<p>I don’t accept arguments that revolve around issues teaching math. Why? Because very few people understand basic math, let alone anything resembling statistics (which is the essential subject of this era). I can point to CC: lots of talk about ranking metrics with nearly no understanding of the statistical issues related to basic thing like selectivity. By issues, I mean problems, as in the metrics are generally crap. But people are told them and they accept them. This gets at a fundamental problem with teaching math: people have a natural tendency to accept how a problem is phrased. One can argue, with reason, the teaching of economics is at core transmitting the ability to see past the way things look, to understand that intuition is often wrong and then, with numbers, why. </p>
<p>I know people who develop math curricula. Nice, intelligent people. Pushing a rock uphill that always rolls down. </p>
<p>So when you cite issues teaching math, realize they reach far beyond teaching. </p>
<p>I can say that other countries “solve” the problem of teaching math by using rote memorization. It’s amazing how much you can retain if you are told x system of equations and given y problem set and you apply those equations as you’re told. They in essence test you to determine what you have learned. The US tests differently: we generally test to discover what we don’t know by asking students to apply learning in an unfamiliar way or setting. We treat students as though they can all learn this stuff while other countries tend to teach everyone a set of basics - which can be pretty high level - with the idea that only a few of them will ever learn what the stuff really means. </p>
<p>This is why China can turn out huge numbers of engineers and math aware people. It’s also how they teach art: you draw this until you get it right. It’s frighting in a way to see the products of good Chinese schools’ art classes: the kids can all make nice pictures. Of the same things. Because they learned those by rote and did it over and over. Our system has a lot of cost: most people can’t draw, can’t even add or subtract well. Their system has a different cost. </p>
<p>My issue with US teaching has become more and more that we espouse beliefs about equality of ability that we really don’t hold. We need, IMHO, to put more emphasis on encouraging the best student to learn past the material. This would, I believe, generate real returns for our country. Note I’m not trying to limit education for others. The world is a big place. Very successful people don’t need to know chemistry. Many can’t write well. You certainly don’t need to go to college to be a real estate developer. The real estate billionaires I’ve met would laugh at that idea.</p>
<p>I’d suggest ordering a Singapore Math book say Grade 3 or 4. They don’t cost very much and they are easy to find in the US. I’ve even seen them in Barnes and Noble stores. </p>
<p>I work with many people from the PRC and their math skills are top-notch. We’re talking the computer science kind of math. Not basic arithmetic.</p>
<p>You do realize standardized testing won’t allow this.
And most schools who fail to make their passing numbers do so on subgroups - special ed students and economically disadvantaged.</p>
<p>My wish is for these tests to be administered to each state legislature that approves them. Let’s publish the results, and let’s base THEIR salary on how well they do.</p>
<p>The idea that instituting standardized testing means that intellectual inquiry and innovative learning must die in the classroom is bull. It’s a false dilemma. Is there any evidence that this isn’t the case, or are people just fuming?</p>
<p>The problem is that you spend so much time either testing or trying to teach to meet the metric that it crowds out everything else. In the case of the local public school that I mentioned, they were dinged for not making AYP. It’s not that they didn’t improve; it’s that they didn’t improve enough. So stopping class instruction to spend two weeks on testing is counterproductive. But they have to do it.</p>
<p>I see no problem with testing for assessment purposes, but from a behavioral science perspective, I see little need for the expense of testing every child when a robust sample will do just as well.</p>
<p>Finland, with the world’s best educational system, was once quite mediocre. There is no standardized testing of students. Their secret has been to elevate the status and pay of teacher to the same level as Nokia phone developer or Rovio Angry Birds creator. Only the best and brightest need apply. It’s like Teach for America, but for life–not just two years before you join Goldman Sachs. </p>
<p>But as is the case with Goldman Sachs, there is a heavy reliance on mentoring and on the job training.</p>
<p>I believe the only annual testing that Finn students get is when a sampling of them annually arrive at the top of the international comparison evaluations.</p>
<p>If Finland instituted standardized testing it would–as the title of this thread has it–drive out the best teachers.</p>
<p>There is also a considerably smaller gap between the best and worst students (as there is also considerably less income inequality when they become adults).</p>
<p>Incidentally, Finnish kids don’t start school until age 7, and have short school days and long vacations.</p>
<p>Why did Finland bail out of the TIMSS tests in 2000? Perhaps because they were ranked 14th in 1999?</p>
<p>“Finland’s economic growth will peak at 2.1 percent in 2015, before slowing to 1.6 percent in 2017, after a 0.2 percent contraction in 2012, the Finance Ministry estimates. Sluggish demand has prompted companies to cut jobs, pushing unemployment to 8.7 percent in February from 7.7 percent a year earlier. An aging population is adding to the strain on government coffers.”</p>
<p>"“After the decline of Nokia and the paper industry, Finland has been puzzled as to where growth would come from,” Tuulia Asplund, an economist at Svenska Handelsbanken AB in Helsinki, said by phone. “Even if no new Nokias emerge, this program demonstrates the government’s willingness to find new sources of output.” "</p>
<p>I think that Nokia helped Finland considerably but Nokia went from world-class to getting trounced by Apple (United States), Google (United States) and Samsung (South Korea). Interestingly, they tried partnering with Microsoft (United States) to try to recover but it’s not going so well (I have a brother-in-law that works there and it’s not a happy place - but they do give him a lot of vacation time).</p>
At our school district I see zero correlation between what teachers get paid and how good they are as teachers. Teachers get hired primarily based on knowing someone in the school district and having subbed there, and their pay is based on how many years they’ve worked. </p>
<p>At the time the kids were in still in school, there was a snarky first grade teacher who made about 80 grand and did precious little in class, while there was a really motivated new HS math teacher making about half that much who took the initiative on getting kids (even outside of his class) prepped and taking AMCs, etc. There were some teachers who clocked in and clocked out, and there were those who took on other responsibilities like state level science contests or taking kids to things like robotics tournaments held on weekends. Sometimes when the latter teachers retired, the school just stopped participating in these tournaments since there was no incentive for a teacher to assume additional responsibilities.</p>
<p>The system, at least in our school district, does not have any filters for the “best and brightest”, and elevating the pay and/or status will result in exactly the same crowd being there with higher “status and pay”.</p>
<p>I think it will be harder to ignore the better teachers available if there are more of them. So much could be seen at the time of hiring, or in the first couple years, yet schools will often stick with incompetent teachers and give them tenure rather than trying to find new ones, or because they can’t find them.</p>
<p>Where my husband works, many of the students are classified, which results in many inclusion classes which then need a second teacher who’s certified in the subject and in SPED. The most recent hired for science knows no science, is inappropriate around students, modifies tests for the SPED students by erasing one choice for answers, and is in every way incompetent. Yet he’s been hired back, and will no doubt get tenure, because he has the necessary credentials. hopefully, if ed schools and education attracted more top level students and professionals, that would be less common.</p>
<p>I don’t think there are any easy answers but I’m willing to give the idea of hiring the best and brightest to be teachers a chance. In the school system I’m most familiar with, the best teachers were very bright and pushed the students in varied ways, and made an impact. Their classes were known to be “hard” and were sometimes dreaded but the kids ended up loving the classes - because they were challenged and learning - and these are the teachers who remain legendary. In contrast, I have been on hiring panels where 6 teachers were interviewed for a position and the very worst (both on paper and in their interview performance) candidate was hired because “paying your dues” and who you’re related to - (especially in small communities) is often what counts not any ability or competence. They then go on to get tenure, and often the excellent teachers leave to do something else because they’re burned out and unsupported.<br>
It’s clear that evaluating teachers for merit pay increases based on the test scores of their students is fraught with perils, but I continue to think that using student evaluations (because even tiny kids call tell a good teacher) in conjunction with observations and a school culture that recognizes effort and innovation might be the way to go.
I do also think there is a place for testing - schools should be about children’s learning rather than teachers’ jobs and the hope is that standardized testing would make the task of the poor teacher more focused so minimum standards would be met. Having said that, why does it seem so difficult to come up with basic competency tests without them taking over the whole curriculum?</p>
<p>“Nokia will cut 10,000 positions by the end of 2013, the company announced today.”</p>
<p>“Nokia, which has been struggling heavily over the last several quarters, said the moves today will help it grow. However, investors don’t seem so convinced. In pre-market trading today, Nokia shares are down 10 percent to $2.51.”</p>
<p>Their shares were $42+ in 2008 so I guess the success of their company stock was used to amplify the message that their educational system was top-notch. Then they got killed by Apple.</p>
<p>The pay is a part of the puzzle. It is also a reward for the heightened demands in terms of higher education. Finland did not increase the salaries on a whimsical basis; it created the incentives for the brightest minds to attend and graduate in specialized subjects that help education. </p>
<p>Our system of selection is at the antipode of Finland’s. We offer incentives to recruit from the bottom and keep the starting wages low to balance the cost of tenure and lower performance and attendance of the protected many. We reward endurance over talent and dedication. We believe in a system of generalists and pedagogy over content mastery.</p>
<p>And, fwiw, there is a lot more to basic math than rote memorization, which is a poor bandaid. The key is acquiring the mathematical REASONING and THINKING skills. If those skills were acquired through mere equations, the US would do superbly. Our students know how to memorize and play the rote games just as others do. Our failures come from memorizing without really understanding the material. And the basic reason is that we rely on instructors that are equally deficient in that ability. Hard to teach something you hardly get yourself.</p>
<p>“Consider three other countries renowned for their educational performance: Singapore, South Korea and Finland. In each country, teachers are drawn from the top third of their cohort, are hugely respected and are paid well (although that’s less true in Finland). In South Korea and Singapore, teachers on average earn more than lawyers and engineers, the McKinsey study found.”</p>
<p>In south India, my adopted sister, one of the leading neonatologists in the nation, called upon for consultations in the entire world, makes less than a high school math teacher.</p>
<p>(But I think the real secret in Finland is that neither the principal nor the teachers are allowed to wear shoes.)</p>
<p>By the way, Kristoff rehashes arguments that are beyond dispute. Except that we have been determined to listen to the organized groups that simply care about the more money and less effort part. Teachers deserve a better pay. And we deserve better teachers. What we do not need is rewarding the lazy, the incompetent, and the union babies.</p>
<p>MA is rolling out a new teacher evaluation system. It is, in my opinion a reasonable and fair way to judge teacher performance. It is also, however, impossible to implement. Principals will be expected to observe a teacher 3 times during the school year. Right now, Principals do that twice a year and barely get evaluations written up by the deadline. As is typical of our state, it is another example of throwing stuff at the public schools with no practical assistance (or funds) to implement the mandate. I give it three years before they revamp it again, just like everything else they do.</p>