Something I ranted about this morning

Has anyone thought of a better way to measure teacher performance than how their students do on standardized tests? The idea that standardized tests are a good measure of anything besides how well students take standardized tests is absurd. How many of you take a standardized test every day at work and are paid based on the results of that test?

Much of the discussion here focuses on reforming schools and how to fix the teacher credentialing process, etc. These are good questions, but there are some far larger questions that Gladwell misses and that aren't discussed here as well.

Our students are in school longer than they've ever been before, why aren't their scores improving? Perhaps they should be in school less? No one ever asks that question because we need kids to be in school so their parents don't have to be responsible for them. Lets not forget that teachers, at a certain point, are nothing more than glorified babysitters. I am one, and the fact that I could lose my job pretty quickly if I didn't take attendance as opposed to the fact that I could show my students movies every day for years and very likely not get fired suggests as much.

Of the best and the brightest students we've had in the past ten to twenty years, many of them went into investment banking because they were taught for years that the most important measure of success is money. I-banking was a great place to make a lot of money. All these kids that scored off the charts on standardized tests and went to the best universities in the country just drove a giant financial machine off a cliff. Why? Is it because they had bad teachers? Is it because they were perhaps taught to work within a system and to not question it, particularly not to question it if it led to greater profits, the holy grail of our society?

Does anyone ask what we did wrong with these kids? They have high IQ's, they got straight A's, they got all the right stamps on their passport to financial success, but they completely missed a hundred huge clues that something was very wrong? Why? Were they not spending enough time in the office? Should they have had more math class and less gym class so they could really be prepared?

I agree with much of what's been stated here, the credentialing system is terrible and not worth the time and money spent on it, majoring in Education should be outlawed because most of it has almost nothing to do with teaching in the real world and being competent in the subject you plan to teach is far more relevant than a degree in Education, teachers ought to be compensated better so that you can encourage more talented and motivated people to enter the field and STAY in the field, all these things are true.

But there are larger problems that have to be addressed first. Why are high school kids in school at 7:30? It doesn't make any sense physiologically or psychologically, they'd be better off coming in at 9 and leaving at 2:30.

Is it rational to expect teachers to be able to adequately prepare for 4-5 classes a day every day with only 1-2 hours of prep time? Would any college professor agree to this? Would any manager agree to run 4-5 meetings a day with anywhere from 15-40 people who may or may not want to be there, and then be responsible to tracking the progress of each of those employees and adjusting practice based on that? And do that every day, every week for 180 days of the year? Of course not, they don't get paid enough to do that. So why on earth would they choose to do it as a teacher?

As long as we run our schools like factories where children progress down an assembly line according to bells that ring and we measure them by standardized tests that measure one form of intelligence, we will continue to destroy creativity and initiative in more than ninety percent of our students. As long as we pay teachers a pittance compared to professions with similar demands, we will continue to get a lackluster crowd of folks doing it with a few exceptions. As long as we think about schools as a way to get a certain product rather than a place to grow students into whatever they want/need to be, we will continue to fill the workplace and the world with a few bright successes and dump the rest into reject lots just like Detroit's has done with all the cars that don't pass inspection at the end of the line. As long as it is less expensive to run education that way, we will continue to do it.

The problem is that very soon we are going to have to pay the piper and very few people understand the scale of the problem or the enormous expense it will take to fix it. This financial meltdown is just the tip of the iceberg in comparison.