up a question that she says they are generally not supposed to ask, but she thinks is key – "what accountability goes on the student and what accountability goes on the parent?" She then talked about how students are smart – if they realize that if they do nothing they'll still be moved on from grade to grade, then they'll coast. She then went in to a very good discussion about how to do this – based on this I think she was excellent in her classroom.
My $0.02: Ok, this gets us into an incredibly frustrating part of our public education system. There are very clear straightforward things we can do to improve schools today. Some schools in poor districts reduce turnover – why isn't that being replicated. Some schools demand accountability of students (ask Southern Hills in Boulder about ZAP) – why isn't that being replicated? It's like the public school system is a place where good ideas go to die. These are spot-on points Beverly is making, and the schools should be doing this.
I then asked her if there are any non-probationary teachers that should be fired. Beverly replied "as I talk to my members that they can come up with one or two they may know of…" She then talked about how the administrators are not getting in there to get that teacher removed.
I next asked about the value of the ongoing evaluation helping teachers improve the job they are doing. Beverly replied that the turnaround on CSAP is so slow that it's too late to be of use (true). And the state has reduced funding for testing. She then discussed how there is this computer system that tracks student progress so that a student moving from one district to another can have their info move to the new district – and how they can't get to the system (shades of CBMS). She talked about all these various things the state is supposed to be doing, that it is required by law to do – but is not happening.
The bottom line, between all of her words, is she doesn't see the state as being capable of providing quality evaluation and definitely not capable of turning it around quickly.
She then talked about how teachers are micro-managed in how they are supposed to teach (every 9th grade history class is teaching the same lesson plan this Tuesday). She discussed how this stifles the teachers because they have no control over what they do. And it stifles learning because it's same approach applied to all classes. Beverly views this as the teachers are made accountable for the results in the classroom, but do not have the authority to take the approach they think will work best in their class.
My $0.02: My direct experience is the three schools my kids went to in Boulder, and the teachers there clearly did have the authority (for better in some cases, for worse in others) to customize their lesson plans. But for districts/schools where this is not true, lack of authority in a job is incredible debilitating and short-sighted.
I next asked, if this bill passes and the worst happens, will it cost any union positions? In other words does firing non-probationary teachers, mean a position is eliminated or does it just change who is in it. She was not sure if it would have any impact, but that the revolving door that could occur would be bad.
I next asked if we should have a longer school year. Beverly's initial answer was budget constraints make this impossible. I asked her to take the budget constraints out of the question – to assume that the legislature told her that prove the benefit of a longer day and they will fund it. She lost it laughing at that point (very fair response). So we're talking a very theoretical question. She thinks some students definitely need this, but it has to be done in a way that is not viewed by the students as punitive.
But she then brought up the very good question – what are the priorities of the American people. She mentioned Wisconsin where they passed a law of no school memorial day to labor day, because the tourism industry needed the seasonal labor. (Gee, that's an interesting set of priorities.)
I then asked if the kids should have the son of CSAP grade matter for them so they have an incentive to do well on the test. She does support the basic idea, but she says it needs to be done in a way that works well for teachers and students. And she says she does not have a good detailed answer yet. She then brought up the very good idea of using those results to determine who needs summer school to bring them up to speed.
I then brought up the question of what happens to students where the teacher sucks and all the students then flunk the evaluation test and have to retake the class. Beverly agreed that this is a problem for a first year teacher. But for any other case, the administrators should be on top of this and address any teacher doing a poor job before it becomes really bad.
This led to the question of does a teacher whose performance is declining see it decline rapidly, or slowly over time. Beverly said that there are medical issues that can lead to a rapid decline. But for other cases "it does not happen overnight."
Beverly then brought up the need for kids to learn the soft skills – showing up for work on time, doing a good job, etc. And that this also is an important thing to teach in class. She then discussed how the evaluation system needs to cover all of this, and gets in to a range of how it's being handled. She also believes that having a robust discussion about how the evaluation system is designed will lead to a better system. (Very good point.)
At this point we hit was the most interesting part of the conversation. I brought up their "not so fast" slogan (which is clever – that's why the Republicans use it in D.C.) and asked was it really that this was going too fast – or was their core concern that the state would do an incompetent job of designing and running the evaluation system, that principals and administrators would do an incompetent job of implementing it, and was that the root concern.
Beverly answered by first listing out the efforts that the union has supported, including some that made their members uncomfortable. And she wants to get the evaluation system built that they are presently working on. She then discussed how the state "needs to build trust" with the new efforts presently going. She then talked about teachers who have story after story of administrators who have treated teachers unfairly. (Note: Just like every parent has stories of incompetent teachers, every teacher has stories of incompetent administrators. Part of this is the human condition, but I think part of it also is a sign of a very dysfunctional system.)
She then said that there are districts that do this [evaluation] well and ones that don't do this well. And for districts that don't do it well, they need a way of putting it back on that district and superintendent. She also added that we don't have 30 years to get this right, that we need to improve things quickly.
My $0.02: Based on Beverly's answer, clearly a large part, and possibly the main reason the CEA opposes this bill is they don't think the state and the districts can be trusted to implement this effectively and comprehensively. And the thing is, that's a very reasonable attitude. They've seen the state do a lousy or incomplete job on educational issues. They've seen incompetence, bureaucracy, and laziness from principals, administrators, districts, & the state.
I next asked why all four living governors support the bill. Beverly, said she doesn't know, but thinks it could be that they don't fully understand the bill. It also could be that they take a simplistic look and don't understand the actual system (see point above).
I closed by asking her if there was anything she wanted to add. Beverly immediately talked about the frustration about how everyone calls the CEA "the blocker" and how that is very frustrating because they have supported initiative after initiative. And also how the teachers bear the brunt of the system bouncing from "the next best thing" to the next "next best thing." A very passionate listing of the various initiatives they have supported.
This led into my commenting that the major political problem they face is that every parent can point to several teachers and say "why on earth is that person in a classroom." Beverly replied that in that case the principal should be taking action to remove that teacher. And she asks if all teachers should suffer for those bad teachers. And she suggested various changes that could make the removal process cheaper.
We then closed with both of us agreeing that if a teacher is doing a good job we want them in that classroom able to do their job. And if they are incompetent we want them out (Beverly was nicer in how she phrased this part – but she did agree).
My $0.02: Beverly makes the existing system sound fair and easy to use. From what I have seen as a parent I know in practice it's not. But she faces a very legitimate fear of the evaluation system being misused or incompetently administered, and her members paying the price for that. What's also key here is that she does want good teachers secure in their job, and bad teachers out.
The Bill
Ok, this interview surprised me. In these interviews I try to do as fair a job as possible, and the goal is to present the person, not make it an opinion piece. But there's also the opinionated Dave in the background – and I expected to have to tamp down the "union fighting for ironclad job security – BAD!" Instead this was a really interesting and eye opening discussion.
First off, the CEA has a very legitimate concern. That the big worry is incompetent, misguided, and/or lazy implementation and execution of an evaluation system. They should be concerned. Even more important, all of us should share this concern. First off, as Beverly said, we don't have time to do this wrong. Second, a system that randomly fires people will be de-motivating to our teachers, and drive many out. And it will not improve our schools.
On the flip side, we must have a strong effective evaluation system if we are going to fix our schools. That must include robust ongoing thorough of student growth in each classroom. That must include teacher retention being determined by effectiveness. This must include principal and superintendent retention also being determined by effectiveness. We cannot fix our schools without these fundamental changes.
This can be done. Beverly never disagreed with the goals desired by those backing SB-191. Her concerns are with competence. I think we can all agree that SB-191, competently administered, should lead to substantial improvement. I think it's also fair to say that without SB-191 (competently administered), we will be lacking some critical tools to improve our schools. In other words, we need SB-191, and we need it implemented well.
I ask Governor Ritter and the legislature to step up and provide reasonable assurance that this will be properly administered. Keep in mind that I'm representative of a key demographic for support of this bill, a Boulder liberal who supports this bill. And I share the CEA's fear that the state will fuck this up. (I am somewhat familiar with two state departments – one is incompetent and one does nothing. That does not give me warm fuzzies about how well this will be implemented.)
So I still support SB-191. But I would feel a million times better if I had some assurance. And I think the teachers would too. Governor Ritter?
Podcast at Beverly Ingle (Colorado Education Association) Interview
First off, also at HuffPo – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
For those wondering about the time involved in one of these interviews – 45min drive down, 1hr interview, 45min drive back 3½hr writing it up. So 6 hours.
And your two cents were very perceptive. Strikes me that in the current tough economy it should not be as hard to attract quality people to the teaching profession so this may be the best time in a long time to shed and replace incompetent teachers. Not all new teachers will work out but we may have a larger pool of motivated, talented people seeking to try.
As far as implementation, that’s always a problem with unfunded mandates. How much of this bill involves those?
I’ll FP in a bit if Pols doesn’t. I think they want to talk about the tongue down the throat incident for a little longer. Hate to interrupt that terrific conversation.
Very well done in getting both sides on this bill clearly and fairly articulated.
So here’s my $.02, why don’t we implement a change that would force more teacher accountability, administrative accountability, and flood the system with money?
How? Privatization. Make all schools private enterprises and have the the federal government fully subsidize the tuition bill for every student based on an expected family contribution.
Obviously this would result in a massive expenditure on the part of the government (not necessarily a bad thing though), and it would lead to an equal rise in school choice and thus competition, forcing schools to compete for students.
It’s certainly a radical path for our education system, but after reading all this discussion about SB-191 and such, it seems more and more to be the best path for our students.
that it is the fact that they are “public” that causes the problems?
If “flooding the schools with money” works for a private enterprise, why would not work for a public one? And what do you propose for oversight of this private school system?
competition in a public system. Private enterprises have a profit motive that drives them to do well, public systems do not. Additionally, private systems are more flexible than our current system, if a teacher pay structure, or specific curriculum, or school program, or whatever doesn’t work out (i.e. turn out the high-performing students that generate profits) then they would change, unlike public systems that just sit on an existing program for ages (witness our current education structure).
If the federal government were to institute a comprehensive, national level testing scheme (admittedly it would have to be well and carefully designed) and provided cash bonuses to schools that produced high-performing students in a cost-effective way, then the competition of the market and profit motive would provide most if not all of the oversight needed. Failing schools, once they start to go out of business could be taken over and sold to high-performing ones or new start-ups at heavily discounted rates — again, increasing the incentives for schools to model the highest performers.
If the public schools were run like a private business, 20% or so of the kids would be fired.
Oh wait…
ban school corporations from excluding students based on previous scores or aptitude, or anything really. There would still be plenty of competition for performance-based reward cash.
Public schools do it now, it would be worse with private schools. It’s an open secret that graduation rates are really lower than reported. If a student moves to a new district and doesn’t go to school, it doesn’t show up as a failure to graduate. Also, counselors can suggest to students and parents that another school has a program where the student would do well. Overloading that school so that it then fails. Those are the obvious tricks that need to be addressed. Who and how would private schools ever be regulated effectively? Plus, we would then just move school boundaries around to avoid problem areas. There is no easy fix.
Most parents do not do competitive evaluations of schools. They love their neighborhood school, beyond all rationality some times. Ever see the fight that ensues when a neighborhood school is to be closed?
So, with that dynamic – how exactly does private competition really help 90% of the kids?
I believe about 1/3 of K-12 students go to private school. So clearly a large chunk of parents are doing a competitive analysis. And a lot of parents with kids in public school do compare – that’s why open enrollment keeps growing.
Do you have evidence that they actually do competitive analysis? I bet most of those decisions are made before K, and a large fraction are going to church schools based either on faith considerations or vague fears of “bad influences.” At least, anecdotally, that’s largely what I see with people I know who send their kids to private school.
But I believe (not sure) I read that about half the kids in Catholic schools are not Catholic. So I think it’s safe to say that subset is there for competitive reasons.
On the one hand we say private schools do better because they’re better managed and have to compete.
On the other hand we agree that many (if not most) parents send their kids to private schools because of competitive analysis. They spend more money and do more research and get more involved. Well of course their kids will do better, even if the schools had exactly the same teachers.
If the situation were reversed, and public schools were hard to get into and required competitive analysis by parents who had to make sure their kids could get in and stay in, while private schools were for everyone else, would you have public schools outperforming private schools?
Don’t laugh, because that’s how it’s done in most other countries.
First, you can say “nu-uh parents don’t do competitive analysis of schools” but there’s really to warrant to that assertion and it flies in the face of my high school experience at least when I had to be carted all the way across town to go to the “good” public school via open enrollment. So I’ll wait for some solid numbers either way before deciding on that way.
Secondly, again an easy fix, have the government offer a cash bonus to parents whose students perform well in school. That would create an incentive for the parent to choose the best school and become more active in their schooling — encouraging them to do better. Solves 2 problems at once!
In the Denver Archdiocese, Denver Metro area, the school have an enrollment of about 10,000 and DPS has an enrollment of over 70,000. That is a quick and dirty estimate, but I think your stats are way off. You do these two great interviews on a very controversial issue, and then you just toss out stats that are, IMHO, crazy.,
Now, there are other private/parochial schools in the Denver Metro area, but you would need to include the enrollment from ALL Metro area public schools and balance that against the enrollment in private/church schools.
In the heyday of catholic parochial education, the big city schools back East had about 1/3 of the school population in parochial schools. Everything I read says it doesn’t even come close, today.
estimates based on population demographics are that if every kid eligible in DPS were in DPS there would be 100,000 kids in DPS. But 2 points:
1. This 30k hole is made up of kids attending Private/parochial, kids attending out of district public, home schooled and just plain truant
2. DPS probably has the highest percentage of kids in private/parochial for three reasons A: there are just more options in a metro area. In smaller metro areas, even if you wanted and could afford it, there just aren’t many options B: there tends to more out migration in larger schools where it is harder to feel like you can influence the direction of the district. Even though charter schools have mitigated this, there is still a legacy perception issue. C. Out migration tends to happen the more diverse the public schools are. I hate to say it, but what is the perceived advantage of pulling you kid out of a public school where everyone is fairly homogeneous to put them in a private school where everyone is fairly homogeneous? How many parents in Cherry Creek feel the need to pull their kid out of school and send them to Kent? A few, but not 30%.
i hear DPS toss that stat around a lot. I don’t think it is accurate. For example, a lot of kids cross lines to go to school in Jeffco…particularly in NW and SW Denver. That’s public schools. BUT, kids also cross lines to go to school in Denver…particularly if the school is close to where the parent works. The last stats I saw were for 2006, and the cross over between districts was a net wash. Although that was before this recession.
I just don’t know how DPS comes up with all the “missing kids.” It was a political ploy in some parts of Denver, used as an indictment against neighborhood schools because of their falling enrollment which was attributed to poor schools. But, I never really saw that documented.
Does anyone know what is the carrying capacity of the private school sector? I think that the catholic parochial schools have been losing gound but the 10,000 is fairly accurate for now.
If the 30,000 “missing” includes truants and drop-outs, then the stat means nothing.
Number of people in the city with school age kids. I think the number is accurate even if it isn’t precise.
You may be correct that the net number is on interpublic is a wash: I am a fan of many of the DPS schools, both neighborhood and charter, and I could see people puting their kids in those schools from out of district.
it would be good to see what the new census figures say.
A lot of outside the district parents really like Denver School of the Arts, although it does admit on an talent evaluation.
At one time, DPS schools had after school programs which other districts did not. But I think that they all do, now.
A may showing the distribution of school age kids by school enrollment by district would be invaluable.
What will I do when the eyes totally go….where the mind went long ago…
I am struck by how often I hear critics of SB 191 focus on the challenges of incompetent administrators, without acknowledging how the bill calls for parallel accountability for principals.
This is one of the main reasons to pass 191.
thinks it unlikely either the districts or the administrators will actually be held to account.
I also do not think the state is capable of creating meaningful standards of performance or ensuring that they are equitably applied to teachers and administration.
I think the failure of CSAP to significantly improve our school performance (graduation rates, literacy levels, etc) after all these years speaks to this fallacy.
If all the hype about performance metrics and data driven decisions really worked, we’d see the positive results more uniformly present in the many charter schools which already claim to be doing these things. The fact is that it isn’t working.
But people love to ignore data when it doesn’t fit their preconceived notions. We all do it. Education reformers are no different.
I don’t have time to read now and comment but I will later.
CEA – Way to get out of your way and get your points across to a fair interviewer. And if you even got coffee or food, you really scored. Thank your luck stars there are people like David out there.
Glad you got to hear the teachers’ point of view from a more effective advocate than me. It seems to have made your position more nuanced, which will make it easier to discuss this issue with you in the future.
And I think this was very helpful to CEA as well; most journalists do not seem interested in seriously representing their views. Too often we just hear “CEA opposes this since it’s concerned about its members’ jobs,” which is true in a sense but doesn’t get across whether their concerns are reasonable. People read this and just think teachers are greedy and selfish.
Thanks for using one of my questions too.
And yes, this was really an eye opener. As she kept talking about inept implementation I kept thinking of OIT and DOR and had to just nod in agreement.
FWIW, I had 3 more of your questions on my list – but we ran out of time. They were good questions.
what is with that department? I pay estimated taxes and they wrote me earlier this year saying I owed more from 2009 – they didn’t have a record of one of my payments – but it was there on their website!
DOR now knows you’re one of the 23,853 people who they mixed up their 2009 records on 🙂
And I think it wouldn’t be impossible to modify the bill (or un-modify it) to meet their concerns without negatively impacting the bill itself.
First, IIRC the bill originally had a delayed implementation so that the evaluation system could be properly set up. If my recollection is correct, that schedule was moved up, causing a lot of complaints.
Second, at least revisiting the probationary language in the bill would be advisable.
And third, as you note David, it sounds an awful lot like there’s a huge communications gap in today’s school system. Schools aren’t learning from effective strategies elsewhere, and aren’t enforcing good strategies where appropriate. This is one of those issues that could be resolved with, IMHO, modest funding of an “improvement initiative” that collects and disseminates good technique and monitors school application of various good practices.
from the Daily Camera
We’re continuing to fail our children. And in the last 2 years the change is we’re doing worse.
And, IMO – it’s the various “cures” we’ve tried recently that are making it worse. High-stakes standardized testing. Elimination of arts, music, etc. in many schools. State charter schools with no accountability to their local communities. NCLB and AYP.
Some day, we’re going to get serious about improving education for all kids. Until then, we’re going to have faith-based educational initiatives like those we’re currently suffering through. Not “faith” as in “God” – but “faith” as in “choice is always better!” and “privatization is always good” and “the market always yields the best outcome” and …
And to David’s point about flat or declining scores, look at the rare successes that were pointed out in today’s Post story. Beech Court Elementary, a district school in north Denver has a Free and Reduced Lunch population of 96%, but their proficiency is over 85% in both English and Spanish.
Ricardo Flores Magone Academy in Thornton had terrific success too, with a population of students who come to Magone, more often than not, below grade level.
Both schools’ principals credit the excellent teaching staff for their success.
SB 191 doesn’t guarantee that we can replicate these successes, it simply starts the process – with the help of teachers – of quantifying, identifying, supporting and replicating what is working in the classroom. Let’s get it started.
But “clap harder!” is an irrational response. This bill forces principals to use standardized test scores as a huge portion of the teacher evaluation. Is there any evidence this is reasonable? Will this increase or decrease “teaching to the test”? And so on.
We need rational, evidence-based improvements in education. Not these “I believe!” moments we keep getting.
Teachers have been very comfortable using that for decades. I would say that’s a major vote of confidence in that approach by teachers.
What are you talking about?
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?
I get them every semester on my kids and their entire effort in each class is reduced to a single grade.
How do you not know the difference between grades and standardized tests? Or between tests that a teacher writes and standardized tests? Or between homework grades and standardized tests? Or between essay grades and standardized tests?
A standardized test is called that because it is standard for all teachers and all classes. Teachers often dislike them because they limit creativity in teaching and make it difficult to teach students how to do anything that requires creativity.
Most teachers don’t use standardized tests to generate grades for their students. They come up with their own assignments and exams, customized for the class and syllabus. Current standardized tests are not used as the basis of student grades.
How the fuck do you not know this?
I took the term standardized test to mean testing if the student has learned in class that year what the state expects them to learn. Testing if they meet the standard. And I have assumed a grade in class measures how well they met that expected standard.
But if you mean the tests themselves come from a single standard source, there’s the SATs and ACTs – used to determine what college they get in to.
And I’m really appalled that you don’t know what that meaning is. The big difference between a standardized test and anything a teacher does is that the teacher has no control over the standardized test.
As for the SAT, that has nothing to do with anyone’s grades. And precisely because people have stopped trusting in the infallibility of standardized testing, pretty much no college will admit a student just based on that.
As for why I’m angry, it’s because I thought you were learning and helping us to have a more sophisticated conversation, but your comments this morning are just simpleton shit trying to get some cheap snark in and simultaneously torpedoing any hope of finding some understanding on some fairly serious issues.
Teachers often don’t like standardized testing, for themselves or for their students. You may not like or agree with their reasons, but saying they like applying standards to students that they wouldn’t apply to themselves is straight-up bullshit.
David, you don’t get to just make up the definitions of words or phrases because they seem better than the actual definitions. sxp is right to be exasperated — you’ve gone back to just pulling things out of your ass.
I apologize for not knowing.
You write so very knowledgeably about this subject. You blog A LOT about it and you support specific remedies based on this knowledge you imply you have. There is no way for you to really not have known that.
Or if so, then all your other musings on the subject are suspect and should be taken with a grain (or a ten pound bag) of salt.
Out, damned typos!
I assumed of course everyone knows what that meant in context. But clearly some did not. I don’t think that means R/G doesn’t have a good understanding of our economy and businesses, it just means that term was not known.
I’ve had 3 kids go through public schools. I spent 3 years on MEAC which was one of the major BVSD committees. I’ve read a lot about what does and does not work at schools. But I missed (or probably just never locked in) that word.
All I can say is sorry.
Or, the other alternative is, R/G was making fun of your lack of knowledge of a familiar-sounding word in a particular context.
I’ll admit it. I pretended to not know what “standardized test” means because of the giant advantage I could gain in this debate. If I could have gotten this past the eagle eye of you, SXP, and jpsandscl then wow, I could of… uh… there’s…
Ok, exactly what advantage would I have gained from this? Or is this just all of us having fun debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
for students but not for themselves. You were calling them hypocrites for not being all out in support of this bill.
I was merely trying to make the point that teachers are comfortable with the approach of summing up the year long effort of students with a single grade. And as such, I felt they should be comfortable with the equivalent for their work.
I didn’t say squat about how that should then require that they support the bill not did I call anyone a hypocrite. Please don’t read ton of extra stuff into a simple point.
… and then I canceled it because I thought the argument was tangential to the results shown. But since you’ve gone there…
The most respected “standardized” tests are the AP exams. They’re respected enough to get you real college credit. They’re also the most vaguely defined and human-judged (or at least they were when I was in school).
SATs, and to a lesser extend ACTs, are used as a convenient screen as much as they are an actual evaluation. The colleges all know the market for SAT-buster courses and how narrow the tests are in showcasing student achievement. Getting a good score shows the college either that you have the determination to get a good score (and therefore do some work), or that you actually have the knowledge base to pass the test without extra prep. While both are valuable in college, only one is really an evaluation of student learning.
Actually, when clapping is effective, then clap harder is a very rational response.
Everybody who is clapping has no idea, in reality, whether it is effective. Most just believe that it is.
And, for a classic example of “clap harder!” see today’s New York Times.
I agree that standardized tests can be useful diagnostics for individual schools, and can be part of multivariate analysis to try to find correlative factors in educational effectiveness. But to make them the major factor in teacher performance, pay, or dismissal is to encourage teaching to the test, focusing on rote learning rather than skills and growth, and outright cheating in some cases.
G Pulviczek, you hit the nail square on the head.
Simplistic solutions to very complex problems, like why our school system seems to fail so many students, often leads to misguided efforts that actually exacerbate the problems.
exactly!
Lets use them.
What has changed in the past two years? Is it teacher quality that has dropped? Or is it more likely that other factors are at fault?
Let’s see… two years ago (Spring 2008) we weren’t in a deep recession. We didn’t have as many parents out of work or stressed over money. We hadn’t cut our school budgets, increased our class sizes, or otherwise worsened the school environment.
If we’re talking about rational solutions, then perhaps rational evaluation of the numbers should be first up.