Hey check out what mr microsoft got to say about the teaching system.
YouTube - Bill Gates on creating great teachers
YouTube - Bill Gates on creating great teachers
For every 1 actual statistic 5 are made up on the spot.For every 1 good teacher, there are 5 shit teachers.
I am a statistician, do not question me.For every 1 actual statistic 5 are made up on the spot.
You will find that many lecturers will have a team of markers to help them out. Our lecturers never ran the tutorials, and it was the people that ran the tutorials that did the marking for the lecturer.If uni lecturers can research and publish and submit things as well as prepare for classes and mark exams with less holiday time, why can't teachers?
You're a fool Lentern if you seriously believe your parents aren't the exception to the rule. And I see you proposing no alternative to increase the standards of teaching or teachers, except a whole lot of 'blah blah BUT MY PARENTS "
Nobody is disputing that your parents are probably very good. They're also very rare.
And if you saw Kman's post re: performance measuring, you would have seen he proposed a regression analysis method instead of just looking at the marks of the students in a single cohort and determining the teachers worth on that alone.
Where did you pluck the figures from to start with.I am a statistician, do not question me.
A range of methods using a range of techniques, I think you'll find my results to withstand a 99% hypothesis test.Where did you pluck the figures from to start with.
Peter Debnam | Benchmarks for school performance | School performance tablesPeter Debnam said:The Greens’ amendment apparently survived because it came late, and was about an emotional issue in a night sitting where some MPs genuinely feared media insensitivity. Notwithstanding that concern, Parliament should have realised it was cynical and ineffective but, unfortunately, the amendment wasn’t rejected. If cooler heads had prevailed, most MPs would have instead endorsed a voluntary code of conduct for newspapers.
Now the debate will continue for another month until Parliament resumes and then we’ll see whether Rees sides with parents or with bureaucrats who have poor performance and worse resource allocation to hide – that is, the bottom line.
In the lengthy upper house debate, one of my Liberal colleagues, Charlie Lynn, said: ‘‘As a parent, I would have loved to have had a system that enabled me to look at the schools and find where I could best place my daughters.
"We know that parents are prepared to sacrifice almost everything for their children’s education. I think parents should have the opportunity to obtain as much information as possible to enable them to make proper decisions … ’’
I share Lynn’s view that parents want the information. And we all (MPs and families) would agree that any editor who seeks to sensationalise school listings would be quickly condemned.
It is important to remember the objective of greater transparency for government-held information, whether about public or private schools or other issues. More open government is a key objective of the Liberal Party. In public policy, transparency remains one of the few levers to pressure governments and bureaucracies to improve public sector and private sector performance.
Today’s state governments are lumbering dinosaurs in need of long overdue and substantial reform. In the community interest, more transparency is critical.
This is a straw man argument that the teacher's unions always put out. Noone disputes that there are other factors that influence students' performance but there are lots of ways to structure a system to minimize the influence of those factors. ie an often proposed model is to evaluate a group of students from year to year. Given computers it would be damn easy to track students marks over time. Say you've got 26 kids in a class you could easily work out the average amount they have improved since last semester with a fairly simple computer program.I'm against performance pay for a number of reasons, but I'm totally for the firing of shit teachers - if, that is, we can find a fair and accurate way to determine who they are and I haven't seen or heard any ideas up til now that would be OK. You can't base a teacher's competence on published marks because there's too many other factors influencing that.
Sure you could work out average improvement easily and that's fine. But I have a slight problem with it being based on summative assessments (tests, exams etc) which is how I have always been led to believe this averaging thing would happen. If you really want to see how students are improving (or not improving) then formative assessment is a better way to go, IMO. However since formative assessment is often not actually marked or graded (though it can be) it would be difficult to use this as the basis for performance pay, even though it would often be the more accurate ''measurement'' of the progress the students are making.This is a straw man argument that the teacher's unions always put out. Noone disputes that there are other factors that influence students' performance but there are lots of ways to structure a system to minimize the influence of those factors. ie an often proposed model is to evaluate a group of students from year to year. Given computers it would be damn easy to track students marks over time. Say you've got 26 kids in a class you could easily work out the average amount they have improved since last semester with a fairly simple computer program.
I'd also point out that plenty of professions have a performance pay component and in those jobs the people can't control 100 % of the factors either yet they live in the real world and don't have unions that can buy off political parties to protect their most incompetent members from the consequences of their incompetence.
What is wrong with using summative assessments?Sure you could work out average improvement easily and that's fine. But I have a slight problem with it being based on summative assessments (tests, exams etc) which is how I have always been led to believe this averaging thing would happen. If you really want to see how students are improving (or not improving) then formative assessment is a better way to go, IMO. However since formative assessment is often not actually marked or graded (though it can be) it would be difficult to use this as the basis for performance pay, even though it would often be the more accurate ''measurement'' of the progress the students are making.
If there is a way to represent student progress in terms of their actual progress rather than just their exam marks from term to term then OK, maybe we can think about moving towards performance pay.
There's nothing exactly wrong with it, I just think formative assessment is a more accurate and fairer way to do it, is all.What is wrong with using summative assessments?
Why?There's nothing exactly wrong with it, I just think formative assessment is a more accurate and fairer way to do it, is all.
There's nothing exactly wrong with it, I just think formative assessment is a more accurate and fairer way to do it, is all.
Both summative and formative have their place, right. But if we're talking about showing improvement, formative assessment is better suited. Say for example a kid gets 90% in an English test. That's fantastic, but that mark says nothing about where he started from at the beginning of the unit and where he went from there. It just says he got 90% in the end. You can't really judge how the teacher performed based off that, what if the teacher did nothing and the kid is just bright or lucky? Similarly if the same kid got 20% it doesn't prove the teacher is necessarily terrible. Formative assessment says more what the student can do and is learning to do, and implies more about how the teacher is performing in terms of structuring and supporting the learning of their students. For English, some kind of continuous reflective task where there is continuous feedback, revision, etc would show firstly that the student was actually learning something and improving from a beginning point, and secondly that the teacher was actively involved in helping this process along.Why?