Bush's testing plan.

350 views
Skip to first unread message

rush...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 27, 2001, 1:22:05 AM1/27/01
to
Will teachers in all black schools lose their jobs if there students
fail to measure up to national standards under Bush's new testing plan?
I predict that this plan will bring the issue of race and IQ
differences to the fore. If you were a math teacher and to be
evaluated by a yearly test given to your students where would you want
to be assigned? Chinatown? Harlem?


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

alan truelove

unread,
Jan 28, 2001, 12:17:55 PM1/28/01
to
>Will teachers in all black schools lose their jobs if there students
>fail to measure up to national standards under Bush's new testing plan?
-----
Well, there is a precursor in Bush's own State where as Gov. he
pushed testing--
Hispanics fail High School exit testst at an alarming rate (& have to
go back in the Summer etc)
But the Houston Chronicle (the only newspaper) gives the answer:
It must be that the Hispanics are not working hard enough. They said
"surely no one would be stupid enough to think that thr Hispanics have
some kind of genetic deficit ..."
So now you know.
[uk.org.mensa added to ng's]

Eby

unread,
Jan 28, 2001, 12:46:33 PM1/28/01
to
<rush...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:94tpe0$8ft$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

I would fight the test if it was ethnocentric which many are.

Paul J. Gans

unread,
Jan 28, 2001, 1:04:31 PM1/28/01
to

The major problem with this sort of testing is that it
means that every teacher in the country will have to
spend a major part of the school year teaching to the
test. Since the tests will be in English and Mathematics,
a *lot* of other material will go down the drain.

This is a well-known problem with universal standardized
tests. We have them in New York State. And that's what
happens here.

It is a stupid, counterproductive idea that *superficially*
looks as if it is a Good Thing. It isn't.

It will be worse if the teacher's job depends on it.

----- Paul J. Gans

Mary

unread,
Jan 28, 2001, 1:06:49 PM1/28/01
to

Educators and local and state education systems have been
investigating these ideas for at least the 30 years that I have been
an educator.

Obviously to get the best gain score, you would want very average
middle class kids. These are the kids in which we are most likely to
see 1 years growth in 1 year.

If you have smart kids, they may already top out the test and show no
gains -- even when they do gain. The bottom students grow at the
slowest rate, and would not be expected to gain one year in one year.

So how do you measure "progress"? Is it progress when a child who has
only gained 3 months per year suddenly gains 6 months? Of course it
is.

But what measurements does this President propose? I haven't seen
that part of the proposal. However, it is amazing how those who don't
haven't a clue at all are doomed to repeat the repeated failures of
local and state education systems ----- inability to accurately
measure if "learning" occurred.

Mary

sarah clark

unread,
Jan 28, 2001, 5:50:29 PM1/28/01
to
In article <PaZc6.30$o45...@typhoon.nyu.edu>,

"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
> In talk.origins Eby <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
> > <rush...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:94tpe0
$8ft$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> Will teachers in all black schools lose their jobs if there
students
> >> fail to measure up to national standards under Bush's new testing
plan?
> >> I predict that this plan will bring the issue of race and IQ
> >> differences to the fore. If you were a math teacher and to be
> >> evaluated by a yearly test given to your students where would you
want
> >> to be assigned? Chinatown? Harlem?
> >>
>
> > I would fight the test if it was ethnocentric which many are.
>
> The major problem with this sort of testing is that it
> means that every teacher in the country will have to
> spend a major part of the school year teaching to the
> test. Since the tests will be in English and Mathematics,
> a *lot* of other material will go down the drain.
>
> This is a well-known problem with universal standardized
> tests. We have them in New York State. And that's what
> happens here.

in texas, the taas test is emphasize over all other measurements
of educational success. the strategy that the adminstrators
have taken in response, per linda mc neil of rice university,
includes practice sheets ad infinitum, and then holding
back the children in ninth grade, so that they don't fail the
test in tenth grade; in subsequent years those children tend
to drop out. clearly, test scores go up in such a scenario.

since the dropout rate is not a measure of the failure of the
school, the school is hailed as a success story.

so much for universal testing.


>
> It is a stupid, counterproductive idea that *superficially*
> looks as if it is a Good Thing. It isn't.
>
> It will be worse if the teacher's job depends on it.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans
>
>

--
sarah clark
the road goes on forever,
and the party never ends
---robert earl keen

alan truelove

unread,
Jan 28, 2001, 7:58:08 PM1/28/01
to
[in this thread, the unfair penalizing of teachers who teach blacks is
discussed..]
>I would fight the [Math etc tests which demonstrate poor black performance] test
>if it was ethnocentric which many are.
--
Again, invest the $60 in Jensen's "Aptitude Testing" --
He says you're wrong--
There has been no rebuttal in 15-20 years..
Now who are we going to believe, 100% of refereed and peer-reviewed
studies, or you ?
Blacks do badly on such tests because of their massive IQ deficit,
which is 80% genetically caused.. (or more).
It is true that the Educational Assessment bodies in both the US and
the UK have their heads stuck in sand .. (see my recent posts citing
asshole assessments of black failure in NYC, and in London boroughs,
i.e. blaming the schools and teachers...]

A strong back is a terrible thing to waste.
Alan J Truelove, PhD(Statistics, UCLA), MA(Cambridge)

Eby

unread,
Jan 28, 2001, 10:21:13 PM1/28/01
to
"alan truelove" <atru...@fulcrum.com> wrote in message
news:3a74bfc4...@news.earthlink.net...

> [in this thread, the unfair penalizing of teachers who teach blacks is
> discussed..]
> >I would fight the [Math etc tests which demonstrate poor black
performance] test
> >if it was ethnocentric which many are.
> --
> Again, invest the $60 in Jensen's "Aptitude Testing" --
> He says you're wrong--
> There has been no rebuttal in 15-20 years..

There has been many rebuttals of most of his articles. Maybe no recent ones
but why rebute something that has already been rebuted. Since then the only
thing I've seen come out that supports his hypothesis is the bell curve.
This of course has also been rebutted.

> Now who are we going to believe, 100% of refereed and peer-reviewed
> studies, or you ?

The peer-reviewed studies (which show he is wrong).

Read some of the following:

"Race and IQ" by Montagu (Expanded in 1999)
It has a few chapters talking about Jensen's findings and points to many
sources that rebutted them.

> Blacks do badly on such tests because of their massive IQ deficit,
> which is 80% genetically caused.. (or more).

It has been shown in experiments with other species (and looks to be in
humans) probably within the 0 to .2 correlation range (nowhere close to
Jensen's .8).

> It is true that the Educational Assessment bodies in both the US and
> the UK have their heads stuck in sand .. (see my recent posts citing
> asshole assessments of black failure in NYC, and in London boroughs,
> i.e. blaming the schools and teachers...]
>

I agree that blaming the school and the teachers is a bit oversimplifying
it. There are many factors playing a role in achievement and IQ test
performance. Read up on social reproduction and some sociology of education.

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 5:59:44 AM1/29/01
to
"Paul J. Gans" wrote:

> The major problem with this sort of testing is that it
> means that every teacher in the country will have to
> spend a major part of the school year teaching to the
> test. Since the tests will be in English and Mathematics,
> a *lot* of other material will go down the drain.

Yes, I know school teachers in Texas that rage against the idea of spending 12
years teaching a child to pass a standardized exam.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas


Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 6:02:11 AM1/29/01
to
sarah clark wrote:

> in texas, the taas test is emphasize over all other measurements
> of educational success. the strategy that the adminstrators
> have taken in response, per linda mc neil of rice university,

> includes practice sheets ad infinitum ...

Another popular stategy is for school districts to falsify their reports
of the tests' outcome. There was a big flap over one such incident here
in Central Texas about a year ago. One wonders how much more of it goes
on that doesn't get found out.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas


Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 6:11:05 AM1/29/01
to
Mary wrote:

> But what measurements does this President propose? I haven't seen
> that part of the proposal. However, it is amazing how those who don't
> haven't a clue at all are doomed to repeat the repeated failures of
> local and state education systems ----- inability to accurately
> measure if "learning" occurred.

Of course, the underlying question that needs to be asked is, do the people
proposing these plans really want kids to be educated? Clearly, lots of
people in the USA would be happier if the public schools taught children
bible stories and turned them out with just enough "education" to make good
factory drones, willing to work a wages similar to what could be obtained
by moving the factory to a third world country. Yet they still need a
testing scheme that lets them "prove" to the voting public that they are
doing a good job of educating the public's brood. You can expect to see
all kinds of ridiculous measurements proposed during the upcoming war on
education.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas


Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 6:22:32 AM1/29/01
to
I wrote:

> You can expect to see
> all kinds of ridiculous measurements proposed during the upcoming war on
> education.

"War on Education" -- I like that. I suppose context called for me to say
"war over education", but sometimes you just slip into prolepsis despite
yourself, and prophesy without meaning to.

Yes, I think we're amid a War on Education, and that it will intensify for the
next two to four years. It probably won't *ever* be over.

Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas


Richard Harter

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 7:09:32 AM1/29/01
to
On 28 Jan 2001 13:04:31 -0500, "Paul J. Gans"
<ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:


>The major problem with this sort of testing is that it
>means that every teacher in the country will have to
>spend a major part of the school year teaching to the
>test. Since the tests will be in English and Mathematics,
>a *lot* of other material will go down the drain.

Well, we certainly don't want students to be competent in English and
Mathematics.


Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
Economists are people who work with numbers
but don't have the personality to be accountants.

Henry Barwood

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 9:43:23 AM1/29/01
to

Testing is a politicians way of "curing" a problem. It does not address
the basic needs of schools, nor does it address the issue of how best to
teach students. By setting "standards" they assure the Bubbas that their
children will receive a certificate of education, not an education. The
name of the game is creating a cheap workforce, not educating the
populace. After all if they were actually better educated, they might
not vote for Joe Stupid come election time.

Barwood

ZenIsWhen

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 10:13:46 AM1/29/01
to
In article <3a755cb2...@news.SullyButtes.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>On 28 Jan 2001 13:04:31 -0500, "Paul J. Gans"
><ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>The major problem with this sort of testing is that it
>>means that every teacher in the country will have to
>>spend a major part of the school year teaching to the
>>test. Since the tests will be in English and Mathematics,
>>a *lot* of other material will go down the drain.
>
>Well, we certainly don't want students to be competent in English and
>Mathematics.
>

And, exactly how does practicing to take a known test equate to understanding
English and Math?

Rodjk #613

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 10:40:59 AM1/29/01
to
In article <3A755055...@mail.utexas.edu>,

"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Mary wrote:
>
> > But what measurements does this President propose? I haven't seen
> > that part of the proposal. However, it is amazing how those who
don't
> > haven't a clue at all are doomed to repeat the repeated failures of
> > local and state education systems ----- inability to accurately
> > measure if "learning" occurred.
>
> Of course, the underlying question that needs to be asked is, do the
people
> proposing these plans really want kids to be educated?

I thought the question was:
"Is our children learning?"
:-)


Rodjk#613


>Clearly, lots of
> people in the USA would be happier if the public schools taught
children
> bible stories and turned them out with just enough "education" to
make good
> factory drones, willing to work a wages similar to what could be
obtained
> by moving the factory to a third world country. Yet they still need a
> testing scheme that lets them "prove" to the voting public that they
are
> doing a good job of educating the public's brood. You can expect to
see
> all kinds of ridiculous measurements proposed during the upcoming war
on
> education.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
>

Paul J. Gans

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 1:10:05 PM1/29/01
to

You have a PhD in statistics? You think that there has been
no rebuttal to Jensen's work?

What planet are you from? Is the weather good there?

---- Paul J. Gans

Alan Morgan

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 1:13:14 PM1/29/01
to
In article <3a745551...@news.earthlink.net>,

And clearly the only two choices are genetic defects and laziness.

Alan

Alan Morgan

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 1:18:19 PM1/29/01
to
In article <3A75818B...@indiana.edu>,

I agree that testing doesn't fix anything, but I find it hard to argue
against the basic idea of a standardized test. If we want to know if
a school is doing well we have to measure it against some sort of objective
standard. Obviously standardized tests shouldn't be the only standard
and there are good tests and bad tests and depending on how they are
administered they may do more harm than good, but I think they have to
play some role in evaluating a school and its students.

Alan

Paul J. Gans

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 1:24:57 PM1/29/01
to


We've been over this before. The experiment has already been
done. All we have to do is look at countries who are ahead of
us in education. What do they do?

Well, they tend to have smaller class sizes and have national
curricula, not local choice. That's for starters. They also
provide students with a number of perks, like free admission
to museums.

So there are three things we must *never* do.

---- Paul J. Gans

Paul J. Gans

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 1:22:41 PM1/29/01
to
In talk.origins Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> sarah clark wrote:

Well, we can do a creationist calculation. A simplified
version would be this: only one in one thousand gets
caught, so there must be a thousand school districts were
that was true.

Don't ask me where the one in one thousand comes from, just
be glad that I didn't say that such cheating is impossible.
If I had, we'd have 1 in 10^150 gets caught and there ain't
that many school districts in Texas.... ;-)

---- Paul J. Gans

Paul J. Gans

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 1:26:42 PM1/29/01
to
In talk.origins Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2001 13:04:31 -0500, "Paul J. Gans"
> <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:


>>The major problem with this sort of testing is that it
>>means that every teacher in the country will have to
>>spend a major part of the school year teaching to the
>>test. Since the tests will be in English and Mathematics,
>>a *lot* of other material will go down the drain.

> Well, we certainly don't want students to be competent in English and
> Mathematics.

This method does not make them competent in English and
Mathematics. What it does is teaches them to take
standardized tests in English and Mathematics, an entirely
different thing.

---- Paul J. Gans

Paul J. Gans

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 4:11:19 PM1/29/01
to

> Alan

I understand the feeling behind what you have written, but I
think we have to learn to live with some hard truths. There is
NO WAY to measure "learning". Everything we propose measures
something other than what we think we mean by learning.

I have no quarrel with testing students. I do it myself.
But we already know how best to teach. Sadly, we find it
expensive and contrary to some of our closely held convictions.

For example we want parential control. And yet what do those
parents know about what should or should not be in a curriculum?
Most hate math and are scared of science. They want their children
to read, but they do NOT want them to read anything that might
shake their children's faith in what parents believe.

And we expect nationwide to find hundreds of thousands of excellently
qualified teachers willing to work for very little money -- money
we often would not work for. And we put them in lousy physical
facilities, overcrowd their classrooms, give them no supplies,
equipment, or modern books, and then complain that they are not
doing their jobs.

Check your community. Who gets paid more: sanitation department
workers or teachers? (No, I'm not bashing sanitation department
workers. They are worth what they earn and likely more. But
teachers are worth that too, and likely more.)

We in the US believe in free enterprise. Students see where the
money goes and draw their own conclusions.

National testing will not deal with any of this.

----- Paul J. Gans

Henry Barwood

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 5:08:52 PM1/29/01
to

"Paul J. Gans" wrote:


> I understand the feeling behind what you have written, but I
> think we have to learn to live with some hard truths. There is
> NO WAY to measure "learning". Everything we propose measures
> something other than what we think we mean by learning.

Well said, I couldn't agree more!

Henry Barwood

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 5:07:20 PM1/29/01
to

The big problem with these politically motivated "standard" tests is
that they do not measure real knowledge, nor do they accurately predict
success in either life or learning. Most of them test "minimum
competence" in the basic subjects and are exceptionally biased and
ethnocentric. We as a nation like to put the stamp of approval on
everything and "everybody loves a winner". Quick, how many
superachievers in science or industry were really exceptional students?
Fact is that those who excel often are boxed in by an educational system
that values conformity rather than curiosity.

I speak from experience in this. I was a square peg in K-12 and barely
graduated High School. After struggling in college for several years, I
finally reached a point where my curiosity matched the subject matter.
In just a few years I turned my "grades" around and eventually went on
to earn a doctorate in clay mineralogy. School was a horror to me
because of the way it was taught and because I did not perform well on
"standardized" tests. I succeeded, but many did not and still do not.
Bush's plan is a nightmare and only continues a long National obsession
with conservatism that will cost us as a nation for many years to come.

Yes, this is my opinion!

Barwood

WickedDyno

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 5:13:56 PM1/29/01
to
In article <3A75818B...@indiana.edu>, Henry Barwood
<hbar...@indiana.edu> wrote:

Too much education also hurts the economy -- it leads to bad (i.e.
informed) consumers.

--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |

John Gilmer

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 10:21:51 AM1/30/01
to

>
> Testing is a politicians way of "curing" a problem. It does not address
> the basic needs of schools, nor does it address the issue of how best to
> teach students. By setting "standards" they assure the Bubbas that their
> children will receive a certificate of education, not an education. The
> name of the game is creating a cheap workforce, not educating the
> populace. After all if they were actually better educated, they might
> not vote for Joe Stupid come election time.

It is fun to note that the "smartest" voting group (the jews) and the
"dumbest" (the "innercity" blacks) voted the same way this last election!

SomeBlokeCalledRapunzelSyndrome

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 10:23:59 AM1/30/01
to
alan truelove wrote:

> [uk.org.mensa added to ng's]

WHY?????
You appear to be discussing something to do with the colonials.
We don't give a shit.
Fuck off.

Henry Barwood

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 11:22:13 AM1/30/01
to

I would say your post reinforces the concept that the dumbest voters
voted for Bush.

Barwood

Mike Owen

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 2:01:09 PM1/30/01
to

Gosh, it sounds almost as if public schools could do with a dose of,
oh what's it called? Competition?

Geoff Sheffield

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 2:22:23 PM1/30/01
to
In article <K%kd6.33$Ce6...@typhoon.nyu.edu>,

"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:

This seems to me to be one of the major issues with regard to
education, along with the diminished social status of teachers.

But solving this problem will involve more than just raising
salaries. Do you think that increasing salaries will attract
and keep more qualified people, or will we just end up with the
same group of people we have now at a greater cost? There
has to be a way to effectively evaluate job performance, and
reward people based on performance and not seniority.

And we need to change attitudes toward teaching. I'm sure
that some of your colleagues are more interested in teaching
than research. If they were given the same salary, would
they be interested in teaching high school, or would they
rather teach at NYU?

> And we put them in lousy physical
> facilities, overcrowd their classrooms, give them no supplies,
> equipment, or modern books, and then complain that they are not
> doing their jobs.
>
> Check your community. Who gets paid more: sanitation department
> workers or teachers? (No, I'm not bashing sanitation department
> workers. They are worth what they earn and likely more. But
> teachers are worth that too, and likely more.)
>
> We in the US believe in free enterprise. Students see where the
> money goes and draw their own conclusions.
>
> National testing will not deal with any of this.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans
>
>

--
Geoff Sheffield

WickedDyno

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 2:35:28 PM1/30/01
to
In article <3A770F71...@bellsouth.net>, Mike Owen
<m_o...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

It sounds more like public schools could do with, oh, say, enough money
to actually educate the children they're supposed to educate.

Alan Morgan

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 2:41:18 PM1/30/01
to
In article <K%kd6.33$Ce6...@typhoon.nyu.edu>,
Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>I understand the feeling behind what you have written, but I
>think we have to learn to live with some hard truths. There is
>NO WAY to measure "learning". Everything we propose measures
>something other than what we think we mean by learning.

That doesn't mean that it can't be a good approximation. Take
IQ tests, for example. IQ tests obviously don't measure intelligence,
they measure your ability to take IQ tests. You know this and I know
this (I'm not sure if Marilyn vos Savant does, but that's a different
matter). Yet I find that most of the people that I consider "intelligent"
also have high IQ scores. There are exceptions of course (Richard
Feynman, who supposedly had an IQ of 130, but claimed that it was
all for physics. Heck, he might even have been right).

An imperfect tool is better than no tool at all, although if you
believe that the tool is better than it actually is you could
be in real trouble (and I admit that this could well happen with
standardized testing and we should make every effort to ensure that
it doesn't).

>I have no quarrel with testing students. I do it myself.
>But we already know how best to teach. Sadly, we find it
>expensive and contrary to some of our closely held convictions.
>
>For example we want parential control. And yet what do those
>parents know about what should or should not be in a curriculum?
>Most hate math and are scared of science. They want their children
>to read, but they do NOT want them to read anything that might
>shake their children's faith in what parents believe.

I suspect that this is a minority view actually (I hope it is. I
normally associate that attitude with the religious right). A bigger
problem, IMHO, is that most parents simply don't care. They aren't
interested in what, or if, their kids are learning. They don't really,
in their very heart of hearts, think that education is important.

>And we expect nationwide to find hundreds of thousands of excellently
>qualified teachers willing to work for very little money -- money
>we often would not work for. And we put them in lousy physical
>facilities, overcrowd their classrooms, give them no supplies,
>equipment, or modern books, and then complain that they are not
>doing their jobs.

No argument here.

>Check your community. Who gets paid more: sanitation department
>workers or teachers? (No, I'm not bashing sanitation department
>workers. They are worth what they earn and likely more. But
>teachers are worth that too, and likely more.)

Sigh. Yeah. So where does this money come from? In general, I
think, it has to come from the Feds because local communities vary
too much in their ability to provide funds (and I don't want to
through this open to private industry. This is too important to
leave up to the profit motive). The Feds, not surprisingly, want
to make sure that the bone-heads in charge of the local school
districts don't mismanage the money and that the money goes to
teachers and supplies rather than the bureaucracy. How do they
ensure this? Even if you keep the Feds out of it and have the
states pool all the money from the various communities, they
will still want the same assurance (and although it is a little
easier, since they are closer to the problem, it's not trivial).

I don't see that you get away with the need for testing.

>We in the US believe in free enterprise. Students see where the
>money goes and draw their own conclusions.
>
>National testing will not deal with any of this.

National testing isn't supposed to and I would argue strenuously against
someone who believed that national testing was a solution to any
of the problems we face. National testing is an imperfect tool that
gives us some indication as to whether or not we are succeeding.

Some people have mentioned that we should look at other countries to
see what they do and use them as an example of how to improve our
school system. Great idea. How do we know that these other countries
are doing well? Their student are better educated. How do we know their
students are better educated? Probably from test results.

Alan

Henry Barwood

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 3:02:58 PM1/30/01
to

Mike Owen wrote:

> Gosh, it sounds almost as if public schools could do with a dose of,
> oh what's it called? Competition?

So, may I conclude you would prefer to have your children taught by the
low bidder?

Barwood

David Jensen

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 3:05:30 PM1/30/01
to

"Alan Morgan" <amo...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:9575cd$bjp$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...

> National testing isn't supposed to and I would argue strenuously against
> someone who believed that national testing was a solution to any
> of the problems we face. National testing is an imperfect tool that
> gives us some indication as to whether or not we are succeeding.

The only thing that national testing can do is test the teachers, schools
and districts. Standardized tests are great for comparing the results of
different approaches, but it would be very foolish to let the future of a
child depend on the results of one standardized test. Uh-h-h-h, any bets
whether ETS takes over the project?

> Some people have mentioned that we should look at other countries to
> see what they do and use them as an example of how to improve our
> school system. Great idea. How do we know that these other countries
> are doing well? Their student are better educated. How do we know their
> students are better educated? Probably from test results.

Oddly we manage to run colleges that are world class.


Alan Morgan

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 3:09:55 PM1/30/01
to
In article <3A770F71...@bellsouth.net>,
Mike Owen <m_o...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[snip]

>Gosh, it sounds almost as if public schools could do with a dose of,
>oh what's it called? Competition?

I don't know how effective competition would be. There are plenty of
industries in which a free market doesn't improve matters for the
consumers and education is very likely one of them. One main problem
that I see is that I don't get the same choice in schools that someone
living in a different state does because I have to choose a school that
is near me. For many other consumer goods we will all have roughly
the same set of choices (if Pepsi appears in a market region and has it
to itself for a while, you can get that Coke will be showing up soon).
Schools require an adminstration and teachers and supplies and you can't
just stamp out copies of a successful school all over the US. Another
problem is that I just use education once and the benefit I see from it
appears much later. Headache remedies need to work because I'm going to
use them throughout my life and I expect quick results. High school
education stopped for me at 17 and I didn't reap the benefits from it
until a few years later. This sort of separation of use and benefit
means that the market doesn't have to be anywhere near as efficient as
it does in other industries.

Alan

Noelie S. Alito

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 5:00:26 PM1/30/01
to

David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:9576pc$3ha$1...@grandcanyon.binc.net...

There are a lot of factors at play here. It seems to me that
"world class" status is more likely in an English-language
school, since that (whore) language English has become
the de facto international language. Also, US colleges (at
least, any which could remotely be called "world class")
represent a small fraction of the output of the US's primary
and secondary school system. Also, the "status" of a
college can be maintained with money from an endowment
grown on a history of generous alumni donations, typically
successful businessmen (hint: well-educated scientists are
often so po' they can't pay attention). That money buys
facilities and faculty. Many of the faculty might never
attended that particular school and may be high-quality
individuals culled from an international pool of candidates.
Also, many of the "world class" colleges in the US have
a strong religious influence (er, if you include football
as a religion).

Noelie

other countries.


John Gilmer

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 8:06:25 PM1/30/01
to

"SomeBlokeCalledRapunzelSyndrome" <da...@daveHYPENbudd.org.uk> wrote in
message news:3A76DC5E...@daveHYPENbudd.org.uk...

Nasty, nasty! Is someone having a hissy fit?

BTW: Why did you leave uk.org.mensa on the list if this thread is so
offensive?

>


Paul J. Gans

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 9:33:34 PM1/30/01
to

Both groups are fairly well-known for social conscience. That
may have had something to do with it. Not that other groups
don't also care about other people...

---- Paul J. Gans


Paul J. Gans

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 9:41:48 PM1/30/01
to
Mike Owen <m_o...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Between what and what? What will cause extra money to be
put into schools? There's no financial profit in that. What
will cause teacher's salaries to go up?

You *do* understand that the pool of money available for education
is fixed -- unless we raise taxes. It does not matter how you
split it, the number of dollars per student is FIXED. You
can spend more on repairs, but then there is less for salaries.
You can provide equipment, but class size has to go up.

What we are *not* willing to do is pay for decent education.
And we are not willing to give up local control. And we
*know* that those are two things without which schools will
fail.

>>
>> Check your community. Who gets paid more: sanitation department
>> workers or teachers? (No, I'm not bashing sanitation department
>> workers. They are worth what they earn and likely more. But
>> teachers are worth that too, and likely more.)
>>
>> We in the US believe in free enterprise. Students see where the
>> money goes and draw their own conclusions.
>>
>> National testing will not deal with any of this.
>>
>> ----- Paul J. Gans

----- Paul J. Gans

Paul J. Gans

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 9:47:44 PM1/30/01
to

First, the problem is complex and so are any possible solutions.
There is no quick fix, no magic fix. Americans like quick fixes.
They won't get one here.

As far as performance evaluation, there is no good measure. The
best one can do is to contact a teacher's students 20 years later
and ask them how they are doing.

Most folks have trouble with this. Teaching is an art, not a
science. There is no objective way to evaluate an art that has
any real meaning.

Think about how we might objectively evaluate a painting: how
many colors does it use? Is the subject matter depicted
photorealistically? Are lines sharp? Is the perspective
clear?


> And we need to change attitudes toward teaching. I'm sure
> that some of your colleagues are more interested in teaching
> than research. If they were given the same salary, would
> they be interested in teaching high school, or would they
> rather teach at NYU?

Sure. Once teachers had social standing. There is a joke
in the field today. A generation or so ago if a student
brought home a note from the teacher, the parents spanked
the student first and then read the note. Today if a student
brings home a note from the teacher, the parents go to school
and beat up the teacher. Then they read the note.


>> And we put them in lousy physical
>> facilities, overcrowd their classrooms, give them no supplies,
>> equipment, or modern books, and then complain that they are not
>> doing their jobs.
>>
>> Check your community. Who gets paid more: sanitation department
>> workers or teachers? (No, I'm not bashing sanitation department
>> workers. They are worth what they earn and likely more. But
>> teachers are worth that too, and likely more.)
>>
>> We in the US believe in free enterprise. Students see where the
>> money goes and draw their own conclusions.
>>
>> National testing will not deal with any of this.
>>
>> ----- Paul J. Gans
>>
>>

----- Paul J. Gans

Brian M. Scott

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 1:10:10 AM1/31/01
to
On 30 Jan 2001 21:47:44 -0500, "Paul J. Gans"
<ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:


[...]

>As far as performance evaluation, there is no good measure. The
>best one can do is to contact a teacher's students 20 years later
>and ask them how they are doing.

>Most folks have trouble with this. Teaching is an art, not a
>science. There is no objective way to evaluate an art that has
>any real meaning.

Unfortunately, those who know this best are mostly teachers,
especially the better ones, and their opinion is too easily dismissed
as biassed.

Brian M. Scott

Joseph Michael Bay

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 9:56:49 AM1/31/01
to
Henry Barwood <hbar...@indiana.edu> writes:

>Mike Owen wrote:


Bu-bu-bu-but the MARKET, right? And the INVISIBLE HAND? Surely
the INVISIBLE HAND of the FREE MARKET shall save us in our TIME
of NEED? As it has in AGES PAST?

--
In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul instructed them to Joe Bay
send ten copies to the Thessalonians and the Stanford University
Ephesians. But the Ephesians broke the chain, Stanford, California
and were punished by the LORD ...

Geoff Sheffield

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 12:52:56 PM1/31/01
to
In article <p1Ld6.45$b2....@typhoon.nyu.edu>,

"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
> Geoff Sheffield <geo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <K%kd6.33$Ce6...@typhoon.nyu.edu>,
> > "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>[snip]

>
> > But solving this problem will involve more than just raising
> > salaries. Do you think that increasing salaries will attract
> > and keep more qualified people, or will we just end up with the
> > same group of people we have now at a greater cost? There
> > has to be a way to effectively evaluate job performance, and
> > reward people based on performance and not seniority.
>
> First, the problem is complex and so are any possible solutions.
> There is no quick fix, no magic fix. Americans like quick fixes.
> They won't get one here.
>
> As far as performance evaluation, there is no good measure. The
> best one can do is to contact a teacher's students 20 years later
> and ask them how they are doing.
>
> Most folks have trouble with this. Teaching is an art, not a
> science. There is no objective way to evaluate an art that has
> any real meaning.
>
> Think about how we might objectively evaluate a painting: how
> many colors does it use? Is the subject matter depicted
> photorealistically? Are lines sharp? Is the perspective
> clear?

I agree. And, somehow, the better colleges and universities
manage to select a high caliber of teacher in spite of the
difficulties. But I don't think the same process is available
at the public school level.

I also agree that there are no quick fixes. It took 30 years
to erode the social status of teachers, and it will take just
as long to rebuild it. Until then, teaching just won't be
at the top of anybody's career choice list regardless of the
pay.

(The same sort of social status erosion is happening to doctors
now. I'm not anxious to see the state of the health care
profession in 30 years.)


[snip]

Paul J. Gans

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 12:59:02 PM1/31/01
to
Alan Morgan <amo...@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
> In article <K%kd6.33$Ce6...@typhoon.nyu.edu>,
> Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>In talk.origins Alan Morgan <amo...@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> In article <3A75818B...@indiana.edu>,
>>> Henry Barwood <hbar...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>

[...]

>>I understand the feeling behind what you have written, but I
>>think we have to learn to live with some hard truths. There is
>>NO WAY to measure "learning". Everything we propose measures
>>something other than what we think we mean by learning.

> That doesn't mean that it can't be a good approximation. Take
> IQ tests, for example. IQ tests obviously don't measure intelligence,
> they measure your ability to take IQ tests. You know this and I know
> this (I'm not sure if Marilyn vos Savant does, but that's a different
> matter). Yet I find that most of the people that I consider "intelligent"
> also have high IQ scores. There are exceptions of course (Richard
> Feynman, who supposedly had an IQ of 130, but claimed that it was
> all for physics. Heck, he might even have been right).

> An imperfect tool is better than no tool at all, although if you
> believe that the tool is better than it actually is you could
> be in real trouble (and I admit that this could well happen with
> standardized testing and we should make every effort to ensure that
> it doesn't).

No. I don't agree. What is being proposed is a system of
standard tests. A school's progress will be measured by these
tests (as will the students) and federal funding will depend
on the results of these tests.

The assumption is being made that these tests will measure
"educational level" or "educational progress" whatever that is.

As I said, the result of introducing such tests will be that
teachers teach the test. I do not see how this will, in any
way, result in a measure of "educational level" or "educational
progress". It isn't a broken tool, it is an irrelvent tool.


>>I have no quarrel with testing students. I do it myself.
>>But we already know how best to teach. Sadly, we find it
>>expensive and contrary to some of our closely held convictions.
>>
>>For example we want parential control. And yet what do those
>>parents know about what should or should not be in a curriculum?
>>Most hate math and are scared of science. They want their children
>>to read, but they do NOT want them to read anything that might
>>shake their children's faith in what parents believe.

> I suspect that this is a minority view actually (I hope it is. I
> normally associate that attitude with the religious right).

Check the state of sex education in your local school. Also
check what is being taught about modern history. Are their
books on the forbidden list in your schools? Have books been
removed from your school library? Check it out.

> A bigger
> problem, IMHO, is that most parents simply don't care. They aren't
> interested in what, or if, their kids are learning. They don't really,
> in their very heart of hearts, think that education is important.

I think that there is a good bit of that too.


>>And we expect nationwide to find hundreds of thousands of excellently
>>qualified teachers willing to work for very little money -- money
>>we often would not work for. And we put them in lousy physical
>>facilities, overcrowd their classrooms, give them no supplies,
>>equipment, or modern books, and then complain that they are not
>>doing their jobs.

> No argument here.

>>Check your community. Who gets paid more: sanitation department
>>workers or teachers? (No, I'm not bashing sanitation department
>>workers. They are worth what they earn and likely more. But
>>teachers are worth that too, and likely more.)

> Sigh. Yeah. So where does this money come from? In general, I
> think, it has to come from the Feds because local communities vary
> too much in their ability to provide funds (and I don't want to
> through this open to private industry. This is too important to
> leave up to the profit motive). The Feds, not surprisingly, want
> to make sure that the bone-heads in charge of the local school
> districts don't mismanage the money and that the money goes to
> teachers and supplies rather than the bureaucracy. How do they
> ensure this? Even if you keep the Feds out of it and have the
> states pool all the money from the various communities, they
> will still want the same assurance (and although it is a little
> easier, since they are closer to the problem, it's not trivial).

Money is not the problem. The will to spend it is. Education
is one of the two or three most important governmental
activities. Compare what is spent on TV, gambling, sports, etc.
to what is spent on education. One could also note that our
taxes are among the lowest in the western world; that most
major corporations pay no or minimal taxes; and that the
tax burden is very unequal. For example, as a "citizen" of
New York City, a major percentage of my tax dollar ends up
being spent outside the city and a good fraction of that outside
the state. We are given (by the state) far less money per
student than are students outside the city and our buildings average
older in age. Our teacher's pay, as measured relative to the
cost of living, is among the worst in the state.

At the same time we are talking, here in the city, of spending
seriously big money to build a sports stadium to be essentially
given to a private corporation so that they may make money staging
games in it. Yankees forever, schools -- forget about it.

> I don't see that you get away with the need for testing.

>>We in the US believe in free enterprise. Students see where the
>>money goes and draw their own conclusions.
>>
>>National testing will not deal with any of this.

> National testing isn't supposed to and I would argue strenuously against
> someone who believed that national testing was a solution to any
> of the problems we face.

Your arguement is with your president, whose proposals started this
thread.

> National testing is an imperfect tool that
> gives us some indication as to whether or not we are succeeding.

No. It does not. It indicates the socio-economic level of the
students, the ability of the school to devote resources to teaching
the test, and the enthusiasm that the local community has for
funding its schools.


> Some people have mentioned that we should look at other countries to
> see what they do and use them as an example of how to improve our
> school system. Great idea. How do we know that these other countries
> are doing well? Their student are better educated. How do we know their
> students are better educated? Probably from test results.

Yes. That's true. But we also know from head-to-head
comparison.

---- Paul J. Gans

Paul J. Gans

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 1:10:36 PM1/31/01
to
David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

Many of our good ones are state funded and all of the good ones
are more than adequately funded. Salaries are high, teaching
loads are reasonable, and there is usually adequate support
services -- all in comparison to high school, not in any
absolute sense.

And they do not give in to public pressure over what to teach or
not to teach.

---- Paul J. Gans

m...@watson.ibm.com

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 1:10:55 PM1/31/01
to
amo...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) writes:

There's one serious problem with your argument, and that's the nature
of standardized tests. When you impose a high stakes standardized
test, you essentially stop teaching the subject in general, and teach
the subject *to the test*. You don't worry about whether or not your
students can actually read a book: you focus on whether they can
answer the reading comprehension questions on the test. You don't
worry about whether or not your students understand the mathematical
meanings of logorithms: you just make sure that they know how to use
to "log" button on their calculator to get the right answer on the
test.

And there are other, deep problems with the standardized tests. They
aren't just an imperfect tool, but often a fundamentally flawed one.

For example, last year, the New York Times published a reading
passage, and the questions on the state regents exam associated with
that question.

The passage talked about the Civil Servant exam in the old Chinese
empire, and how people studied for years to take the exam. They then
asked: "How many people took the civil servant exam?". The answers
included "Many, because passing it meant that you had a high-paying
job for life", and "Few, because it required years of study in order
to pass". Which one was the right answer? (The excerpt specifically
did *not* say how many people took it; the question was supposed to
test the ability of students to reason based on what they had read.)

The test claimed that the latter answer was correct. In the real
world, the former answer is correct. In a fair exam, either answer
would be acceptable, provided the student could explain why they
picked the answer. However, on a standardized test, there is only one
right answer.

Sure, it's just an example. But what it demonstrates is both the
subjective nature of the exam, the *objective* nature of how it's
graded, and the way that the disconnection between the subjective and
objective *cannot* be addressed in a standardized testing framework.

It also demonstrates the pervasive cultural bias in the exam. The
"correct" answer is utterly illogical to anyone who doesn't share the
cultural biases of the test author.

But to make matters worse, the system being proposed does *exactly*
what you suggest. It proposes that the test *is the entire solution*
to the education problem, and that the test *is a perfect tool* for
measuring educational performance.

> >I have no quarrel with testing students. I do it myself.
> >But we already know how best to teach. Sadly, we find it
> >expensive and contrary to some of our closely held convictions.
> >
> >For example we want parential control. And yet what do those
> >parents know about what should or should not be in a curriculum?
> >Most hate math and are scared of science. They want their children
> >to read, but they do NOT want them to read anything that might
> >shake their children's faith in what parents believe.
>
> I suspect that this is a minority view actually (I hope it is. I
> normally associate that attitude with the religious right).

It may be a minority view, but given the level of apathy of most
people towards the schools, a small minority can wield a lot of
influence. If 90% of parents don't follow what's happening in the
school system at all, and 2% of the parents are extremely vocal
religious types, then that 2% because an extremely powerful block.

A bigger
> problem, IMHO, is that most parents simply don't care. They aren't
> interested in what, or if, their kids are learning. They don't really,
> in their very heart of hearts, think that education is important.

I'm in perfect agreement with you here. Unfortunately, I don't think
that most people really realize just how little they care about education.

In New Jersey, the Piscataway school system just imposed a homework
limitation, dictating that classes aren't allowed to give more than
1/2 of homework per day, no homework over the weekend, and bans the
grading of homework. This was met with enthusiastic support from the
*vast* majority of parents. And yet, if you asked those same parents
how important they thought education was, they'd probably claim that
it's at or towards the top of their priority list.

<<cuts...>>

> >National testing will not deal with any of this.
>
> National testing isn't supposed to and I would argue strenuously against
> someone who believed that national testing was a solution to any
> of the problems we face. National testing is an imperfect tool that
> gives us some indication as to whether or not we are succeeding.

Only if the tests are genuinely fair, unbiased, and measure what they
claim to measure. Designing standardized tests that are fair,
unbiased, and accurate it a nearly impossible task. Designing
standardized tests that are fair, unbiased, and accurate, *AND* don't
penalize students that were taught deep understanding rather than test
taking skills *is* impossible. Standardized tests are a blunt
instrument, and that's unavoidable.


> Some people have mentioned that we should look at other countries to
> see what they do and use them as an example of how to improve our
> school system. Great idea. How do we know that these other countries
> are doing well? Their student are better educated. How do we know their
> students are better educated? Probably from test results.

Do you really believe that? That students in Japan, and England, and
America all take the *same* tests so that we can compare them?
Nonsense.

Testing is fine. *Standardized* testing is a disaster.

-Mark

--
"There's nothing I like better than the sound of a banjo, unless of
course it's the sound of a chicken caught in a vacuum cleaner. "
Mark Craig Chu-Carroll (m...@watson.ibm.com)
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Laurence A. Moran

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 1:28:38 PM1/31/01
to
In article <5yYd6.13$la1...@typhoon.nyu.edu>,

Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> Oddly we manage to run colleges that are world class.
>
>Many of our good ones are state funded and all of the good ones
>are more than adequately funded. Salaries are high, teaching
>loads are reasonable, and there is usually adequate support
>services -- all in comparison to high school, not in any
>absolute sense.
>
>And they do not give in to public pressure over what to teach or
>not to teach.

There are so many colleges in the USA that it's hard to keep
track. What percentage of all colleges are world class (or good),
in your opinion? Is it true as a generality that US colleges are
world class or does this only apply to the select few that we all
know about?

I assume that we don't count schools like Bob Jones University
because they aren't accredited?

My impression is that there are very few western industrialized
nations that have as many terrible colleges as the USA. On the
other hand, there are few other countries that have colleges as
good as the very best American schools. Strange.


Larry Moran

Paul J. Gans

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 1:33:35 PM1/31/01
to


> [...]

Yup.

----- Paul J. Gans

Alan Morgan

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 1:40:27 PM1/31/01
to
In article <GnYd6.11$la1...@typhoon.nyu.edu>,

Fine. So how do we tell if we are succeeding? I'm not asking what
we have to do to make things better since I think I'm in agreement
with you on that matter. I'm asking what we do to keep tabs on how
well our schools are doing.

Alan

Richard Harter

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 2:25:26 PM1/31/01
to
On 31 Jan 2001 12:52:56 -0500, Geoff Sheffield <geo...@my-deja.com>
wrote:


>
>I also agree that there are no quick fixes. It took 30 years
>to erode the social status of teachers, and it will take just
>as long to rebuild it. Until then, teaching just won't be
>at the top of anybody's career choice list regardless of the
>pay.

What do you mean it took 30 years to erode the social status of
teachers? Are you under the illusion that the social status of
teachers was high 30 years ago? The low quality of American
elementary education and the low place of teachers has been a standard
feature of the American republic for the past two hundred years.


Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
Economists are people who work with numbers
but don't have the personality to be accountants.

rich hammett

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 3:13:37 PM1/31/01
to

> [snip]

Per capita, the US still has a huge number of world-class universities.
Most of our state schools are in the class of the primary or secondary
national universities of other countries.

I am, of course, including Canada's universities in the US group.

rich


> Larry Moran


--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan

rich hammett

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 3:10:59 PM1/31/01
to

At least doctors had a hand in their own demise. All of that
conspicuous consumption and lack of patient relationship skills
played a big part in the HMO backlash. I mean, the doctor only
has 15 minutes to see me because he's paying off his third
Porsche? (That was my dentist)

rich

> [snip]
> --
> Geoff Sheffield


> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/

Paul J. Gans

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 3:58:57 PM1/31/01
to

> [snip]

I agree on both counts. I would guess that there are twenty
or so world-class universities in the US. Of course, given
the size of the country is that good or bad?

I suspect that Canada, on a per-capita basis, might do as well
or better.

But my point was about why they were world class. I know of
no world-class universities in the US that are money-starved,
have enormous teaching loads, and provide no infrastructure
support.

---- Paul J. Gans

PZ Myers

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 4:40:15 PM1/31/01
to
In article <h0%d6.28$la1...@typhoon.nyu.edu>, "Paul J. Gans"
<ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:

And you could remove the "in the US" clause from the comment
above and not change its meaning one bit, unless you happen to
know of a world-class university somewhere else in the world that
is money-starved, has enormous teaching loads, and no
infrastructure. Now that I mention it, though, you didn't imply
that colleges outside the US couldn't be world class, nor did
Jensen, in your original posts.


Fortunately, I live in a state where the universities are
apparently *not* money-starved. Our governor (that well-educated
friend of the academic, Jesse Ventura) has just announced that he
wants to severely cut back funding to higher education because
we're so grossly overpaid -- he says professors in Minnesota get
salaries *3 times* that of the governor (who gets about $120K).

I've brought the almost an order of magnitude error in all of my
paychecks to the attention of the payroll office here, and am
really looking forward to the huge increase in income that's sure
to follow.

--
PZ Myers

Ken Cox

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 6:03:06 PM1/31/01
to
"Paul J. Gans" wrote:
> But my point was about why they were world class. I know of
> no world-class universities in the US that are money-starved,
> have enormous teaching loads, and provide no infrastructure
> support.

Also, very few universities have installed metal detectors
to screen all students as they enter the buildings.

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com

Noelie S. Alito

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 6:11:21 PM1/31/01
to

Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote in message
news:3a78633b....@news.SullyButtes.net...

> On 31 Jan 2001 12:52:56 -0500, Geoff Sheffield <geo...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I also agree that there are no quick fixes. It took 30 years
> >to erode the social status of teachers, and it will take just
> >as long to rebuild it. Until then, teaching just won't be
> >at the top of anybody's career choice list regardless of the
> >pay.
>
> What do you mean it took 30 years to erode the social status of
> teachers? Are you under the illusion that the social status of
> teachers was high 30 years ago? The low quality of American
> elementary education and the low place of teachers has been a standard
> feature of the American republic for the past two hundred years.
>

More like it took 30 years to get the most talented women
out of teaching, as more attractive professional opportunities
became available. Nursing took a big hit, too.

Noelie
--
This fish loves her bicycle.


Paul J. Gans

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 8:04:05 PM1/31/01