Report: Dan Goldin REJECTED by Boston University

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 04:31:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In general teacher's unions around the US are adamantly opposed to
anything that allows us to identify individual students with specific
deficiencies. Teachers fight accountability tooth and nail.

Of course from talking to my teacher friends their current issue is being
told by the district they are in, "teach to the test."

So, we may be ending up with a generation of very good test takers.

Would that be worse than what we have now? I'm a pretty good test
taker.

Why is it that we can't "teach to the test" *and* teach whatever they
think they should be teaching (not clear what that is--rain forest
algebra)?

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

In article ,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
In general teacher's unions around the US are adamantly opposed to
anything that allows us to identify individual students with specific
deficiencies. Teachers fight accountability tooth and nail.

Of course from talking to my teacher friends their current issue is being
told by the district they are in, "teach to the test."
So, we may be ending up with a generation of very good test takers.

This is as opposed to... what, exactly?

While measurements can certainly be abused, and can certainly be done
poorly, refusing to even *attempt* to measure the result of a process
seldom enhances your ability to understand and control the process.

(Of course, if your agenda is precisely to prevent understanding and
control, opposition to measurement is understandable.)
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 04:31:53 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In general teacher's unions around the US are adamantly opposed to
anything that allows us to identify individual students with specific
deficiencies. Teachers fight accountability tooth and nail.

Of course from talking to my teacher friends their current issue is being
told by the district they are in, "teach to the test."

So, we may be ending up with a generation of very good test takers.

Would that be worse than what we have now? I'm a pretty good test
taker.


Rand, I suspect that your knowledge is far better than simply regurgitating
facts and figures.

Have data without understanding its relevance is useless. Many of the
standardized tests being multiple choice tests focus on students
reguritating facts and figures w/o understand what they mean.

Why is it that we can't "teach to the test" *and* teach whatever they
think they should be teaching (not clear what that is--rain forest
algebra)?

Time.


--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Henry Spencer wrote:
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
In general teacher's unions around the US are adamantly opposed to
anything that allows us to identify individual students with specific
deficiencies. Teachers fight accountability tooth and nail.

Of course from talking to my teacher friends their current issue is being
told by the district they are in, "teach to the test."
So, we may be ending up with a generation of very good test takers.

This is as opposed to... what, exactly?

While measurements can certainly be abused, and can certainly be done
poorly, refusing to even *attempt* to measure the result of a process
seldom enhances your ability to understand and control the process.

(Of course, if your agenda is precisely to prevent understanding and
control, opposition to measurement is understandable.)

In my experience, and I have a little (my mother was a junior
high school and high school science teacher), teachers unions have
two independent sets of people who oppose standardized testing.
Those who believe that it is philosophically wrong, and doesn't
measure teacher quality for some otherwise very good teachers,
and those who have been corrupted by the system and do not want
the light of day shone on the minority of teachers who are in
fact absolute idiots and can't teach their way out of a wet paper
bag, because it's bad for the unions to admit that they have been
protecting a lot of (often nice and sincere) really bad teachers.

In my opinion, practically, far more damage is done by the bad
teachers than could be done making the really good ones
have to teach 'to the test' as well as their own way.


-george william herbert

"George William Herbert" wrote in message
...

In my experience, and I have a little (my mother was a junior
high school and high school science teacher), teachers unions have
two independent sets of people who oppose standardized testing.
Those who believe that it is philosophically wrong, and doesn't
measure teacher quality for some otherwise very good teachers,
and those who have been corrupted by the system and do not want
the light of day shone on the minority of teachers who are in
fact absolute idiots and can't teach their way out of a wet paper
bag, because it's bad for the unions to admit that they have been
protecting a lot of (often nice and sincere) really bad teachers.


I have to agree with this observation. Fortunately of the friends of mine
who are teachers, I'd say they're fairly good. Of course there's somewhat
of an observational bias there. :-)

In my opinion, practically, far more damage is done by the bad
teachers than could be done making the really good ones
have to teach 'to the test' as well as their own way.


This I'm not so sure about. The effects I've seen are often to "dumb"
things down enough so that the good teachers are hampered and the bad
teachers not exposed.

BTW, I should note before I start putting words into my friend's mouth: I
don't believe she's ever objected to some sort of standardized testing in
theory, simply the pratice of how it's currently done in NY State and in her
district specifically.

(also should note one can Google for news on how more and more TEACHERS in
NYS are cheating in order to help their students pass. Personally those
teachers should be the first to go.)

Personally I'm of two minds when it comes to standardized testing. I think
some way of rooting out the bad teachers is probably needed. I'm not
convinced standardized testing as its being done (at least in some places)
is the way to go.

Also, from personal experience, I'd say a far bigger factor in a child's
education is their parents. In general, the parents who take an active role
in their child's education will end up with a far better educated child,
regardless of the quality of the child's teacher than those parents who take
little or no role or worse, take an adversarial role. (Much like a young
lady from back home I ran into years after high school whose family had
talked her out of college.)


-george william herbert

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 05:56:25 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

So, we may be ending up with a generation of very good test takers.

Would that be worse than what we have now? I'm a pretty good test
taker.


Rand, I suspect that your knowledge is far better than simply regurgitating
facts and figures.

There's more to taking tests than regurgitating facts and figures. In
fact, that kind of test is the one that I'm the worst at.

Have data without understanding its relevance is useless. Many of the
standardized tests being multiple choice tests focus on students
reguritating facts and figures w/o understand what they mean.

If that's the case, then the tests should be changed, but there's
nothing wrong with "teaching to the test" itself, as long as the test
is meaningful.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 05:07:46 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:
In general teacher's unions around the US are adamantly opposed to
anything that allows us to identify individual students with specific
deficiencies. Teachers fight accountability tooth and nail.

Of course from talking to my teacher friends their current issue is being
told by the district they are in, "teach to the test."
So, we may be ending up with a generation of very good test takers.

This is as opposed to... what, exactly?

While measurements can certainly be abused, and can certainly be done
poorly, refusing to even *attempt* to measure the result of a process
seldom enhances your ability to understand and control the process.

(Of course, if your agenda is precisely to prevent understanding and
control, opposition to measurement is understandable.)

Yup.

To me, the best solution to improving education would be elimination
of all schools of education, and requiring "teachers" to have real
degrees, and actually have some knowledge to impart, at least for
anything beyond K-3.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Talk about your golden parachute---you basically can't lose once you've been
a high-level NASA manager. Huntoon sickened one astronaut and nearly killed
another, and what is she Deputy Secretary of now---Atomic Energy or whatever
they call it now? Wherever Abbey is, I'll bet he's got a swell job, too.

It's not clear that Goldin belongs in that group, though. I sort of suspect
he was just horribly unsuited to his job, not actually malignantly evil.
And it's just $1.8G they won't spend on their football team.

JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX
****************
* JOKE *
****************
* SERIOUS *
****************
* SARCASTIC *
****************
* OTHER? *
****************


"Kevin Willoughby" wrote in message
...
In article ,
h says...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:55:07 -0600, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I for one don't fear for Mr. Goldin's ability to find work.

Or at least a paycheck...

Or he may just retire. BU is paying him nearly $2,000,000 to go away.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/01/ed...?ex=1068267600
&en=78a0642f4cf830fd&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
--
Kevin Willoughby oSpam

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
[...]
BTW, I should note before I start putting words into my friend's mouth: I
don't believe she's ever objected to some sort of standardized testing in
theory, simply the pratice of how it's currently done in NY State and in her
district specifically.

and
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
[...]
If that's the case, then the tests should be changed, but there's
nothing wrong with "teaching to the test" itself, as long as the test
is meaningful.


And designing tests to measure the right thing is no simple matter.
Look at the SAT, as discussed in the "Columbia Mag" -- er, "Atlantic
Monthy" Nov 2003 (Vol 292 No 4), pp 130ff.

/dps

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
Have data without understanding its relevance is useless. Many of the
standardized tests being multiple choice tests focus on students
reguritating facts and figures w/o understand what they mean.

But would you agree that someone who fails those standardized tests would
definitely not deserve to move ahead to the next grade ?

Think of those tests as the lowest common denominator that establishes the
lowest acceptable standard for a state/nation.

They aren't meant to identify Einsteins, they are meant to identify those with
serious difficulies and ensure that they reach a certain level of knowledge
before going to the next grade.