tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11292001.post8432055596039734840..comments2023-10-17T10:53:03.603-04:00Comments on Econo-ponderables: More on Merit Pay for Teachers...Economists Do It With Modelshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14453250407100239398noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11292001.post-66764684037572161622007-07-11T03:51:00.000-04:002007-07-11T03:51:00.000-04:001) Aren't you just beating a straw man? Your dism...1) Aren't you just beating a straw man? Your dismantling of one teacher's dumb remark does not amount to any actual defense of NCLB-type policies. Moreover, the remark wasn't even that dumb. The teacher was clearly *not* arguing that being loved is *the* measure of teaching success, but rather *attempting* to explain how there is more to teaching performance than high test scores (a proposition you agree with). Moreover, a little kid appreciating his ex-teacher is probably a reasonable analog of your appreciating your ex-teacher. A better rebuttal would be if you *thought* Angrist was a great teacher, but in fact, an objective standard determined that you *really* learned more from that disorganized prof whose lectures were seemingly terrible.<BR/><BR/>2) Here's an important question: Is the best teacher imaginable a robot or a human being? By this, I mean that there exists a optimal teaching style/strategy/curriculum for producing high test scores (on the theoretical optimal standardized test). It follows from this that we should program all teachers to be mindless automatons who execute this strategy. <BR/><BR/>Somehow, I imagine these robots to be nothing like your beloved Josh Angrist. If you tie Josh Angrist to a specified syllabus and specified teaching goals, you begin to lose something. Autonomy is what allows for the possibility of both great and horrible teachers.<BR/><BR/>This isn't just hypothetical. The robot teachers really do exist in experimental inner-city schools, and they supposedly do get results. <BR/>(See Jonathan Kozol.) I can't say for sure that this is a bad thing, but I'm naturally suspicious of this.<BR/><BR/>3) The discussion of the good or evil of testing is sort of beside the point. The big educational problem is that disadvantaged kids don't learn enough. Everyone knows the reason why: they don't learn as much at home, *and* their schools don't get as much money. Double whammy. There is an obvious strategy for *mitigating* the problem. Not only do their schools need as much money as the rich kids' schools; they need *more* money because of the disadvantages at home. NCBL completely ignores this reality, essentially by issuing a fiat that poor schools must perform better. Testing, merit pay, whatever... these could plausibly be good things, but to characterize them as solutions is laughable.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11022119203786919080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11292001.post-41834225400338048122007-07-09T03:23:00.000-04:002007-07-09T03:23:00.000-04:00a) why is there a constant underlying assumption t...a) why is there a constant underlying assumption that test score are not correlated to actual learning? Yes, one can 'teach the test' but in essence that's already what's going on -- and if they're going to try harder then kids might actually learn an extra thing or two.<BR/>b) as for 'how the job of the teacher is split', it drastically differs with age, and you being 'nice' in ec10 would be sensibly more important if your students were 8 years old (of real age, not mind age, that is, since I am sure some of them could pass for that.)Mo-ha-medhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06580446493947668369noreply@blogger.com