Re: OT-ish: txt - Could it replace Standard Written English?

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:04:45PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> H. S. Teoh scripsit:
>
> > But I think in N. America, people are overreacting to it and have gone to
> > the other extreme, which is what Tom Lehrer is making fun of in that
> > quote. The correct answer *is* important in that sense: in the real world,
> > nobody cares about whether you correctly apply your methods;  they want to
> > see the final results, and the final results better be darned right.
>
> The pendulum is in the last few years swinging back even more violently
> the other way, to high-stakes testing.  "Get enough answers right, get
> your diploma: get them wrong, lose forever."  This cure is worse than
> the disease, because it actually makes more sensible teaching methods
> impossible.
Hmm. That sounds like what I grew up (and was dissatisfied) with. :-) Why
is it that people just can't strike a balance? High-stakes testing may
have its place, but you can't *completely* ignore term work. The most
that'll do is to encourage people to cram for finals and then have
everything they ever learned drain out their ears the next day. You may
get that piece of paper, but all it proves is that you're able to pass, at
least once, under conditions of high pressure. Rather than a more accurate
assessment of your normal, consistent capabilities, which it should be.

> In my daughter's former high school, the (egomaniac) principal decided
> to have everyone in Grade 9 take the Biology exam, which is not usually
> taken in New York State until the end of grade 10.  Because he is
> evaluated on how his students do on these high-stakes tests, he had
> *every teacher* in every Grade 9 class teach biology.
IMNSHO, this is not proper conduct for an educator. Which brings me to a
pet peeve of mine w.r.t. education... that is, that most (or many)
educators just plain don't care. They are there for their career, for
their fame, or for some other motivation, other than what an educator
ought to be preoccupied with, which is to educate and turn out human
beings who are beneficial to society. In my experience, the best teachers
and lecturers are those who do it because they like teaching, because they
*want* to convey their knowledge to their students. Even if they don't
have the best teaching techniques, their enthusiasm for their subject
matter means everything. IMNSHO, everyone else ought to be disqualified
from the field, because they have, to me, failed the fundamental
requirement of being an educator, that is, the love to teach and help
others learn.

> The English teacher taught biology.  The history teacher taught biology.
> For all I know, the physical-education teacher taught biology.
>
> This, I submit, is no way to run a school.
Absolutely. And I suspect after a few years of this, all the students
would HATE biology so much that none of them will ever get into that field
again in their lives. I know that my current indifference to (and
ignorance of) history and geography is due mainly to bad experiences in
highschool.

> Her new school is based on "portfolio evaluation", and has a waiver from
> the high-stakes tests.  Students graduate or not depending on the
> quality of the total body of their work (placing of course more emphasis
> on the more recent material).
[snip]

This is a *much* better evaluation of a student. Like I said, education
should not be about proving what one can do under intense pressure over a
relatively short period of time. It should be about producing people who
are able to consistently perform well under normal circumstances.


T

--
Gone Chopin. Bach in a minuet.

Reply