
I Don't Want to be a Teacher Any More - hypersoar
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/26/950079/-I-Dont-Want-to-be-a-Teacher-Any-More
======
noonespecial
There is a serious moral hazard faced by most administrators of the so called
"heroic professions" (doctors, nurses, teachers, fire-fighters etc). The
trouble is that their jobs involve taking care of people and a significant
portion of their personal identity is wrapped up in this. Doctors will work
extra unpaid hours "off the books" so patients won't suffer, teachers will buy
classroom materials with their own money, fire-fighters will still respond to
fires, even with inadequate safety gear etc.

Bureaucrats are more or less free to make whatever cuts they want in these
professions because they know that those on the front lines will quietly
mutter "I will work harder" and pick up the slack until the stress finally
drives them from the profession entirely.

I've never once seen an employee of the DMV run out to kinkos and spend their
own money because the copier was broken.

~~~
mslate
These "heroic professions" also share another common characteristic: they can
do no wrong.

Doctors? They self-regulate the size of labor supply in their fields,
inflating their salaries. Why do you think we have a doctor shortage? You
really think there aren't enough smart people to do the job? No, the AMA
controls the number of med school graduates each year by limiting the number
of accredited medical schools. They also lobby governments to legislate that
nurses can't perform medical procedures (all towards the not-so-discrete goal
of preserving their six-figure salaries).

Teachers? They can't be fired thanks to tenure policies. This was the biggest
issue with public schooling when I grew up, and [continues to
be]([http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/nyregion/16rubber.html?_r=...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/nyregion/16rubber.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print)).
Survive three years and you have job security for life. If my workplace hired
and fired based on seniority, we would have gone bankrupt years ago.

Firefighters and policemen also can do no wrong--aside from amazing pensions
they have great job security and the power to help those they know more than
others in the event of disaster (e.g. Katrina).

For every example of those in the "heroic professions" doing the right thing,
you have the same careerism and self-preservation that those in private
industry strive for. But in many people's eyes, they can do no wrong.

~~~
RBerenguel
In part I agree with you. Tenure (which here in Spain is different: all public
workers that got their job through examination can't be fired!) is a big
problem. There are a lot of amazing teachers (I've had a lot in my life, since
school through university), but there is a lot of lousy teachers (also had a
lot of these) that do nothing and can't be fired. And the ones who love
teaching (a few of my friends are math teachers) have to suffer more or less
what the article says. Education always takes the blame, regardless of the
quality of the teacher. Also, they have an increasing responsibility: parents
no longer "educate" children (how to behave well, be quite, listen, be
respective), it is something that now school teachers and HS teachers have to
do, without any level of help from a lot of parents. A simple example, is that
when a child gets some kind of "fine" (bad grade, a written note to her
parents, whatever), most parents blame the teacher and don't believe "their
little child" misbehaved.

~~~
angus77
Are you sure that's "most parents"? The ones that have a good yell at their
kids in the bedroom for their behaviour are the ones you won't hear about, and
I suspect they're the majority. I know _I_ don't expect schools to rear my
children.

~~~
MediaBehavior
I don't know of a study that has quantified the "most" allegation. But what I
have heard from relatives who teach (or resigned from teaching) in public
schools is that _a large enough number_ of parents take this approach and seem
to come to the parent-teacher conference with the "my great kid is entitled to
grade X" attitude... that teachers' authority/professionalism gets undermined.

Even worse when administrative does not have your (teacher's) back.

If you doubt that the Peter Principle still applies, spend some time in
faculty meetings and check out the admins. There are exceptions, of course.
But IMHO (observation) the "No more A-holes" rule is more honored in the
breach than the observance.

------
wisty
I think there's two sides to the story.

Actually, no, there's more than two sides to the story, and the idiots who
think there are two sides to the story and making everything worse:

* Some teachers are awful, and the unions protect them. They also manipulate educational policy, both to improve teacher conditions (which is fair enough - that's their job), and to push the pet beliefs of a couple of batty union leaders.

* Most teaching "methods" (fads) suck, and are cooked up by the kind of people who get PhDs in "education" - ivory tower researchers who can't do, and can't teach, but can publish in a naval-gazing journal.

* Most "methods" (fads) require mounds of paperwork, so the teachers can prove they are complying.

* Direct Instruction (DI) was found to be the best teaching method by far, the last time they did any serious research. However, it does cramp creative teachers, and it's quite possible that more serious research will find better methods (possibly based on DI, but not as anal), but the opponents of DI don't want serious research (as their pet "methods" suck, compared to DI, and they know it) and DI fans think the problem is solved.

* Some kids are "special needs". Some kids are dumb. Some kids are smart. Some kids just look dumb because they aren't motivated, and some kids just look smart because they are being pushed hard, and nobody can agree what "smart" and "dumb" means. Mixed classes are good in some ways, but they can't be too big (or the teacher can't help the outlying kids). Big classes are good for the better kids, but only if they are streamed.

* Text books are often terrible.

* School work can be assessed (extrinsically motivated) or un-assessed (intrinsically motivated). Extrinsic motivation drives out intrinsic motivation, but some assessment is necessary. The current trend is to pile on more assessment (both tests and formally assessed homework) under the assumption that kids have already been jaded by the existing assessment, and no longer care about learning for learning's sake.

* We are spending too much, and not enough.

* Finally, there's rarely any end goal in mind. Or there are several end goals, and everyone forgets which ones are important. Feeding universities, creating a skilled workforce, providing opportunities for poor kids, getting good numbers in international tests, and most importantly convincing parents (voters) that something needs to be done, and we are already doing all that is humanly possible to help YOUR child beat the kid sitting next to them.

~~~
moultano
>Direct Instruction (DI) was found to be the best teaching method by far, the
last time they did any serious research.

Do you have any good links that describe what this is? All I seem to be able
to find is pages talking about how good it is, but none with a description of
it that made any sense to me.

~~~
wisty
It's a faddy method, but one that works. It puts a lot of emphasis on
fundamentals, but students who focus on fundamentals (in class) are found to
be able to do creative stuff with the material out of class. "Wax on, wax off,
now go kick ass".

It's very anal, like I said.

The teachers get a DI textbook (made up by the inventor of DI). The teacher
reads from the text book, and asks the whole class to respond on cue.

The whole class responding on cue is an important point, as it keeps the
students thinking. "Everybody, what's 12 * 8?"

It uses lots of repetition, and a few standardised instructions to the class.

"Everybody open your books, to page 23. One two three. Everybody should have
their books open. Put your finger on the word "MY". One two three ... Now
everybody read out load ..."

Interesting factoid - "The Pet Goat" (think 911, George W. Bush in a
classroom) was a DI book.

~~~
patio11
This is similar to the Japanese pedagogical style at my university, and our
grads ROFLstomp peer schools' grads at speaking ability. "Class, you are going
to the cinema this afternoon at five. Where are you going? Everyone." "I am
going to the cinema at five.". "Good. Patrick, you." "I am going to the cinema
at five.". "Good. Patrick, ask Tom. Tom, you are going to the restaurant at
seven."

Repeat an hour a day every day for three years and you get _really effing
good_. (Conversations in the third year are, obviously, more elaborate.)

~~~
Evgeny
This is very close to how they taught me English long ago in a Soviet school!
I have to say I can't complain.

------
jacoblyles
The United States spends more money on education per student than just about
any other country in the world[1], and it has been growing quite rapidly over
time[2]. America is not a penny pincher when it comes to education. One graph
beats many paragraphs of anecdote by someone with an axe to grind. Anyway, I
flagged this article because I'm hoping to see less politics on Hacker News.

[1][http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-
chart.h...](http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html)

[2][http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-
chart.h...](http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html#3)

~~~
moultano
Do you have any stats that break down where the money goes? That's probably
the most interesting statistic.

~~~
kenjackson
Here are some stats on teacher pay:
[http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snap...](http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20080402/)

[http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/teacher-pay-
aro...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/teacher-pay-around-the-
world/)

So while we may spend more on education, the delta is not going to teachers.

I suspect admin is a big part. There's a big controversy here in Seattle, the
second in recent years where there was either large corruption or tens of
millions of dollars that disappeared (the last ended up in the super of the
school district losing his job -- the Seattle Times has asked for the current
super to either resign or be fired).

------
leot
Canada has demographics comparable to the US's, but pays its teachers much
more. The results are evident in OECD's "Programme for International Student
Assessment" (PISA) <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/60/46619703.pdf>

A rewarding job with decent compensation and time off makes teaching jobs
pretty competitive.

~~~
jacoblyles
Do you have any statistics that compare the teacher pay of the US and Canada?
The US spends more on education per pupil than almost every country in the
world (some years I believe it is number one). I would be shocked if the US
didn't pay more than Canada, on average.

~~~
angus77
It might not be so helpful to compare salaries alone (although I've heard
they're actually higher in Canada, but don't have hard statistics). Remember ,
Canadians do have to pay for health insurance, so even if they have smaller
salaries, they could still end up with more disposable income.

~~~
angus77
AAARGH! Of course, I meant _DON'T_ have to pay for health insurance.

------
DanielBMarkham
I liked the spirit of where this was going -- the personal story of how a job
as a public school teacher got more and more frustrating, eventually leading
the author to want to hang it all up.

I'm worried that we're overloading the word "teacher", however. I'm a teacher,
and I'm a learner, and I'll never stop doing those things. It's very important
that we realize that the acts of teaching and learning should be important to
all of us whether we are public school teachers or not. The subject is bigger
than that. Much bigger.

I'm also concerned that this is beginning to sound like on of those issues
where there isn't another side -- after all, who would be in favor of
continuing to increase classroom size, demonizing teachers, and the constant
screwing around with the rules teachers work by?

Nobody, of course. And whenever somebody describes a situation to me that is
so obviously one-sided, I start becoming concerned that there are critical
players or issues that are not being addressed in the essay. Even if our
author is a hero and the entire universe is against him, those other forces in
the universe probably work through some system of logic that should as well be
considered by the reader when looking at the subject.

Finally, instead of a he-said, she-said kind of story, or even a woe-am-I kind
of story, this would work much better as a systemic story. The simple sad fact
of broken systems is that they are usually filled with honest people doing the
best they can at all levels. Of course, that kind of story doesn't make for
much of a personal essay, but it reminds us that for every essay by a school
administrator talking about how bad his situation is, there's another one from
a teacher, and another one from a school board member, and another one from a
parent, and so on. Each of these people have an important story to tell.
Personal essays by definition are very narrowly constructed items. We enjoy
the emotional insight and understanding they provide and then move on, making
sure that we read the dozens of other stories which are equally as valid so
that we can have a bit of much-needed context.

------
vipivip
When you make it big, never forget your teachers... a phone call, a text, an
email, a visit means a lot

------
yason
A prime example of work that you can't measure with numbers: the value of
teaching isn't a scalar. Pretty much like measuring a programmer's output by
lines written.

However, if we think we can't afford to have a decent funding for schools then
nobody has apparently been heard speaking up about not affording to _not_ have
that funding. If we keep merely chasing test scores for a couple of decades,
what kind of an education will we have at that point?

------
karzeem
It's sad how common these feelings are and how nearly all of them trace back
to the government's (arguably) well-intentioned insistence on running schools
itself.

~~~
ylem
I though Singapore, Japan, etc. have government managed schools that seem to
be doing rather well...I can't even argue the locality issue because
Switzerland seems to be doing rather well also. I think one of the
difficulties in US schools is brought up by the author--we try to teach
everyone and we believe in 2nd and 3rd chances. Many countries begin tracking
rather early, so their teachers don't have some of the same special needs
issues (I'm not arguing right or wrong here, just fact) that teachers here
face.

Then, there is the family component. In a number of industrialized countries,
education is highly prized and parents are deeply involved in their kids'
education. Here, that is again not necessarily the case in many schools--and
there is a limit to how much teachers can do to overcome that.

Also, I think that in many other industrialized countries, teachers are
respected and paid reasonably compared to other professions. This draws
talented people into the field (passion is important, but so is economics).

~~~
angus77
Most Japanese kids end up going to cram schools to make up for what the school
system (both public and private) lacks. The system sucks---long hours,
Saturday classes are being reintroduced this spring, and the cram schools are
usually at least 2 hours long---sometimes as much as 4 or 5 hours.

And Japan still can't get into the top 10 of the Education Index.

------
Getahobby
This isn't meant to be a rhetorical question so please feel free to show me
the light. A constant drumbeat from teachers seems to be complaints about
standardized testing. Are there really any better ways to measure progress
across the board? All of us here should be fans and encouragers of standards,
right?

~~~
alextp
The problem with standardized testing is not that they don't measure the
progress well but that they measure all other sorts of confounding variables.
Each standardized test has a small number question templates, and if the
students familiarize themselves with the question templates they will do
better on the tests, for example. Another important factor is timing: some
standardized tests have a fixed amount of time allocated to a student, and
hence there are many different ways of pacing yourself that lead to better or
worse scores. Yet another important factor is the choice between open-ended
and multiple-choice questions, and even the balance between these can be
learned.

So every standardized test has some confounding variables, and effort spent
teaching the students to do better on the tests by dealing well with these
variables is effort that does not go towards helping the students learn the
material. If the standardized tests are known and used to evaluate the
teachers the incentives suddenly get really strong to teach to the test by
focusing on the idiossincrasies of specific testing schemes over teaching the
actual subject.

Standardized tests are a great way to measure performance and improvement but
only if the results won't be used for decision-making, otherwise it creates an
instant incentive to game the system.

~~~
NY_USA_Hacker
It's quite possible to write tests that fairly accurately measure the basic
material to be taught in the third grade. Well written tests cannot be 'gamed'
to any significant degree. People have known how to write good tests for over
50 years and have often done so.

Heck, when I was teaching in college, I passed out copies of tests from
earlier semesters. Then the students could study just to the tests and try to
'game' them. Still, had to know the material at least to some degree to do
even that. Net, the students had every opportunity to study just to the tests
and I was in effect teaching just to my own tests and still the students had
basically to learn the material.

------
robryan
Essentially I guess the government are trying to remove the downside of bad
teachers by destroying the upside of good ones, as well as standardizing the
teaching process, making it easier to run on a tight budget.

You have to wonder how much long term impact these cuts have, I'm sure in the
short term they can keep parents happy by producing decent test scores as they
are only focusing on the tests.

Would love to know how the Australian system compares for teachers currently
if anyone is involved there?

~~~
yason
By focusing on the efficiency of scoring well in tests, they can ignore the
costs of the work left undone. These social, curricular and work environmental
costs don't have numbers now but they will manifest in concrete money years
later. So effectively the school is borrowing from the wellbeing of the pupils
and teachers at the current cost of zero, and moving it to gains in current
productivity meters.

~~~
NY_USA_Hacker
Yup, broad problem in society, done wherever people can find an opportunity --
visible, short-term, small gain at hard to see long-term, large cost.

But the solution is at hand: In the US, local schools are run by the local
school boards, and tough to keep reality from the school board members,
including in the "wellbeing" of the students.

------
jleyank
I am what I am today because (a) I was fortunate to be exposed to a
minicomputer in 1971 and (b) I had a great teacher for 10th grade chemistry.
The former was a product of a forward-thinking school trustee and the fact
that nobody knew what to do it it so they let the kids play. The latter was
luck.

Computers are now part of the background, and I worry there's less of the
magic needed to create a proper hacker/developer. Luck is still luck.

------
ctdonath
His problem is his employer, not the work. When your boss(es) get too stupid
for too long, creating a failing business, LEAVE. There are other much better
employers to join - or start your own.

------
georgieporgie
I went to school in Oregon. Things I remember:

* Three or four really great teachers, who taught me a _lot_.

* Lots of teachers blathering on about personal and rather inappropriate stuff. In retrospect, many seem emotionally desperate and treated the classroom as a captive audience to their personal drama.

* Being singled out and harassed by at least four teachers.

* The school administrator plucking a brand new IBM 386sx off the cart that was headed to the desperately underpowered computer lab. He did this so he could run Windows. So he could launch a DOS-based menu system. So he could switch between two DOS-based applications he used.

Fire the administrators first.

~~~
aik
And the cycle continues. Fire the teachers! The students aren't learning -
they're the problem! Fire the administrators! Fire the teachers! The students
aren't trying! Fire the administrators!...

Perhaps the system itself is the problem. Change the system.

------
NY_USA_Hacker
So, once again it's 'education'. And for more detail, there are two themes:
(1) Send more money. (2) It is just crucial for us to have the money so that
we can do lots of really, really important things that can't be measured.

So, is the article really just about (A) important issues in education or is
it just (B) partisan politics fighting over money with some of the usual
techniques of politics -- some truths, half-truths, deception, distortion,
emotion, etc.?

So, to pick between (A) and (B), let's see:

(a) Source. The article is in 'The Daily Kos', and I believe I've heard that
this site is essentially propaganda by the more liberal wing of the Democrats
and paid for at least heavily by Soros who apparently believes that US
politics should be something like some of the traditions of old Central and
Eastern European socialism.

(b) Subject. The article is to grab people by the heart and the gut to have
them open up below the belt, this time their wallet in their hip pocket. It's
a big sales pitch leading to "Send more money".

(c) Timing. At present one of the hottest political stories in the news is the
fighting in several states and especially in Wisconsin trying to reduce
expenditures by state governments so that the states can have balanced budgets
without raising taxes and to reduce these expenditures by fighting with
unionized state employees, especially the teachers' unions.

(d) Unions. Now we come full circle: The unions are heavily in the Democrat
party with propaganda site 'The Daily Kos'.

So, it seems to me that article really is about (B) partisan politics and not
(A) education.

~~~
angus77
Except that what seems to be the most biting issue for her is being forced to
teach for test scores. Throwing money at that won't make the classes any more
engaging. Try actually RingTFA next time.

~~~
NY_USA_Hacker
What's this sudden big deal against "test scores" from the K-12 teachers'
organizations? Looks like an excuse to get paid the big bucks without any
measurable results. Some good results are difficult to measure, but the basic
results are easy enough to measure and should be measured. A serious practical
problem is that K-12 is not doing well even on those basic results.

For "engaging", that's mostly nonsense.

You sound like a hired propaganda spammer paid for by the AFT or the NEA.

Test scores are important: SAT, CEEB, GRE, LSAT, MCAT. Board Certification in
medicine. Qualifying exams for a Ph.D. Just what is it about test scores you
and our K-12 teachers do not understand?

~~~
angus77
You talk as if there were never test scores to think about before. There
always have been. You can take that strawman and smoke it.

"Engaging" is far, far more important than you realize. Kids who are bored
will absorb less and be distracted more easily. Of course, "engaging" must be
a means, not an end. A teacher's not an entertainer. What do you think the
word "engaging" means, anyways? Or did you not bother to learn that one
because it wasn't necessary for a test?

The problem is not the taking of tests. The problem is focusing on tests at
the expense of everything else.

~~~
NY_USA_Hacker
This discussion is so far from reality in the present it has already violated
the limit on the speed of light.

We're talking nonsense.

E.g., you wrote:

"You talk as if there were never test scores to think about before. There
always have been."

Nonsense. We're in full agreement here.

Instead of some false disagreement, we need to move on to something
constructive.

You wrote:

"'Engaging' is far, far more important than you realize."

Nonsense. In simple terms, you can't know what I "realize". For more, of
COURSE 'engaging' is important.

My father was something of an expert in educational theory and practiced it as
the educational theorist for a military technical school (electronics,
welding, hydraulics, mechanicals, etc.) for years with over 40,000 students at
once.

His main 'guidance' of my education was that I be 'engaged', and in some
subjects I really was. I was engaged enough, but where I wasn't he didn't
push; he likely thought that such pushing would be pointless and may have been
correct. In the end I did well in school, went "all the way". Far and away,
the best things I did in school were from my being 'engaged', although that's
a bit too mild.

So, what about 'engaged' in the article by the third grade teacher?

(a) No teacher in K-12 'engaged' me in anything. Not once. Ever. Where I was
most engaged, in plane geometry, more fun than eating caramel popcorn, the
teacher was the ugliest person I've ever met, and I slept in class and refused
to admit doing any of her assigned homework. So, she would have turned off
many students but did not affect my level of 'engagement' at all.

Actually, I made sure to work every non-trivial problem in the book including
the more challenging ones in the back. I was fully "engaged".

I got 'engaged' for the usual reasons: A desire to achieve the security of
adult competence. The content of the media that emphasized science got me
'engaged' in science.

(b) As I outlined, there's not a lot taught in K-8. Given that, a lot of being
'engaged' is not necessary to that learning. So, it's a bit empty for her to
say that she got her students 'engaged' in learning the standard stuff in the
third grade.

(c) More directly, if she can get her students 'engaged', then let's see the
results in student accomplishments:

So, maybe she gets some student engaged in math and they rush ahead and pass
the AP calculus exam at the end of the third grade. If then she wants to say
that she got the student 'engaged', then I can believe her and chalk up some
credit for her getting a student 'engaged'.

Maybe she plays some music for the students and then has as a class guest the
first chair violinist of the local symphony orchestra. The violinist gives a
concert in class with everything from 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star' to various
pieces really easy to like to some dance pieces even easier to like like to
various classic showpieces to some 'video backed show and tell', say, motifs
from 'The Ring', with images as in, say,

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7prUFflX0_E>

where the climax should get much of the class 'engaged', to something really
'engaging', the D major section of the Bach 'Chaconne':

Castelnuovo-Tedesco: "The Bach 'Chaconne' is the greatest piece of music ever
written."

The central D major section is the easiest to like and has the climax of the
piece. The Heifetz performance of the climax is especially 'engaging'.

A violin is such a magnificent piece of 'woodworking' that it is 'engaging'
just to see one for the first time. Being just close to a violin being played
for some of the best music by a good violinist is really 'engaging'.

I did that once: At Christmas at the farm I retired to an upstairs bedroom for
some violin practice. Soon a niece about 8 came up to watch and listen. So,
sure, soon I put my violin under her left chin, stood behind her, showed her
how to hold the bow, and the next day her father asked me, "How much is a
violin going to cost me?". Her mother had been trying to get the girl
'engaged' in music for years with no effect. I was successful in a few
minutes. Part of the reason is that it is much easier to get a child engaged
in something an adult is doing instead of something they are just saying.
Having a really good musician in class will get a lot of students 'engaged'.

Next day, have a good concert pianist do much the same. Sure, start with some
famous pieces some students in the class may be able to play already, e.g.,
the Bach C major "Prelude" from 'The Well Tempered Clavier', let the student
get acknowledged, maybe get a 'master class' on this piece from the guest
pianist, sitting beside him on the piano bench, get status in the class, and
then get the rest of the class more eager to 'follow along' and be 'engaged'.
Yes, the piece is in the movie 'Samantha: An American Girl Holiday' and there
played very well. Net, Hollywood knows that third grade or so girls can like
that piece.

Next day, a cellist. Sure, play something really easy to like, the 'Prelude'
to the Bach first unaccompanied -- easy enough to like to be used in ad music,
but the ascending chromatic scale climax near the end is one of the better
moments in all of music.

Next day, have a guest outlining the math for satellite orbit determination as
needed by GPS. So, get students 'engaged' in math and physics.

So, some student gets really 'engaged', checks out a violin, spends about half
of each day in a back storeroom practicing, and by the end of the third grade
plays the D major section of the Bach 'Chaconne'.

Now I'll give her credit for getting her students 'engaged'.

Some of the students like writing. Okay, have them start some blogs, write the
initial posts, moderate the other posts, and respond, i.e., have them play the
role of Fred Wilson at AVC.com. The teacher will get some chances to supervise
the work and help with the writing, content, handling contentious issues,
computer usage, grammar and spelling. At the end of the year, finally tell the
world that the blog moderators were all of eight years old!

You wrote:

"The problem is not the taking of tests. The problem is focusing on tests at
the expense of everything else."

The tests are not going to cover playing the Bach 'Chaconne' and, instead,
just cover the basics of third grade material. Good students with good
instruction can learn enough of the grade 1-8 material in a few months. Asking
that the ordinary and normal students know the third grade material by the end
of the third grade is asking very little.

For the "teaching to the test", that is presented as some sin but without
details about the sinfulness. Go ahead: Teach to the test. Heck, most straight
A students study just for the test and just as they perceive the teacher will
write it anyway.

If the test is at all well constructed, then passing the test is a quite good
indication of the learning. People have known how to write good tests for
decades.

As we all know, tests are a central part of education, including via the
examples I gave of CEEB, SAT, GRE, LSAT, MCAT, etc.

Net, these K-12 objections to "testing" with the vague sin of "teaching to the
test" look like excuses less good than the classic "My dog ate my homework.".

One way I got back at my plane geometry teacher was what I did on the state
test. I got back at all those teachers with my SAT scores, especially my math
SAT score.

The SAT score was correct: I had not only a lot of 'engagement' and interest
in math, I had some talent as subsequent events have shown: Yes, the grand
hero of mathematical economics is K. Arrow. There is a famous paper by Arrow,
Hurwicz, and Uzawa. Why poor Uzawa has not gotten his Nobel prize I don't
know; maybe they give at most two per paper? There was a problem stated but
not solved in the paper. There was also H. Whitney, long at Harvard, of the
Whitney extension theorem. So I proved a result comparable with Whitney's,
assumed a little less and got a little less, used my result to solve the
Arrow, et al., problem, and published.

Net, that third grade teacher should (A) have her students do well on the
tests and (B) have her students get fully engaged in much more that is not on
tests but quite visible as I outlined.

I'll add one more important point: However much the AFT, NEA, Department of
Education, Obama, The Chosen One, Blessed Be He, want all of US K-12 run
directly from DC, it is still the case that local school boards run K-12
education. Bluntly, what such a school board wants, such a school board can
get. If a teacher, principal, and school really get their students and parents
'engaged', e.g., parents of third grade see their children wanting freshman
college texts on math and physics, a violin, piano, or cello, are listening to

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7prUFflX0_E>

etc., then the school board can get 'engaged', provide what is needed for,
e.g., getting a concert master into third grade classes, etc., and really go
for it.

Net, that's much of just why we have local school boards.

~~~
angus77
You spat out: "So what about 'engaged' in the article by the third grade
teacher?" but didn't bother to answer it.

You say you and I are in agreement; I thought I was in agreement (on that
point) with the author; you imply you are in disagreement with the author. I
must say, I'm confused.

As for the rest, I might be assuming that Canadian and American public school
education is more similar than it actually is. Maybe what you have to say
about the state of American education is less hyperbolic than I take it to be.
I've lived in Japan for the last 13 years, though, and comparing the to-the-
test Japanese system with its long hours of rote learning and cram schools, I
definitely think the Canadian system produces better results (and the UN seems
to agree). The impression left in my mind by the article was of a Canadian-
like system shifting towards being more like a Japanese-like one. It may be
these assumptions that have us talking at cross purposes.

Although I must assert that, while I think tests are an important _gauge_ ,
"teaching to the test" is a short-term goal that, in my experience, leads to a
lot of cramming and very little long-term learning. (personally, though, I
never crammed---I paid attention in class, although it didn't always look like
it)

~~~
NY_USA_Hacker
Generally the Asians nearly totally fail to 'get it'. There is no chance that
US (or Canadian) K-12 will go very far making the mistakes the Asians make.

That tests are fine does not mean that the Asian approach to rote learning is
fine.

That some students cram for tests does not mean that tests are useless.

For being 'engaged', I gave a very long list of ways a third grade teacher
might get her students engaged. So, I agree that being 'engaged' is important.
But in the article the teacher was using being 'engaged' (A) in only a weak
sense (my examples were much stronger) and (B) was using her weak results on
'engaged' to excuse paying less attention to good tests on the basic material.

But on being 'engaged' and actually learning well and retaining that
knowledge, we've ignored the 2000 pound elephant in the room -- what the
student gets at home.

Yes, the US could use some national tests of basic material during K-12: The
US already has good tests at the end of K-12 (CEEB, SAT) and end of college
(GRE, LSAT, GMAT). But for the rest, keep that local at the level of the
family, teacher, school, and school board.

~~~
angus77
You're still bringing up the "tests are useless" thingy as if anyone has ever
said anything so ridiculous. All I've seen is the criticism of teaching test-
taking skills as opposed to content (and the retention thereof). I'm pretty
sure that's what everyone means by "teaching to the test". I'm pretty sure
nobody here (or anywhere) has argued against greater students having better
comprehension and retention.

------
NY_USA_Hacker
In

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2267731>

I argue that the article is just politics.

Still, education is important.

Since we are on 'Hacker News' (HN), there is some considerable irony in this
article:

In computing now, the workers in information technology commonly need to
understand subjects such as:

algorithms, programming languages, frameworks, development environments, user
interface design and development, programming for application installation,
operating system administration, networking and network administration,
relational database and its administration, code repositories, application
instrumentation, system monitoring, many utilities and applications, software
as a service, the Cloud, the social graphs and interest graphs on the
Internet, how to start a company, how to raise venture capital, how to manage
software development, etc.

The content of these subjects changes significantly each 12 months.

To keep up, workers need their own 'computer center' and educational resources
and mostly just must teach themselves, that is, without teachers. In
particular, formal courses are nearly useless because the teachers are rarely
up to date on this material.

This pattern has been rock solid for nearly all parts of the US computer
industry going way back to punched cards.

Net, the readers of HN overwhelmingly learn independently and are self-taught
using their own time, money, and effort.

So, claims by the formal education community in K-12 and college that their
classroom instruction is crucial for education is an ironic, ROFL at HN.

But HN readers are not the only ones: (1) An auto mechanic has to keep up with
the new systems on the new cars. (2) Workers in construction of houses and
small commercial buildings have to keep up with new materials, construction
techniques, and regulations. (3) Recently chefs in high end restaurants had to
learn about 'molecular gastronomy', 'tasting menus', and intricate 'wine
parings'. (4) CPAs and tax lawyers need to keep up on the tax law changes.

Workers in a huge fraction of the US economy have to keep up in their fields,
independently, via self-teaching, and most of this work uses their time,
effort, and money.

So, let's return to K-12: Basically what is needed from K-12 is at least, by
age 18, to be able to (A) read with understanding materials commonly
encountered, (B) write clearly, e.g., as well as on HN, and (C) know basic
arithmetic, percentages, areas, and volumes.

Now we come to some simple facts: Joe gets sick and stays home from school for
three weeks. His grandmother notices that he can't read so, in those three
weeks, teaches him to read. Later she does the same for (B) writing and (C)
basic math. This situation is common. Basically, normal kids can pick up the
3Rs with astounding speed. Just how they do it is not clear at all, and
research on 'teaching techniques' is not promising but also mostly not needed.

The K-12 system should be able to get this teaching done by the eighth grade.
So, to know, sure, give some tests. Simple enough.

But, K-12 does try to do more. Especially important topics include math
through analytic geometry and trigonometry, biology, chemistry, physics, and
history. For these subjects, sadly, the K-12 teachers rarely know enough of
the material to teach it well. Even the K-12 'experts' don't: I understand
calculus quite well, thank you (learned it at several levels, taught it,
applied it, published peer-reviewed original research based on it), but the
people who wrote the AP calculus materials did not. Sad. To learn calculus,
just get any edition of the dozen or so college calculus texts famous over the
last few decades, dig in, and f'get about AP calculus.

Yes, it would be good to teach some art. Sadly, apparently they don't. There
may be more on how art works just in, say,

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2246723>

In the article the teacher said:

"I’m used to wild and crazy discussions about amazing novels."

"Amazing novels"? Eventually I had to conclude that, according to the
standards of information safety and efficacy well established in the first
half of the 20th century, novels are at most for light entertainment so that
the set of all "amazing novels" is the empty set and not worth serious effort.
She was largely wasting time; it's sad she didn't know that; but I can believe
that most readers of 'The Daily Kos' take novels seriously. Those English
majors dragged me through six years of their 'belle lettre' nonsense when I
wanted to study much more in math and science. Bummer.

So, what K-12 does with these additional subjects is at best mixed.

So, net, our K-12 system is heavily for baby sitting. We shouldn't have to pay
a lot for baby sitting.

So, what about education?

HN Style Solution: Put good materials on the Internet. So have careful,
detailed text in PDF files. Have some lectures by some good people. And by
some experts, have some lectures with some intuitive descriptions that explain
the 'forest' so well that the 'trees' become mostly obvious.

With good materials, a good student could knock off grades 7-12 independently
in maybe three weeks per grade except that foreign languages typically would
extend the time. But, with good materials, can do well with a foreign language
surprisingly quickly.

Then for 'more' in fuzzy topics such as art, human behavior, organizational
behavior, civics, politics, just have some excellent lectures on the Internet
and maybe some fora.

E.g., for a curiously good start on both music and painting, in one stroke,
just spend right at 10 minutes with

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7prUFflX0_E>

Likely a good start on art history is the 1969 TV series 'Civilization' by
Kenneth Clark. There is also a book, but the video alone is fine.

Actually, for some good material in history, there are some starts: Some of
the best material on the history of the 20th century is in some selected
movies; it's not common to find better materials in print, and it is nearly
impossible to find materials nearly as good in K-12 or the first two years of
college.

E.g., the movie 'The Battle of Britain' is relatively good on its subject.
Actual dates, numbers of planes, pilots, and bombs per day along with
'logistics' would help but are generally ignored by all of the history
community.

The movie 'Midway' is relatively good on its subject, a turning point in the
war in the Pacific and basically for the reasons made clear in the movie. The
Charlton Heston character should be cut out. The timing, crucial, of the
actual events in the battle should be made more clear. Details on times,
distances, and speeds would help, yes, typically ignored by the history
community. Still the movie is relatively good.

The series 'Victory at Sea' was a lot of US flag waving but still does provide
a good outline of a lot of WWII.

The movie 'The Longest Day' is awash in 'entertainment values' but, still,
does cover the essentials of D-Day.

The hugely long:

William L. Shirer, 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi
Germany, Thirtieth Anniversary Edition', ISBN 0-671-72868-7, Simon and
Schuster, New York, 1981.

actually is surprisingly sparse on important content.

Sadly the biographies of Eisenhower and Patton are so far from the actual
details that they are not good. Bradley's biography is better (but nothing
like the character Bradley in the movie 'Patton').

Net, what K-12 is teaching in history is below what is readily available just
by watching some movies for a few evenings.

Net, for formal education in K-12 and the first two years of college, it's a
huge waste of time, money, and effort for all concerned and can mostly be
replaced by good materials (mostly not yet available but easily could be) on
the Internet, thus, letting students get on with independent learning in areas
of their interests and/or more advanced formal education.

People should say, "I want good education, but I'm not going to pay a lot for
what's in K-12 and the first two years of college now."

~~~
ennimbulator
>by age 18, to be able to (A) read with understanding materials commonly
encountered, (B) write clearly, e.g., as well as on HN, and (C) know basic
arithmetic, percentages, areas, and volumes.

Nah -- you aren't being radical enough!

For example, it isn't necessary to know the multiplication tables in order to
read mathematics at university.

The argument about basic knowledge (also known as 'gateway knowledge' i.e.
stuff you need to know in order to learn most other things), is _back-to-
front_.

If there's something you're interested in, you will learn whatever gateway
knowledge is necessary to learn it or learn it more fully.

e.g. football -- you will learn to count in order to keep score

e.g. multiplayer games -- you will learn more language in order to communicate
with other players

e.g. harry potter -- you will learn more english in order to read the books

e.g. selling goods at market stalls -- you will learn multiplication

In each case the learner will learn more quickly and more efficiently than in
the classroom. He will learn whatever it is 'just in time' and he won't be
burdened by stuff he doesn't need. And he will remember it, as required, with
no testing and no exams.

So, it isn't necessary to force people to learn basic stuff. We're almost
certainly wrong about what constitutes the basics, anyway. (Curricula change
very slowly, according to fashion, and are shielded from criticism.)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>In each case the learner will learn more quickly and more efficiently than in
the classroom. He will learn whatever it is 'just in time' and he won't be
burdened by stuff he doesn't need.

Part of schooling is becoming a member of a country's workforce. One must
learn some things to be a benefit to society - it is not just about self-
directed "hedonistic" learning (ie learning only to meet ones own perceived
desires).

Indeed with some forced learning one can come to understand that one's
previous desires were short-sighted and wouldn't ultimately lead to the
pleasure one imagined.

For example, some who watch Harry Potter movies might not apply themselves to
learning to read in order to enjoy the books; even if ultimately this lead
them to greater enjoyment of more varied literature and indeed more
fulfilment.

