ATTN: The Marine at the End of the Bar...
Austin Ziegler
<<Mr Gawne, at one point last year, during a discussion on evaluating
educators, you offered to talk about Measures of Performance and
Measures of Effectiveness at a later date.
<<I'd like to take you up on that offer, and because I'm sure it's
thirsty work, I've brought along a bit of drinking money so we can keep
our whistles wet.>>
Fantome puts the sack on the bar. <<Keep 'em comin', Mike, for anyone
who jumps in, but especially the grand gent who made the offer.>>
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
-----------------* I speak for myself alone
Bill Gawne
> Fantome walks in carrying a heavy sack that clinks all along the way.
>
> <<Mr Gawne, at one point last year, during a discussion on evaluating
> educators, you offered to talk about Measures of Performance and
> Measures of Effectiveness at a later date.
>
> <<I'd like to take you up on that offer, and because I'm sure it's
> thirsty work, I've brought along a bit of drinking money so we can keep
> our whistles wet.>>
>
> Fantome puts the sack on the bar. <<Keep 'em comin', Mike, for anyone
> who jumps in, but especially the grand gent who made the offer.>>
Bill nods, indicates the Tanzanian Peaberry coffee, and pulls up
a chair at Fantome's table.
"A Measure of Performance (MoP) is a metric that indicates how a
particular system performs a task. Examples would be 'bits per
second' in computer discussions, or 'number of sit-ups in two
minutes' in military training discussions." Bill explains.
"MoP's are very popular. Most of the metrics that business and
government maintain are designed around MoP's, because they're easy
to collect and simple to understand. Of and by itself, that's fine.
The problem is that most of the reasons for collecting these measures
of performance involve a desire to infer Measures of Effectiveness, or
how good something is at doing what it's supposed to."
"Let me concentrate on the military examples to begin with, because
those are the ones I'm most familiar with when I've gotten on this
topic in the past. As some of you know, I used to work as a military
Operations Analyst."
"A Measure of Effectiveness for an individual soldier would be
phrased something like 'Ability to close with and destroy an
enemy.' Back in the time of Imperial Rome, when enemies of Rome
were plentiful, you could get a direct measurement of this as
a legionary spent his six campaigns under the eagles of his Legion.
After a fairly short time he'd either be a seasoned veteran of
several battles, or dead."
"These days, we aren't quite so quick to determine the MoE directly.
So instead we have a bunch of MoP's, such as the Physical Fitness
Test, and annual Rifle Range Requalification, to provide us with
information about how physically fit a soldier is and how well s/he
can shoot. Using that information, Commanders then evaluate their
troops and make estimates of how effective they would be in combat."
"This is where things get complicated. We know from direct observations
that a soldier can be in first class physical shape, and shoot expert
scores on the rifle range, and still be utterly inept in combat. Some
of the most picture-perfect soldiers will freeze up, or cry, or run
when they face fire the first time. So from this we can conclude
that the MoP's in use can't - and perhaps no set of MoP's can - really
provide a reliable inference of the MoE we really want to have."
"Another example of MoP vs MoE from military history goes back to
WW II, when convoys were going across the Atlantic. There was a
problem with German U-boats attacking the convoys and sinking the
ships One of the solutions that was attempted to mitigate the problem
involved hanging nets around the ships suspended from booms on their
hulls. The nets did indeed reduce the number of ships sunk in any
single attack, but they slowed the convoys down so much that the
U-boats attacked many more times in the course of a convoy crossing.
Finally, the nets were discarded and convoys just accepted the losses
in exchange for the speed. The net result was more of the cargo
getting to Europe after the nets were removed from the cargo ships."
"Now, shifting the discussion to teacher training, the MoP's are
grades on college courses, and scores on standardized tests such
as the 'Pre-professional Skills Test' and other similar tests
intended to measure a teacher's ability to teach. The problem is
that while it's arguable that decent performance on these metrics
is important for someone to be a good teacher, they don't 'span
the space' as it were. In mathematical terms, they are not
sufficient to provide a proof, and may not even be necessary to
it."
"So," Bill says, pausing. "Where did you want to go from here?"
--
Bill Gawne, in Callahan's as in real life. <ga...@pha.jhu.edu> |
Astronomer at Large - Retired Master Sergeant USMCR - Nothing I
post represents an official position of any organization.
On the web: http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~gawne
Austin Ziegler
> [p&e]
>> Fantome walks in carrying a heavy sack that clinks all along the way.
>>
>> <<Mr Gawne, at one point last year, during a discussion on evaluating
>> educators, you offered to talk about Measures of Performance and
>> Measures of Effectiveness at a later date.
>> <<I'd like to take you up on that offer, and because I'm sure it's
>> thirsty work, I've brought along a bit of drinking money so we can keep
>> our whistles wet.>>
>> Fantome puts the sack on the bar. <<Keep 'em comin', Mike, for anyone
>> who jumps in, but especially the grand gent who made the offer.>>
> Bill nods, indicates the Tanzanian Peaberry coffee, and pulls up
> a chair at Fantome's table.
[massive snip ... it's worth reading]
> "So," Bill says, pausing. "Where did you want to go from here?"
<<For the moment, I want to think about it so that I can consider this
carefully. I'm also undergoing a hell of a lot of stress at work so I
may be slow in getting back to you, but I'm definitely appreciative of
your quick response. I definitely have some questions for you, but I
want to consider them carefully -- because I'm after the difference and
how we can use them and possibly work with people to alter their
perceptions on this matter to move the whole education debate forward
in a useful manner. Long work, but something that can't even be started
without an understanding of these differences and where we can go with
them.>>
Fedor
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 May 2001, Bill Gawne wrote:
>> "So," Bill says, pausing. "Where did you want to go from here?"
>
><<For the moment, I want to think about it so that I can consider this
>carefully. I'm also undergoing a hell of a lot of stress at work so I
>may be slow in getting back to you, but I'm definitely appreciative of
>your quick response. I definitely have some questions for you, but I
>want to consider them carefully -- because I'm after the difference and
>how we can use them and possibly work with people to alter their
>perceptions on this matter to move the whole education debate forward
>in a useful manner. Long work, but something that can't even be started
>without an understanding of these differences and where we can go with
>them.>>
>
Fedor adds his share of bucks to the drink tab, and sits down to listen. "I
don't intend to butt in much, especially when the two of you are tackling this
topic together. I shall lurk. However, as the spouse of a teacher (30 years
and counting) I would like to add some RL application data.
"MoP and MoE fit in very well as an ongoing aspect of a teacher's career.
Continuing education requirements, and in-class observation and evaluation are
a fact of life for public school teachers. I suspect that many private schools
do some things similarly, I just don't have direct knowledge of that."
Fedor raises his glass to Fantome and the Marine. "You have a noble, difficult
task ahead of you."
---
Remove "thirty" from the address to respond by e-mail
This sig will self-destruct in five, four, three...
Bill Gawne
[discussing Measures of Performance and Measures of Effectiveness]
> "MoP and MoE fit in very well as an ongoing aspect of a teacher's career.
> Continuing education requirements, and in-class observation and evaluation are
> a fact of life for public school teachers. I suspect that many private schools
> do some things similarly, I just don't have direct knowledge of that."
"Yes, my experience as a student in Catholic schools would suggest
that they're used extensively there too." Bill says.
"The big problem that I see in the schools is that over time attention
shifts from concern with the Measure of Effectiveness to emphasis on the
Measure of Performance. To wit, 'Teaching the Test' in so many places
where there is a high stake in how well students perform on a given
test. True teacher effectiveness has more to do with inspiring students
to want to pursue study of their own, but nobody seems the least bit
interested in measuring that - probably because they can't."
"But anytime you see the sort of disproportionate attention on the
MoP's, without regard for the actual MoE's, then you can bet that
there is a serious problem."
> Fedor raises his glass to Fantome and the Marine. "You have a noble, difficult
> task ahead of you."
"Nah, not really..." Bill says. "I just get to try to define some
terms for people. Since I teach at the University level, I enjoy a
lot more academic freedom than my colleagues at the primary and
secondary levels. Beyond that, I am ultimately the harshest judge
of my own teaching effectiveness."
--
Bill Gawne, in Callahan's as in real life. <ga...@abs.net>
Ziactrice
Bill Gawne wrote:
> "The big problem that I see in the schools is that over time attention
> shifts from concern with the Measure of Effectiveness to emphasis on the
> Measure of Performance. To wit, 'Teaching the Test' in so many places
> where there is a high stake in how well students perform on a given
> test.
"Hear, hear! Mike, give that Marine his pleasure to drink, on me, when he gets done
talking." Ziactrice puts forth her dollar and sits back to listen.
> True teacher effectiveness has more to do with inspiring students
> to want to pursue study of their own, but nobody seems the least bit
> interested in measuring that -
"Yes. I don't believe anyone can be taught more than how to learn. What is learned
is fully up to the mind inside."
> probably because they can't."
"Wha-? Why not, Bill?"
"I think 'Study on your own' degree, after and before being taught seems measurable,
if not to a fully objective number, at least subjectively. How many books does the
student check out of the library? How many questions does he/she ask? How well does
a 'fact' get swallowed, or does it get looked over by internal logic and booted back
out for more questioning often? How innovative, creative, active is the student in
doing their own projects, sports, arts? Or would this to be too invasive of the
student's already well eroded privacy?"
Ziactrice
Bill Gawne
Zia:
> "Hear, hear! Mike, give that Marine his pleasure to drink, on me,
Bill smiles at Zia. "Bodyshots?" he asks, before turning a glare
against the DrinkZapper2000(tm) which is beginning to deploy.
"Don't even think about it." he admonishes the robotic smartass.
> > True teacher effectiveness has more to do with inspiring students
> > to want to pursue study of their own, but nobody seems the least bit
> > interested in measuring that -
>
> "Yes. I don't believe anyone can be taught more than how to learn.
> What is learned is fully up to the mind inside."
"Well, yeah... but the mind inside really does need to be lead
skilfully if it's to learn well," Bill allows.
> > probably because they can't."
>
> "Wha-? Why not, Bill?"
"Did you catch Many Hats' answer?" Bill asks. "It would involve the
psychometric evaluation of each individual student at a level that
school boards won't support, and that the law would find invasive."
Ziactrice
Bill Gawne wrote:
> [p&e]
>
> Zia:
>
> > "Hear, hear! Mike, give that Marine his pleasure to drink, on me,
>
> Bill smiles at Zia. "Bodyshots?" he asks, before turning a glare
> against the DrinkZapper2000(tm) which is beginning to deploy.
> "Don't even think about it." he admonishes the robotic smartass.
Zia laughs. "Thanks, Bill."
> > > True teacher effectiveness has more to do with inspiring students
> > > to want to pursue study of their own, but nobody seems the least bit
> > > interested in measuring that -
> >
> > "Yes. I don't believe anyone can be taught more than how to learn.
> > What is learned is fully up to the mind inside."
>
> "Well, yeah... but the mind inside really does need to be lead
> skilfully if it's to learn well," Bill allows.
"No. I don't think so. If you take a look through history, most of our
greatest scholars and inventors were subjected to the least organized, or
had only the barest bones of, formal education. Most were almost entirely
self-educated, some even to the point of teaching themselves to read."
"The trouble with being 'lead' never takes a mind anywhere humankind hasn't
already been. Becoming accustomed to being 'lead' is what is wrong with most
educational method's effect on the taught that I have seen (in my very
limited experience as a student, daughter to two teachers). It turns off
your mind; passively waiting for someone else to tell you the answer just
isn't a good response to making into habit, but there it is."
"Frankly, I started being bored often by third grade. I had to explain to a
teacher that 'fiend' was not a mistaken 'friend', since she had not read the
context of the sentence I had composed about some imaginary enemy for the
spelling test. By fifth grade, I was bored most of the time. In sixth grade,
I took to reading soft-back books under the cover of my desk, listening to
lecture at the same time, because otherwise it was difficult to pay
attention at all. "
"Now, the teaching of the basis of logic, the commonest forms of bad logic,
rhetoric (in the older meaning), and arithmetic, may well be the structure
needed upon which the mind can later build, or reason new knowledge as yet
undiscovered, but even as useful as these subjects are, they are not
strictly required.
>
> > > probably because they can't."
> >
> > "Wha-? Why not, Bill?"
>
> "Did you catch Many Hats' answer?" Bill asks. "It would involve the
> psychometric evaluation of each individual student at a level that
> school boards won't support, and that the law would find invasive."
"School boards are 98% of what is currently mucked up with the educational
system." Zia grumbles. "I believe if teachers had a free rein... and perhaps
good copy machines and enough paper, we could solve almost all the
'education problem' right there. Provided we got rid of the entire
administration and board. Dead-weight overhead. There has to be a better way
to run the school than those fat cats. Of course, you'd still have to deal
with the parents. But perhaps you could, if the board was gone."
"Pipe dreams, I admit. So. Anyways... maybe I'll go find something less
depressing to talk about..."
Ziactrice
Bill Gawne
> > > "Yes. I don't believe anyone can be taught more than how to learn.
> > > What is learned is fully up to the mind inside."
> >
> > "Well, yeah... but the mind inside really does need to be lead
> > skilfully if it's to learn well," Bill allows.
>
> "No. I don't think so. If you take a look through history, most of our
> greatest scholars and inventors were subjected to the least organized, or
> had only the barest bones of, formal education.
"If you extend history far enough, that's going to be true simply
because education wasn't available to many, and only those who
thirsted most for knowledge pursued it avidly."
> Most were almost entirely
> self-educated, some even to the point of teaching themselves to read."
"That is true, but I think it has more to do with conditions than
with individual abilities. I know it's a big part of the American
mythos to admire and respect the 'self made' people who went on to
do great things, but I've known a lot of people who have
accomplished great things and who did not have to claw their
way into literacy."
> "The trouble with being 'lead' never takes a mind anywhere humankind hasn't
> already been.
"It does, however, take you places that humankind *has* been, and
lets you see what was found when that was looked at before. Which
then allows people to go on without having to reinvent the wheel, so
to speak."
> Becoming accustomed to being 'lead' is what is wrong with most
> educational method's effect on the taught that I have seen (in my very
> limited experience as a student, daughter to two teachers). It turns off
> your mind; passively waiting for someone else to tell you the answer just
> isn't a good response to making into habit, but there it is."
"Well, that's why I said 'led skillfully'. Obviously people can fall
into the error of leading too closely, and thus discouraging original
thought and exploration. But without any leadership from good
teachers, it will take a student a lot longer to get over all the
initial hurdles."
--
Bill Gawne, in Callahan's as in real life. <ga...@pha.jhu.edu> |
Fedor
Fedor has been listening avidly.
On Mon, 21 May 2001 04:29:30 GMT, Ziactrice <ziac...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>Bill Gawne wrote:
>
>> [p&e]
>>
>> Zia:
[Bill, I think, originally said]
>> > > True teacher effectiveness has more to do with inspiring students
>> > > to want to pursue study of their own, but nobody seems the least bit
>> > > interested in measuring that -
>> >
>> > "Yes. I don't believe anyone can be taught more than how to learn.
>> > What is learned is fully up to the mind inside."
>>
>> "Well, yeah... but the mind inside really does need to be lead
>> skilfully if it's to learn well," Bill allows.
>
>"No. I don't think so. If you take a look through history, most of our
>greatest scholars and inventors were subjected to the least organized, or
>had only the barest bones of, formal education. Most were almost entirely
>self-educated, some even to the point of teaching themselves to read."
Fedor nods thoughtfully. "I think you two have the nubbin in the bull's eye...
or something like that. However, there is an element missing so far that I ask
you to consider.
"The effective teacher cannot currently be measured, because the true measure
of an individual's intellectual success is based in large part on hir
subjective self-measurement. I'll give you an analogy, and we'll see how it
flies.
"I am totally bored with pop culture. I see the occasional flash of
brilliance, but you won't catch me reading 90% of the best selling authors, or
95% of the best selling musicians. It has nothing to do with my native
intelligence or relative ability compared to others. It has much to do with my
own desires to be satisfied with a certain level of sophistication or
complexity.
"It started with my upbringing. My mother had complex tastes. And, while
neither of us had a college degree, we had an ongoing thirst for
sophistication. We statisfied that thirst rather rarely, living in the US.
"It's important to understand that this in no way denegrates or invalidates
those things that my mother and I were bored with. Those best-selling authors
and musicians must be doing something right. It's just not right for me.
"To complete the analogy: my mother and I *learned* this sophistication. We
were not born with it. And the key similarity between us was our ability to
learn well, to use our intellects effectively. We both had excellent formal
educations, and developed our 'how to learn' and critical skills, up to the
points that they were interrupted (for different reasons).
>
[snip]
>"Now, the teaching of the basis of logic, the commonest forms of bad logic,
>rhetoric (in the older meaning), and arithmetic, may well be the structure
>needed upon which the mind can later build, or reason new knowledge as yet
>undiscovered, but even as useful as these subjects are, they are not
>strictly required.
Fedor nods vigorously. "That, IMO, is the key to effective education, Zia.
Mike, any drinks that miss Zia are on me!"
[snip]
>"School boards are 98% of what is currently mucked up with the educational
>system." Zia grumbles.
[snipped to end]
Fedor demurs gently. "As the spouse of a public school teacher, I must
disagree. School boards, parents, school administrators and teachers must all
share the blame as well as the credit."
Fedor is tempted to add unions, but he's not willing to explore that kettle of
worms.
Michael Holmes
[...]
: "School boards are 98% of what is currently mucked up with the educational
: system." Zia grumbles. "I believe if teachers had a free rein... and perhaps
: good copy machines and enough paper, we could solve almost all the
: 'education problem' right there. Provided we got rid of the entire
: administration and board. Dead-weight overhead. There has to be a better way
: to run the school than those fat cats. Of course, you'd still have to deal
: with the parents. But perhaps you could, if the board was gone."
"MAYBE you'd have parents to deal with... but then again, maybe not.
Wanna hear something really depressing? One of my closest friends teaches
in the Boston Public School system... from her I hear all sorts of stories,
but one that consistently amazes and distresses me has to do with the
LACK of parental involvement in children's education."
"Parent-teacher conferences in which parents don't show. Open house
nights in which maybe 1 child out of 10 has a parent attend to talk
with teachers. And when she calls a parent to discuss a problem with
a child's behavior and/or learning progress, she's heard the parent
say 'listen, to I call you when she acts up at home? No, I didn't think
so. So don't call me when she has problems at school. During the
day, she's YOUR problem.'"
"Part of the time I think this attention on MoPs, standardized tests
in schools is simply because everyone, including some parents, thinks
it's the fastest and easiest way to STOP thinking about education...
'Look, we have a standardized test, problem solved, let me go back
to watching Seinfeld reruns... '"
"Underinvolvement is a serious, serious problem. Of course, I'm probably
preaching to a choir of parents who DO involve themselves in their
children's education progress -- and kudos to you, because unfortunately
you are rarer than you should be... "
--
"i don't know how to explain him, but he is happy."
-- kitten, describing /*, aka Mike Holmes
Ziactrice
Bill Gawne wrote:
> Zia, earlier:
> > > > "Yes. I don't believe anyone can be taught more than how to learn.
> > > > What is learned is fully up to the mind inside."
> > >
> > > "Well, yeah... but the mind inside really does need to be lead
> > > skilfully if it's to learn well," Bill allows.
> >
> > "No. I don't think so. If you take a look through history, most of our
> > greatest scholars and inventors were subjected to the least organized, or
> > had only the barest bones of, formal education.
>
> "If you extend history far enough, that's going to be true simply
> because education wasn't available to many, and only those who
> thirsted most for knowledge pursued it avidly."
Zia smiles. "My knowledge of history isn't that complete or encyclopedic, but not
necessarily so. The population of the world now is such that only half the people
ever born have died so far. However, education still is not available to the
majority today; a reason to be glad I was born in the USA."
> > Most were almost entirely
> > self-educated, some even to the point of teaching themselves to read."
>
> "That is true, but I think it has more to do with conditions than
> with individual abilities. I know it's a big part of the American
> mythos to admire and respect the 'self made' people who went on to
> do great things, but I've known a lot of people who have
> accomplished great things and who did not have to claw their
> way into literacy."
"True." Zia looks thoughtful. "I wonder how the ratio of self-educated to
formally would compare on a 'driven' vector."
> >The trouble with being 'lead' never takes a mind anywhere humankind hasn't
> >already been.
>
> "It does, however, take you places that humankind *has* been, and
> lets you see what was found when that was looked at before. Which
> then allows people to go on without having to reinvent the wheel, so
> to speak."
"Or, to keep using wheels when skis would work better, because 'that's the way
we've ALWAYS done it'.... " Zia rolls her eyes, having encountered this
philosophy a bit too often at work.
> > Becoming accustomed to being 'lead' is what is wrong with most
> > educational method's effect on the taught that I have seen (in my very
> > limited experience as a student, daughter to two teachers). It turns off
> > your mind; passively waiting for someone else to tell you the answer just
> > isn't a good response to making into habit, but there it is."
>
> "Well, that's why I said 'led skillfully'. Obviously people can fall
> into the error of leading too closely, and thus discouraging original
> thought and exploration. But without any leadership from good
> teachers, it will take a student a lot longer to get over all the
> initial hurdles."
"Yes. Unfortunately, I'm none to sure the 'good teacher' occurs often enough to
outweigh the negative effects of 'bad teacher'."
Ziactrice
Ziactrice
Fedor wrote:
> P&E
> Fedor has been listening avidly.
> >Bill Gawne wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >"Now, the teaching of the basis of logic, the commonest forms of bad logic,
> >rhetoric (in the older meaning), and arithmetic, may well be the structure
> >needed upon which the mind can later build, or reason new knowledge as yet
> >undiscovered, but even as useful as these subjects are, they are not
> >strictly required.
>
> Fedor nods vigorously. "That, IMO, is the key to effective education, Zia.
> Mike, any drinks that miss Zia are on me!"
"Oh, well, at least I'll be wet in good company!" She grins.
Z
Austin Ziegler
> Bill Gawne wrote:
>> Zia, earlier:
>>> educational method's effect on the taught that I have seen (in my very
>>> limited experience as a student, daughter to two teachers). It turns off
>>> your mind; passively waiting for someone else to tell you the answer just
>>> isn't a good response to making into habit, but there it is."
>> "Well, that's why I said 'led skillfully'. Obviously people can fall
>> into the error of leading too closely, and thus discouraging original
>> thought and exploration. But without any leadership from good
>> teachers, it will take a student a lot longer to get over all the
>> initial hurdles."
> "Yes. Unfortunately, I'm none to sure the 'good teacher' occurs often
> enough to outweigh the negative effects of 'bad teacher'."
<<Perhaps my own experience is far too unique -- but it couldn't have
been all THAT unique, since I know of a few dozen other folks who had
at least some of the same teachers. I had at least one good teacher at
each of the four schools I attended in four different jurisdictions. I
can't properly judge my Grade 1-3 teachers (I don't remember enough
about them), but my 4th grade teachers (two different schools) were
great. The same goes for my 6th grade teacher (though it's taken me
until the last few years to realise he was), and several of my 7-9th
grade teachers (math, computer science, english, science, a few
others). From the tenth grade, I think I had no fewer than six *great*
teachers.
<<In counter to that, I *know* of perhaps four teachers who were
crappy.
<<I also had parents that were involved in my education, and I took a
lot of initiative on my own.>>
Michael Holmes
: Bill Gawne wrote:
:> "If you extend history far enough, that's going to be true simply
:> because education wasn't available to many, and only those who
:> thirsted most for knowledge pursued it avidly."
: Zia smiles. "My knowledge of history isn't that complete or encyclopedic,
: but not necessarily so. The population of the world now is such that only
: half the people ever born have died so far.
/* blinks. He'd read something in the past year refuting that commonly-held
idea. What was it...
He does a little search, can't find the original, but finds something close...
http://www.spiritone.com/~orsierra/rogue/popco/data/everlivd.htm
"Basically, the question about world population and how many people have
ever been born requires a lot of educated guesses about population and
birth rates at various parts of pre-history. This link's discussion seems
pretty decent, and the estimate they come up with is that only 5.5% of
all people ever born are alive today -- by extension, 94.5% of the people
ever born have died so far."
"Which, they note, is still pretty remarkable when you think about it."
However, education still is not available to the
: majority today; a reason to be glad I was born in the USA."
"Agreed... or, at the very least, I'm glad I was born in a 'first world'
country... I'd probably have been just as happy being born in Australia,
England, Germany, etc... "
"But not Canada!" ;-)
:> "That is true, but I think it has more to do with conditions than
:> with individual abilities. I know it's a big part of the American
:> mythos to admire and respect the 'self made' people who went on to
:> do great things, but I've known a lot of people who have
:> accomplished great things and who did not have to claw their
:> way into literacy."
: "True." Zia looks thoughtful. "I wonder how the ratio of self-educated to
: formally would compare on a 'driven' vector."
"There's another spin on the 'self-made' mythos that America loves... and
that's that when you really look into the stories of even the most self-made,
there's always some other people supporting them in some fashion. It's
much more rare for a true 'lone wolf' to be the self-made success story
that is so loved in this country. That, I admit, can tend to bug me
about lone-wolfiness admiration... that there is a backdrop of a family,
a relationship, a neighborhood, a society, that DID contribute to the lone
wolf in ways that are underplayed or outright swept under the rug. But that's
one of my little hot buttons -- more of a 'warm button', actually. So
feel free to ignore the diatribe if it interferes with the general discussion!"
:-)
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>> > "No. I don't think so. If you take a look through history, most of our
>> > greatest scholars and inventors were subjected to the least organized,
>> > or had only the barest bones of, formal education.
I think that what you would actually find is that most of them were young
when they made their discoveries.
I think what you are proposing would need to be set in the context of
what formal education consisted of and how many people, even among the
educated, got more than a "bare-bones" formal education.
Even in the 1800s it wasn' that uncommon among relatively educated people
to not have a formal degree from a university, there weren't nearly as
many universities and they didn't grant nearly as many types of degrees.
>> "If you extend history far enough, that's going to be true simply
>> because education wasn't available to many, and only those who
>> thirsted most for knowledge pursued it avidly."
>Zia smiles. "My knowledge of history isn't that complete or encyclopedic,
>but not necessarily so.
>The population of the world now is such that only half the people
>ever born have died so far.
FWIW,from: http://www.spiritone.com/~orsierra/rogue/popco/data/everlivd.htm
This article is reprinted from the Population Reference Bureau and
suggests that there have been about 105 billion people on the planet.
[]
>> "It does, however, take you places that humankind *has* been, and
>> lets you see what was found when that was looked at before. Which
>> then allows people to go on without having to reinvent the wheel, so
>> to speak."
>
>"Or, to keep using wheels when skis would work better, because 'that's the way
>we've ALWAYS done it'.... " Zia rolls her eyes, having encountered this
>philosophy a bit too often at work.
<heh>
Or, "that's the way everybody else is doing it"
>"Yes. Unfortunately, I'm none to sure the 'good teacher' occurs often
>enough to outweigh the negative effects of 'bad teacher'."
Do you think knowing some basics about history, the Constitution ...
are useful for the average person? Is it good for society for people
to be moderately informed about these things? What %age of people do
you really think would sit down and learn half of what they are taught
in school if there wasn't a formal processes/framework for them to
pursue that knowledge?
I don't completely disagree with your views I just think you take it a
bit too far
Robert the Pilegrim
Austin Ziegler
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Bill Gawne wrote:
>> Fantome walks in carrying a heavy sack that clinks all along the way.
>>
>> <<Mr Gawne, at one point last year, during a discussion on evaluating
>> educators, you offered to talk about Measures of Performance and
>> Measures of Effectiveness at a later date.
>>
>> <<I'd like to take you up on that offer, and because I'm sure it's
>> thirsty work, I've brought along a bit of drinking money so we can keep
>> our whistles wet.>>
>>
>> Fantome puts the sack on the bar. <<Keep 'em comin', Mike, for anyone
>> who jumps in, but especially the grand gent who made the offer.>>
> Bill nods, indicates the Tanzanian Peaberry coffee, and pulls up
> a chair at Fantome's table.
Fantome returns his attention to Bill. <<Sorry about the theatrics just
over there, but I think that the discussion with Kris has also raised a
few vital questions that I'd like to investigate.>>
> "A Measure of Performance (MoP) is a metric that indicates how a
> particular system performs a task. Examples would be 'bits per
> second' in computer discussions, or 'number of sit-ups in two
> minutes' in military training discussions." Bill explains.
<<Okay, that makes sense.>>
> "MoP's are very popular. Most of the metrics that business and
> government maintain are designed around MoP's, because they're easy
> to collect and simple to understand. Of and by itself, that's fine.
> The problem is that most of the reasons for collecting these measures
> of performance involve a desire to infer Measures of Effectiveness, or
> how good something is at doing what it's supposed to."
<<Okay, so let me see if I can understand this. I'll stick with the
computer examples because it's best for me. When I measure my average
download speed, that's an MoP -- such as 60 kb/sec. From this, I can
attempt to infer my bandwidth -- which would be the MoE? I could be
wrong with that, but I'm not sure.>>
[...]
> "A Measure of Effectiveness for an individual soldier would be
> phrased something like 'Ability to close with and destroy an
> enemy.' Back in the time of Imperial Rome, when enemies of Rome
> were plentiful, you could get a direct measurement of this as
> a legionary spent his six campaigns under the eagles of his Legion.
> After a fairly short time he'd either be a seasoned veteran of
> several battles, or dead."
> "These days, we aren't quite so quick to determine the MoE directly.
> So instead we have a bunch of MoP's, such as the Physical Fitness
> Test, and annual Rifle Range Requalification, to provide us with
> information about how physically fit a soldier is and how well s/he
> can shoot. Using that information, Commanders then evaluate their
> troops and make estimates of how effective they would be in combat."
<<Okay, that makes sense, too.>>
> "This is where things get complicated. We know from direct observations
> that a soldier can be in first class physical shape, and shoot expert
> scores on the rifle range, and still be utterly inept in combat. Some
> of the most picture-perfect soldiers will freeze up, or cry, or run
> when they face fire the first time. So from this we can conclude
> that the MoP's in use can't - and perhaps no set of MoP's can - really
> provide a reliable inference of the MoE we really want to have."
<<Okay, so would it not be appropriate to use a ... mmm, virtual
environment? Think of the scene from _Men in Black_ where K and the
other potential recruits were in the shooting range. So, not
necessarily a computer environment, but a near-live fire exercise?
<<I guess some examples of a real MoE are when survival schools
graduates are dropped in a remote area with the responsibility of
reaching a "safe point" to prove their ability, no?>>
[WWII example snipped, but understood.]
> "Now, shifting the discussion to teacher training, the MoP's are
> grades on college courses, and scores on standardized tests such
> as the 'Pre-professional Skills Test' and other similar tests
> intended to measure a teacher's ability to teach. The problem is
> that while it's arguable that decent performance on these metrics
> is important for someone to be a good teacher, they don't 'span
> the space' as it were. In mathematical terms, they are not
> sufficient to provide a proof, and may not even be necessary to
> it."
<<Right. But a series of student-teacher sessions with various teachers
should be a reasonable MoE for initial teachers, no? And as I verified
with JW, why not a probationary period as proof?>>
> "So," Bill says, pausing. "Where did you want to go from here?"
<<Ultimately, I'd like to get toward how we'd come up with a useful MoE
-- or even an equitable set of MoPs that indicates the directions
toward a teacher's effectiveness -- for measuring teacher effectiveness
over time, both to remove or retrain ineffective teachers and
potentially reward significantly good teachers. Despite the hardline
stance against the use of student performance on standardized tests I'm
taking in the side-discussion with Kris, I'm not saying that there
aren't ways to solve this problem.>>
Bill Gawne
> Fantome returns his attention to Bill. <<Sorry about the theatrics just
> over there, but I think that the discussion with Kris has also raised a
> few vital questions that I'd like to investigate.>>
"OK..." Bill replies.
[...]
> > "MoP's are very popular. Most of the metrics that business and
> > government maintain are designed around MoP's, because they're easy
> > to collect and simple to understand. Of and by itself, that's fine.
> > The problem is that most of the reasons for collecting these measures
> > of performance involve a desire to infer Measures of Effectiveness, or
> > how good something is at doing what it's supposed to."
>
> <<Okay, so let me see if I can understand this. I'll stick with the
> computer examples because it's best for me. When I measure my average
> download speed, that's an MoP -- such as 60 kb/sec. From this, I can
> attempt to infer my bandwidth -- which would be the MoE? I could be
> wrong with that, but I'm not sure.>>
"I think that's right." Bill says. "Bandwidth is what you actually
need to be effective in communicating over the net. Well, bandwidth
and something actually worth *saying*..." he adds. "I've noticed some
folks who seem to have missed out on that last part. But I digress."
[military training]
> > "This is where things get complicated. We know from direct observations
> > that a soldier can be in first class physical shape, and shoot expert
> > scores on the rifle range, and still be utterly inept in combat. Some
> > of the most picture-perfect soldiers will freeze up, or cry, or run
> > when they face fire the first time. So from this we can conclude
> > that the MoP's in use can't - and perhaps no set of MoP's can - really
> > provide a reliable inference of the MoE we really want to have."
>
> <<Okay, so would it not be appropriate to use a ... mmm, virtual
> environment? Think of the scene from _Men in Black_ where K and the
> other potential recruits were in the shooting range. So, not
> necessarily a computer environment, but a near-live fire exercise?
"Training environments like that are just now becoming available, and
yes, they're somewhat more realistic. But they still are, in the end,
training environments. The US Army's National Training Center is
about the best one."
> <<I guess some examples of a real MoE are when survival schools
> graduates are dropped in a remote area with the responsibility of
> reaching a "safe point" to prove their ability, no?>>
"Yes, that's getting to a true MoE. But those schools are very
expensive to run, and can only be provided for a certain select few."
> > "Now, shifting the discussion to teacher training, the MoP's are
> > grades on college courses, and scores on standardized tests such
> > as the 'Pre-professional Skills Test' and other similar tests
> > intended to measure a teacher's ability to teach. The problem is
> > that while it's arguable that decent performance on these metrics
> > is important for someone to be a good teacher, they don't 'span
> > the space' as it were. In mathematical terms, they are not
> > sufficient to provide a proof, and may not even be necessary to
> > it."
>
> <<Right. But a series of student-teacher sessions with various teachers
> should be a reasonable MoE for initial teachers, no?
"Well, yeah, it *should* be. Assuming that all the teacher supervisors
are not in collusion with each other, then having several mitigates
against one of them getting a chip on their shoulder and marking the
student teacher down for being 'uppity' if they're more competent
than the supervising teacher. I mention that because I've known it
to occur."
> And as I verified
> with JW, why not a probationary period as proof?>>
"I'm not sure probationary periods - as such - do any good. I do
think that it's useful to issue an initial 3 year teaching certificate,
with permanent certification subject to successful completion of those
three years. But it's bad for morale to call that 'probationary.'
I'd think of it more along the lines of a tenure track college
faculty appointment, where tenure is only granted after x years
on the track."
> > "So," Bill says, pausing. "Where did you want to go from here?"
>
> <<Ultimately, I'd like to get toward how we'd come up with a useful MoE
"Good luck. I don't think you'll find a school district in North
America that would agree as to just what constituted a measure of
effectiveness for teachers. Just about every social ill seems to
be blamed on 'the education system' in one place or other, and as
long as we're a heterogeneous society, I don't think governmental
agencies will ever agree on these questions."
> -- or even an equitable set of MoPs that indicates the directions
> toward a teacher's effectiveness
"That, at least, might be possible."
> -- for measuring teacher effectiveness
> over time, both to remove or retrain ineffective teachers and
> potentially reward significantly good teachers. Despite the hardline
> stance against the use of student performance on standardized tests I'm
> taking in the side-discussion with Kris, I'm not saying that there
> aren't ways to solve this problem.>>
"Want a serious suggestion? Blind reviews of student knowledge
written by teachers who inherit them. While some students will
transfer in from other schools, the bulk will have come from classes
taught by known teachers in the same school district. The teachers
can rate each others' performance based on what they get by way
of prepared or unprepared students. Teachers can also act as a
self-moderating professional society by bringing pressure to bear
on colleagues who're producing substandard students."
"The trick here is to put enough anonymity in the review system
so that the potential for reprisals is minimized. I realize that
will be hard in small school systems where only one teacher gets
all the students each year. But I can think of no surer way to
make teachers accountable than to have the profession be self-
policing."
--
Bill Gawne, in Callahan's as in real life. <ga...@abs.net>
Austin Ziegler
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Bill Gawne wrote:
>>> "MoP's are very popular. Most of the metrics that business and
>>> government maintain are designed around MoP's, because they're easy
>>> to collect and simple to understand. Of and by itself, that's fine.
>>> The problem is that most of the reasons for collecting these measures
>>> of performance involve a desire to infer Measures of Effectiveness, or
>>> how good something is at doing what it's supposed to."
>> <<Okay, so let me see if I can understand this. I'll stick with the
>> computer examples because it's best for me. When I measure my average
>> download speed, that's an MoP -- such as 60 kb/sec. From this, I can
>> attempt to infer my bandwidth -- which would be the MoE? I could be
>> wrong with that, but I'm not sure.>>
> "I think that's right." Bill says. "Bandwidth is what you actually
> need to be effective in communicating over the net. Well, bandwidth
> and something actually worth *saying*..." he adds. "I've noticed some
> folks who seem to have missed out on that last part. But I digress."
<<Okay. That makes sense. A measure of effectiveness is looking at
something as a whole, whereas a measure of performance only sees one
aspect of the whole. It sounds like it's rather like the problem of the
blind men and the elephant all over again.>>
> [military training]
>>> "This is where things get complicated. We know from direct observations
>>> that a soldier can be in first class physical shape, and shoot expert
>>> scores on the rifle range, and still be utterly inept in combat. Some
>>> of the most picture-perfect soldiers will freeze up, or cry, or run
>>> when they face fire the first time. So from this we can conclude
>>> that the MoP's in use can't - and perhaps no set of MoP's can - really
>>> provide a reliable inference of the MoE we really want to have."
>> <<Okay, so would it not be appropriate to use a ... mmm, virtual
>> environment? Think of the scene from _Men in Black_ where K and the
>> other potential recruits were in the shooting range. So, not
>> necessarily a computer environment, but a near-live fire exercise?
> "Training environments like that are just now becoming available, and
> yes, they're somewhat more realistic. But they still are, in the end,
> training environments. The US Army's National Training Center is
> about the best one."
<<Agreed that they're still just training environments, but they lead
to a much better approximation for determining a MoE.>>
>> <<I guess some examples of a real MoE are when survival schools
>> graduates are dropped in a remote area with the responsibility of
>> reaching a "safe point" to prove their ability, no?>>
> "Yes, that's getting to a true MoE. But those schools are very
> expensive to run, and can only be provided for a certain select few."
<<Okay, that confirms that I do understand MoE as a basic concept, and
it points out very clearly that MoEs, while *good*, are likely to be
very expensive. When you're dealing with human interaction, the cost
won't just be monetary, either.>>
>>> "Now, shifting the discussion to teacher training, the MoP's are
>>> grades on college courses, and scores on standardized tests such
>>> as the 'Pre-professional Skills Test' and other similar tests
>>> intended to measure a teacher's ability to teach. The problem is
>>> that while it's arguable that decent performance on these metrics
>>> is important for someone to be a good teacher, they don't 'span
>>> the space' as it were. In mathematical terms, they are not
>>> sufficient to provide a proof, and may not even be necessary to
>>> it."
>> <<Right. But a series of student-teacher sessions with various teachers
>> should be a reasonable MoE for initial teachers, no?
> "Well, yeah, it *should* be. Assuming that all the teacher supervisors
> are not in collusion with each other, then having several mitigates
> against one of them getting a chip on their shoulder and marking the
> student teacher down for being 'uppity' if they're more competent
> than the supervising teacher. I mention that because I've known it
> to occur."
<<Oh, yeah, such things happen. Ideally the teacher supervisors will be
at various schools to reduce the chance of collusion and get a broader
impact. Frankly, I think most teacher candidates should observe and
teach both the slowest and the brightest during their training. After
all, the brightest kids aren't necessarily the easiest to deal with --
which is a common myth.>>
>> And as I verified
>> with JW, why not a probationary period as proof?>>
> "I'm not sure probationary periods - as such - do any good. I do
> think that it's useful to issue an initial 3 year teaching certificate,
> with permanent certification subject to successful completion of those
> three years. But it's bad for morale to call that 'probationary.'
> I'd think of it more along the lines of a tenure track college
> faculty appointment, where tenure is only granted after x years
> on the track."
<<I'll agree on the wording of it and the shift from an employment
probationary period to a limited time certificate followed by a
permanent certificate. I'll go out on a limb, too, and say that the
employer should probably pay for some sort of certification refresher
every few years -- not too few, because that's a waste of time, but not
too many, either. This one is touchy, because a certification refresher
is likely to insult the good teachers and won't encourage the bad
teachers to change their ways at all. Of course, that's the same problem
with teacher testing and ...
<<One of the problems with education -- and we find this to a degree in
Canada with medicine -- is that it's state funded, which means that
it's a political football. I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be
state funded, but this is a legitimate problem. We almost need a way to
make it so that education can't be dominated or controlled by politics
while still having public oversight and significant levels of
transparency.
<<I honestly can't think of any other profession where people suggest
(myself included) recertification courses *as a matter of course*
during a career. Then again, in many professions, there's an unspoken
requirement that one keeps oneself current (e.g., a computer programmer
taking an EJB course) to remain marketable. I don't really know what
the answer is.>>
>>> "So," Bill says, pausing. "Where did you want to go from here?"
>> <<Ultimately, I'd like to get toward how we'd come up with a useful MoE
> "Good luck. I don't think you'll find a school district in North
> America that would agree as to just what constituted a measure of
> effectiveness for teachers. Just about every social ill seems to
> be blamed on 'the education system' in one place or other, and as
> long as we're a heterogeneous society, I don't think governmental
> agencies will ever agree on these questions."
<<I'll agree, but I don't think that it's a matter of being a
heterogeneous society; I think that it's a matter that education is a
political football, and a popular one at that, because it can all be
done FOR THE CHILLLLLLLLDREEEEENNNNNN!>> Fantome rolls his eyes.
>> -- or even an equitable set of MoPs that indicates the directions
>> toward a teacher's effectiveness
> "That, at least, might be possible."
<<The chances are slightly better than 'slim and none,' then?>>
>> -- for measuring teacher effectiveness
>> over time, both to remove or retrain ineffective teachers and
>> potentially reward significantly good teachers. Despite the hardline
>> stance against the use of student performance on standardized tests I'm
>> taking in the side-discussion with Kris, I'm not saying that there
>> aren't ways to solve this problem.>>
> "Want a serious suggestion? Blind reviews of student knowledge
> written by teachers who inherit them. While some students will
> transfer in from other schools, the bulk will have come from classes
> taught by known teachers in the same school district. The teachers
> can rate each others' performance based on what they get by way
> of prepared or unprepared students. Teachers can also act as a
> self-moderating professional society by bringing pressure to bear
> on colleagues who're producing substandard students."
<<The problem with this is that, at least in my girlfriend's case, most
of the next year's teachers contact her for information about the
students -- and they look at the transcripts. Then again, they
recognise that they're professionals.>>
> "The trick here is to put enough anonymity in the review system
> so that the potential for reprisals is minimized. I realize that
> will be hard in small school systems where only one teacher gets
> all the students each year. But I can think of no surer way to
> make teachers accountable than to have the profession be self-
> policing."
<<I think, honestly, that most teachers want to have their profession
be accountable and get rid of the useless teachers. And I think that if
some of the suggestions that I've made -- and with a bit of input from
your side of the suggestion, we might actually get that.
<<Perhaps the major modification I'd make is whether or not the
prior-year teacher's remarks on the report cards/transcripts match the
experiences from the new-year teacher's. The student might be
unprepared, but if the teacher wasn't allowed to hold the student back
(for a number of reasons) and noted that the student is unprepared ...
that's probably a good thing.>>
Bill Gawne
> > "I think that's right." Bill says. "Bandwidth is what you actually
> > need to be effective in communicating over the net. Well, bandwidth
> > and something actually worth *saying*..." he adds. "I've noticed some
> > folks who seem to have missed out on that last part. But I digress."
Fantome:
> <<Okay. That makes sense. A measure of effectiveness is looking at
> something as a whole, whereas a measure of performance only sees one
> aspect of the whole. It sounds like it's rather like the problem of the
> blind men and the elephant all over again.>>
"Well... sometimes. There can be Measures of Effectiveness which
don't address an entire system. For example, the effectiveness of a
soldier in performing soldierly duties doesn't necessarily indicate
how fine a citizen that soldier will be off duty. But in the sense
that a MoE is a more comprehensive measurement of purpose, yes, I
agree with the analogy." Bill says.
[...]
> >> <<I guess some examples of a real MoE are when survival schools
> >> graduates are dropped in a remote area with the responsibility of
> >> reaching a "safe point" to prove their ability, no?>>
> > "Yes, that's getting to a true MoE. But those schools are very
> > expensive to run, and can only be provided for a certain select few."
>
> <<Okay, that confirms that I do understand MoE as a basic concept, and
> it points out very clearly that MoEs, while *good*, are likely to be
> very expensive. When you're dealing with human interaction, the cost
> won't just be monetary, either.>>
"Exactly." Bill agrees. "Sometimes, an actual measurement of
effectiveness becomes a destructive test. Such as ramming a car
into a barricade to prove how well it can handle the impact.
In terms of people, that sort of measurement becomes sub-optimal."
[...]
> Frankly, I think most teacher candidates should observe and
> teach both the slowest and the brightest during their training. After
> all, the brightest kids aren't necessarily the easiest to deal with --
> which is a common myth.>>
"Oh, I know," Bill says. "I teach physics. Remember? When I was
teaching at the secondary level, most of my students were considered
well above average."
[...]
> <<I'll agree on the wording of it and the shift from an employment
> probationary period to a limited time certificate followed by a
> permanent certificate. I'll go out on a limb, too, and say that the
> employer should probably pay for some sort of certification refresher
> every few years -- not too few, because that's a waste of time, but not
> too many, either.
"Well, if you were going to design a system from scratch, you could
just issue 3-year certificates forever. But the problem with that
is that you're not designing from scratch. Once a teacher has the
professional lifetime certificate, the gist of in-service training
has to change from preparation for recertification to ongoing self
education." Bill allows.
> This one is touchy, because a certification refresher
> is likely to insult the good teachers and won't encourage the bad
> teachers to change their ways at all. Of course, that's the same problem
> with teacher testing and ...
"Yep. Exactly."
> <<One of the problems with education -- and we find this to a degree in
> Canada with medicine -- is that it's state funded, which means that
> it's a political football. I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be
> state funded, but this is a legitimate problem. We almost need a way to
> make it so that education can't be dominated or controlled by politics
> while still having public oversight and significant levels of
> transparency.
"Good luck." Bill sighs. "I don't see any easy way to separate those."
> <<I honestly can't think of any other profession where people suggest
> (myself included) recertification courses *as a matter of course*
> during a career. Then again, in many professions, there's an unspoken
> requirement that one keeps oneself current (e.g., a computer programmer
> taking an EJB course) to remain marketable. I don't really know what
> the answer is.>>
"Well, in the US at least, I think that the Teaching profession should
have done what the doctors and lawyers did, creating a strong
professional organization that ruthlessly excluded marginal performers.
I'm not claiming that the AMA or the ABA are perfect - far from that.
But they have done an excellent job of weeding the unqualified from
their respective ranks. Unfortunately, the NEA took a different
approach, and is now paying a price in lost public confidence."
> >>> "So," Bill says, pausing. "Where did you want to go from here?"
> >> <<Ultimately, I'd like to get toward how we'd come up with a useful MoE
> > "Good luck. I don't think you'll find a school district in North
> > America that would agree as to just what constituted a measure of
> > effectiveness for teachers. Just about every social ill seems to
> > be blamed on 'the education system' in one place or other, and as
> > long as we're a heterogeneous society, I don't think governmental
> > agencies will ever agree on these questions."
>
> <<I'll agree, but I don't think that it's a matter of being a
> heterogeneous society;
"Look at homogeneous societies like Switzerland, or Japan, or the
Scandanavian countries. They don't have near as many problems in this
area, simply because with their shared cultural background they have
consensus about what they want taught in the schools." Bill says.
"Yes, public education is still a political football in those
countries too, but the complications of differing cultural expectaions
are not present."
> I think that it's a matter that education is a
> political football, and a popular one at that, because it can all be
> done FOR THE CHILLLLLLLLDREEEEENNNNNN!>> Fantome rolls his eyes.
Bill picks up Fantome's eyes, and rolls them back.
> >> -- or even an equitable set of MoPs that indicates the directions
> >> toward a teacher's effectiveness
> > "That, at least, might be possible."
>
> <<The chances are slightly better than 'slim and none,' then?>>
"Yeah, I think so."
[...]
> > "Want a serious suggestion? Blind reviews of student knowledge
> > written by teachers who inherit them. While some students will
> > transfer in from other schools, the bulk will have come from classes
> > taught by known teachers in the same school district. The teachers
> > can rate each others' performance based on what they get by way
> > of prepared or unprepared students. Teachers can also act as a
> > self-moderating professional society by bringing pressure to bear
> > on colleagues who're producing substandard students."
>
> <<The problem with this is that, at least in my girlfriend's case, most
> of the next year's teachers contact her for information about the
> students -- and they look at the transcripts. Then again, they
> recognise that they're professionals.>>
"That helps, I'm sure. And really, it's the professionalism that
will be the saving of the profession, if anything is."
> <<I think, honestly, that most teachers want to have their profession
> be accountable and get rid of the useless teachers. And I think that if
> some of the suggestions that I've made -- and with a bit of input from
> your side of the suggestion, we might actually get that.
"Good luck." Bill offers.
> <<Perhaps the major modification I'd make is whether or not the
> prior-year teacher's remarks on the report cards/transcripts match the
> experiences from the new-year teacher's.
"Sounds like a good place to start."
--
Bill Gawne, in Callahan's as in real life. <ga...@pha.jhu.edu> |
j.w.
Austin Ziegler wrote:
> >
> <<I honestly can't think of any other profession where people suggest
> (myself included) recertification courses *as a matter of course*
> during a career. Then again, in many professions, there's an unspoken
> requirement that one keeps oneself current (e.g., a computer programmer
> taking an EJB course) to remain marketable. I don't really know what
> the answer is.>>
In Ontario, once you have received your B.Ed there are Additional
Qualification courses available through the various Faculties of
Education. They cover just about any subject a teacher would want to
specialize in (the B.Ed programme itself does not offer any
specialization other than the grade range you wish to teach).
At the moment those courses are not mandatory. They cost about $900 and
the cost is payable by the teacher.
One of the reforms Harris is suggesting is that part of the review
process of teachers should include whether they have taken part in these
AQ courses.
This is one area of the reforms in which I actually agree with him.
j.w.
--
If I _did_ kill someone, it would probably be anyone who ever said to
me, "You could be so pretty if you'd just lose a few pounds."
Patricia J. Washburn
Max and GreyMan
>
> [p&e]
>
> > > "I think that's right." Bill says. "Bandwidth is what you actually
> > > need to be effective in communicating over the net. Well, bandwidth
> > > and something actually worth *saying*..." he adds. "I've noticed some
> > > folks who seem to have missed out on that last part. But I digress."
>
> Fantome:
> > <<Okay. That makes sense. A measure of effectiveness is looking at
> > something as a whole, whereas a measure of performance only sees one
> > aspect of the whole. It sounds like it's rather like the problem of the
> > blind men and the elephant all over again.>>
>
> "Well... sometimes. There can be Measures of Effectiveness which
> don't address an entire system. For example, the effectiveness of a
> soldier in performing soldierly duties doesn't necessarily indicate
> how fine a citizen that soldier will be off duty. But in the sense
> that a MoE is a more comprehensive measurement of purpose, yes, I
> agree with the analogy." Bill says.
GreyMan jumps in:
"It seems that Measures of Effectiveness tend to be more retrospective
in nature, that is, you can't evaluate them until the task is done, if
then?"
"In Software Engineering (now, ah'm jes' a simple country programmer,
but I've been exposed to it) they call them 'metrics'. Lines of code
per day would be an example. But those could be 100 lines of crap or
100 lines of readable, maintainable code... and that metric doesn't
reflect how buggy the product might be, or how free of design flaws, or
how reusable... Lines of Code metrics can in fact encourage
re-inventing the wheel and bloated code."
"The Measure of Effectiveness of a programmer is how successful his
product is, and how much the company has to pay to support or upgrade
it. It's hard to evaluate, and by the time you can, you may have thrown
away company money and customer satisfaction on a bad programmer."
Max prefers mousetricks.
Bill Gawne
> "It seems that Measures of Effectiveness tend to be more retrospective
> in nature, that is, you can't evaluate them until the task is done, if
> then?"
"Yes, that's a characteristic of them." Bill nods.
> "In Software Engineering (now, ah'm jes' a simple country programmer,
> but I've been exposed to it) they call them 'metrics'. Lines of code
> per day would be an example.
"An example of a Measure of Performance. Not a Measure of
Effectiveness."
> But those could be 100 lines of crap or
> 100 lines of readable, maintainable code... and that metric doesn't
> reflect how buggy the product might be, or how free of design flaws, or
> how reusable... Lines of Code metrics can in fact encourage
> re-inventing the wheel and bloated code."
"Yep."
> "The Measure of Effectiveness of a programmer is how successful his
> product is, and how much the company has to pay to support or upgrade
> it. It's hard to evaluate, and by the time you can, you may have thrown
> away company money and customer satisfaction on a bad programmer."
"So the question becomes: What kind of heuristic(s) will allow you
to estimate the effectiveness of a programmer? What constitute
reliable indicators?"
Gene Szedenits, Jr.
"Bill Gawne" <ga...@pha.jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:3B1509E2...@pha.jhu.edu...
> GreyMan jumps in:
[snip talk of software metrics]
IME, the various things I have seen touted as software metrics
are easy to calculate but have so little correlation with 'goodness'
that they are near useless.
> "So the question becomes: What kind of heuristic(s) will allow you
> to estimate the effectiveness of a programmer? What constitute
> reliable indicators?"
Long ago I read an article in Psychology Today (the magazine of
pop-psych-fluff) about the difficulty in choosing good candidates for
a job.
The researchers would ask a boss who their best whatevers were.
Then they asked them what qualities, talents, and so on a good
whatever needed. You can see it coming, can't you? Upon examining
the star whatevers, it was found they did not rate particularly highly
on the given list of qualities, talents, etc. OTOH they did have
some others in common, ones which were rather nonobviously
related to being good as a whatever.
Sorry I can't think of a good example from the article.
Gene