According to our Superintendent of Public Instruction, a "below standard" teacher is one whose "students believe there are right and wrong answers to questions and work to determine what those are. [They] come up with immediate responses to questions and move quickly to the next task."
An "above standard" teacher is one whose "students know their ability to construct understanding and think reflectively about a problem is more valuable than correct answers."
I wish I was kidding.
Here's the Word document with her rubrics for "assessing teacher capacity."
Hat tip to Research Mom.
Posted by Marsha Michaelis at March 02, 2005 10:10 AM | Email ThisI'm starting to think of government schools as child abuse. Anyone else?
Posted by: Richard Easbey on March 2, 2005 10:20 AMIt also does not matter the quality of this deep analysis or the results, just as long as you do it. I just hope these aren't the ones that designthe next bridge I drive over!
Posted by: Jonathan on March 2, 2005 10:20 AMC. Oh
Posted by: C. Oh on March 2, 2005 10:30 AMI should have known that they'd try to ram this down the throats of kids in public screwals. Personally, if it takes you "hours" to come up with the right answer, when someone else can do it fairly quickly, I think you're not doing as good of a job as you should be. And further, to spend "hours" thinking about something, and STILL not come up with the right answer?! Geez.
I'd say that "below-standard" superintendents are ones who are not concerned with their students being able to obtain the correct answers to questions.
It's just the usual liberal hooey I guess...King County's election is "a model" to the nation, and they don't have to worry about WHY there were huge discrepancies... Liberals' intentions are good (supposedly), so who cares about the results of the horrible legislation they pass, right??
Posted by: Scott on March 2, 2005 10:31 AMWhen I was in school I didn't necessarily understand *why* I had to learn math etc. I just knew there'd be some serious talking from my parents if I didn't. Motivation enough.
What a bunch of clowns.
Sometimes I worry that we are not "covering" enough material...then I read this...no more worries.
There definitely are right and wrong answers both in text books and in real life, and to teach our children any less is wrong.
Thanks Again.
Posted by: Homeschool Mom on March 2, 2005 10:40 AMWhen it comes to the teaching strategy where 'students believe there are right and wrong answers' there are problems with this. Obviously with math you have a concrete foundation. 2 and 2 will always equal 4 no matter how much you talk about it. But this strategy often produces students who get A's through school and come away with minimal ability to think critically or explore concepts. I've interviewed hundreds of these types of people for job positions.
At the same time when only the 'ability to construct understanding and think reflectively about a problem' is promoted, these students tend to be unable to make a decision about a problem and when they do...more often than not they are wrong.
I choose the not-mentioned Option C. Direct students to think critically and reflectively to draw conclusions that lead to correct answers. This will help them learn what is correct while, at the same time, build their skills to develop solutions to new problems and situations.
Of course, while Left vs. Right argue over this we'll only end up with options A or B and employers will continue their long and painful searches for a qualified job candidate.
Posted by: Tracy on March 2, 2005 11:15 AMWe want children to be able to form opinions they can not just feel good about, but feel good about because they're useful opinions grounded in rational and logical fact.
Posted by: Marsha Richards on March 2, 2005 11:15 AMHowever ... if you do not have a basis of knowledge from which to draw your conclusions, then all the "thinking" in the world will yeild you nothing. Thinking, and Analysis, are only useful applications of time when done in pursuit of a goal ... (for those of you in Rio Olympia .. an answer to a problem). Once the answer is developed, the analysis can be suspended and other useful activities pursued.
Public schools are not where we develop our business leaders ... that is in college. Our public schools are where we should develop the foundation of knowledge from which future analytical thinking can be drawn. Reward GOOD analysis that yeilds CORRECT answers, and you will have people that you can teach advanced analysis techniques to in the future.
Posted by: TJ on March 2, 2005 11:19 AMMaybe this explains why dems just name call rather than coming up with solutions or alternatives or a rationally think out why what is being proposed is wrong? Now children are being taught that!
Posted by: Jonathan on March 2, 2005 11:25 AMJeff, if a student truly understands this, wouldn’t they end up arriving at the correct answer? Obviously, we want kids to learn the “why”. I think the problem here is that they are placing all focus on the process and not the outcome. If students don’t get answers right, have they really learned anything?
"Students know their ability to construct understanding and think reflectively about a problem is more valuable than correct answers"
Why isn't it "above standard" to "construct understanding" AND have the right answers? That's what really baffles me!
I'm not a conspiracy-theory person but good grief! It makes me wonder if there's an evil design to keep the next generation ignorant because the greatest threat to power & control is truth.
(Thank God I was home-schooled!)
Of course, counting on fingers (a time-honored process) to determine the product of 7 and 9, instead of simply memorizing the one-digit times tables, is more important when the calculator batteries die.
And by condemning the students to a lifetime of such silly processes, this bloviating pedagogue also condemns them to uncounted future hours of wasted time.
There is a whole kit of tools, formerly taught in elementary schools, that provide not only such efficiencies of time-consumption, but the built-in yardsticks and weighing devices that enable the intuitive detection of bullshit. Modern teachers who preach 'processes' are on the side of bullshit.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 2, 2005 11:40 AMThe WASL is a reflection of a communities culture more than a reflection of its schools.
Posted by: jeff scott on March 2, 2005 11:54 AMThis is being pushed by administrations that do not wish to see most kids flunk, although they came in with weak backgrounds and were never ever college prepared. Also forget that ATP crap. You would not believe how many students came into my freshman Chemistry classes saying that had high school chemistry and ATP no less. After the first exam (and no multiple choice crap for me) I realized that high school learning meant absolutely NOTHING!
I literally believed that 'we' knew better than the general public, so even if they didn't exactly understand what was going on that was okay because we were doing something that would make things better...I had never heard about the nanny-state. :-)
I am sure she believes very strongly in making things better for children, she loves kids and has dedicated her life to them. But I do think she is misguided in some of her views.
I will say that going through school I really wasn't taught to think for myself. I hated memorizing and regurgitating (sp) facts. I see now that even though I hated it, it is a necessarily 'evil'...at the same time I wish there had been more critical thinking. And I was in the honors program from 7th to 11th grade. Scary thought.
Posted by: megs on March 2, 2005 12:03 PMDuring my education I've discovered that there are different kinds of wrong answers. I learned that from a high school chem and physics teacher who was not the least bit mushy when it came to education.
My teacher had a penchant for asking random questions in the middle of his lectures whenever the topic brought one to mind. He had a whole range of responses depending on the quality of answer he received.
The absolute worst response was, "You've missed the bus." It meant that not only was your answer wrong, but that you'd failed to perform the thought processes that would have prevented you from making such a silly answer.
Better was, "That's an intelligent answer. Wrong." This meant that you were on the right track and that you'd made some reasonable deductions but that you'd missed some crucial step or fact that would've got you the right answer.
Best of all was, "Correct," which he would almost always follow up with, "Why?" Those who couldn't answer that question generally got a "You missed the bus" too, all of which convinced me that it is better to make an intelligent mistake than to get the right answer without understanding why it is correct.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on March 2, 2005 12:15 PMLearning is a compounding of knowledge and knowledge is created by walking the entire course as laid out in the simple steps above. Continual analysis by an individual to re-determine the 2 + 2 = 4 fact is what the Liberals, (NEA), continue to encourage and is a waste of time. That is one of the many reasons the Public Indoctrination System in Washington and elswhere is Failing with a resounding "F".
Posted by: Mike Wheeler on March 2, 2005 12:37 PMHowever, this approach does not work in grade school or high school for that matter.
The key component to critical thinking is a basic core of knowledge. As this basic core of knowledge grows, the level of critical thinking grows. That is why if you do not know your basic multiplication and divisional tables, you can't properly learn algebra.
The best way to instill thoughts, ideas, and principals is through rote memorization. Once you have learned certain things by rote, you can start applying them.
To put it another way - you have to learn to walk before you can run. All the good intentions from our colleges of education cannot change this either through doctrinal training or governmental action.
Posted by: Dennis on March 2, 2005 12:40 PMAs far as a conspiracy, I'd hope not but sometimes I wonder, can our leaders really be this stupid and still manage to dress themselves in the morning (although that might just answer the question on Hans Dunshee's part).
In any case, I too am glad that my parent's pulled me out of public school in 4th grade.
Posted by: Mark Griswold on March 2, 2005 12:55 PMWhich Bill Gates failed to complete (before he made his billions), if my memory serves me correctly.
So is Gates a bad (almost wrote "poor") exception to the rule?
Don't tell me that Gates is now regretting dropping out of college and shouldn't have started Microsoft, a wrong example for his children?
We also have other business leaders who dropped out college like Dell and Jobs, so what good is college for again? (I'm asking a rhetorical question here.)
Posted by: DannyHSDad on March 2, 2005 01:21 PMYou are right on. About half the millionaires in this country never went to college, most not completing high school. These people know what they want and build relations with people to get it and bring them and a lot of other people along with them.
Posted by: Jonathan on March 2, 2005 01:54 PMCollege degrees are about as easy to obtain as the prize in a cracker jack box. You need to show very little actual knowledge in order to pass. Most professors care more about abstract theories of thought than actually teaching.
My degree means absolutely nothing in relation to my ability to do my job. I've learned so much more on the job about critical thinking than I ever did in school.
There are professions that are going to require college, obviously (i.e. dental school, nursing, etc.). It's just that degrees like the MBA are so frequent that they mean very little anymore...dumbing down the requirements to obtain one doesn't help.
My favorite example of college degrees not always being necessary is The Apprentice...Book Smarts versus Street Smarts. The Street Smarts have won more challenges so far. Why? The book smarts nerds (I was one so don't be offended) have no imagination and have a very hard time thinking outside the box.
So, I guess I don't really disagree with you that much. A degree is very important in many aspects of the job market because you can't get a job without one...on the other hand, they don't really tell an employer how good you will be at your job. The piece of paper I "earned" (okay, I guess I did earn it, but it wasn't that tough) is only as useful to me as I put it on my resume. Otherwise, it's tucked safely away somewhere in my house.
Posted by: megs on March 2, 2005 02:13 PMI guess this is why History, Economics, Logic, and Rational dialogic debate all elude liberals. Most true scholarship has now become process-oriented silly putty for liberals who believe whatever people like Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Al Gore, and what was his name . . . Kerry might say.
Ever wonder who you are going to have to rely on to police the neighborhood, or provide health care or legal help? These people are all around us and they are produced largely by the manipulations of pedagogy. The baseless pathology of the left is much more understandable given this evidence of shameless incompetency.
And the clock ticks on. Scares the hell out of me, and I will never give up my firearms.
Posted by: Bob in So King on March 2, 2005 02:24 PMI'm so looking forward to the day when someone else comes in and decides whether or not my hormone-filled seventh graders "initiate learning, are intensely focused, and actively pursue knowledge and experience beyond what is required."
The basic problem with the standards is that they expect students at all levels to behave in the way adults would, given the same situation. So unless my 13-year-olds engage the material like 30-year-olds, I'm not considered a fit teacher. No wonder we have a teacher shortage.
I think you could objectively measure results with good scientific, valid and reliable tests that are designed to measure knowledge and skill. (I don't think the WASL is such a test.) I presume your students would not be able to consistently score well on good tests unless they knew how to apply themselves (combining knowledge and skill) to arrive at correct answers and form well-reasoned responses.
As a teacher, does that seem a fair and reasonable way to evaluate your ability?
Posted by: Marsha Richards on March 2, 2005 02:46 PMIt's actually a narrower form of learning. I'd rephrase it to be:
School proves that a student can figure out the teachers' expectation and get enough "points" to pass. Or to put it another way, you learn to take the tests your teachers write and learn how to work the system. Plus, you (or your parents) pay them to get a proof of this ability.
In the real world, customers pay you for a service they want (indirectly if you're an employee). You need to figure out the right requirements or else you'll starve to death (or turn to welfare, if you must).
Posted by: DannyHSDad on March 2, 2005 03:05 PMI, of course, did not engage in rote learning, but "thinking in a given discipline," meaning understanding the basic questions, concepts, methods of analysis and established conclusions falling within the scope of a given field of study. This approach includes ample opportunities for the excerise of curiosity and the development of reasoned judgment.
This is an approach that should be employed, where possible, in high school and earlier grades so that sudents would not arrive at college with a "just tell me what I need to know" attitude towards their education. We need to halt the "dumbing-down" of education by valuing kids' curiosity and capacity to think. Good teachers at all levels do this and they need our support
And I applaud you for this. Sounds great. Now how do you measure whether you were successful or not?
To ask it differently: Is it ever possible to objectively quantify this ability to "think in a discipline?"
I can tell if a child "gets" this (esp. if the child is one of my sons), but how can I convince you that he gets it?
Posted by: DannyHSDad on March 2, 2005 03:34 PMTest questions were always self-selected by the students from a group with answers restricted to about 250 words or so, penalities imposed for excessive length. The rule being: "I don't want to know eveything you know about this question, just what answers it and shows that you know why it's the answer." This approached worked fairly well.
Posted by: RLG on March 2, 2005 03:52 PMGreat post. Unfortunately it's worse than you think. Here is a great article in the most recent Imprimis, which is by the way an excellent resource produced by Hillsdale College that I urge all SPers to check out. Hillsdale College if you are not aware, is the only college in the nation to accept no federal funding whatsoever, and therefore the only College that really gets to establish it's own curriculum instead of what is federally mandated. Think: Real Learning.
It turns out that according to local expert Robert J. Herbold, we are way behind in producing engineers and scientists at the high school, university and PhD. level when compared to many other countries. This spells doom for the future of US business leadership if we can't stay in the lead technologically by drawing on a pool of talented young technical workers.
Here is the article: http://www.hillsdale.edu/newimprimis/default.htm
Herbold's thesis is that it all starts with the "New Math" type learning (or lack thereof) at the K-12 level as championed by Terry Bergeson and her ilk.
As an engineer, I'm proud of the intense effort that I had to put in to understand not only the concepts behind how to solve problems, but how to get the correct answers and then how to check the answer for validity. I'm going to home school my young daughter and son as much as possible in math and science above and beyond everything else they learn, specifically to counteract the backwards thinking of these Union Teachers that Bergeson is hiring.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 2, 2005 04:28 PMMe too.
Posted by: Dogbert on March 2, 2005 05:06 PMYou've confirmed my suspicion. I doubt if there is a way a machine checkable testing can ferret out thinking abilities.
Now, how does one prevent (or defend) charges of being too subjective in the test scores?
Posted by: DannyHSDad on March 2, 2005 06:06 PMAnother college in the country that accepts no federal funding is Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Virginia. My grandson attends this college so I'm aware of it.
Posted by: Susu on March 2, 2005 10:13 PMThe objection of "subjective" standards can always be raised, whenever there is a departure from a strict numerical scaling procedure. However,to those with an understanding of the questions, there is also an ability to judge whether or not it has been answered. Thus, a bit paradoxically, teaching the principles relevant to assessing success in being tested was part of the course itself.
I'd tell students that "A" students could not only understand the question, they could "see around" it and understand where it came from; they could even write their own version of the question. "B" students could understand the question, but only well enough to give a partial answer, though adequate as far as it went. "C" students have trouble understanding the question and give partial answers, usually with some distortions and misinformation mixed in. "D" students have serious distortions that are evident to everyone but them--one of the values of a take-home exam discussed in class is that it becomes a final teaching session where at least some of these confusions can be cleared up. "F" students write "answers" that, even with the benefit of the doubt, possess nothing that indicates understanding of the question or its answer.
This is "subjective," but with established criteria that came to be recognized by those trained to "think in the discipline"--a qualification that was meant to be imparted to every student in the class, though of course limited by the extent such knowledge was actually able to be assimilated during the course. Hope this helps.
Posted by: RLG on March 3, 2005 12:59 AMContrary to the view that children are limited to learning by rote, there is abundant research into children's thinking that reveals the presence of evolving forms of "child logic," first based upon appearances but later on logical properties than is evident as early as age two. It's called "pre-operational thought" or "concrete thinking" by Jean Piaget, a Swiss genetic epistemologist who spent many years investigating the intellectual development of children. Truly abstract thought only arrives with the onset of adolesence, but concrete reasoning powers are present that allows for teachers to meaningfully engage the student's reasoning, beginning around age six; the traditional age for entering school.
Adults make an unfortunate assessment of children's capacity to learn because they view them mostly in terms of what they "lack," not being adults and hence unable to enter fully into the world of adults. For those able to listen and explore the world from the child's perspective and with their progressively sensible notions, they possess a wealth of insights and investigative activity that enables them to process prodigious amounts of information by age five. It's been said that most of the world of experience that will ever come to be understood has already been encountered and to some degree made to be part of an individual's world by age five.
Posted by: RLG on March 3, 2005 01:31 AMYes. Thanks. Too bad I didn't have teachers like you -- I'd probably be less cynical about schooling.
On a related note, there are some schools like the following which use non-traditional teaching methods that appeal to me:
http://www.sudval.org/
http://www.awsna.org/
http://www.oakmontschool.org/
I personally prefer the Sudbury Valley method, or the educational philosophy of unschooling. (However, since my wife is the homemaker and prefers delayed academics, I can live with that -- anything but traditional schooling for my children.)
Posted by: DannyHSDad on March 3, 2005 03:06 AM