Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I was flipping through the teachers union's publication (I can't think of the name of it off the top of my head) and I found something very disturbing. A series of chart's were posted that showed the score gap between white middle class students and urban minority students decreasing. They proudly proclaimed that their teaching methods were working to eliminate educational gaps!

However, upon close inspection, I noticed that not only was the gap getting smaller, the overall scores were rising. After a few calculations, I found that the actual normal distance between the groups had not changed. The only reason for the narrowing gap was the overall rising scores. If you don't have a background in statistics, consider this thought experiment. Suppose that chemists are better at math then librarians. But if our math test is just "What is 1 + 1?", then everyone will pass and there will be no score gap. It follows that if the test is easier (or the overall scores are higher) then the relative gaps will be smaller.

This made me wonder: why aren't teachers getting a strong background in quantitative psychology? I'm not saying that they ought to be able to do factor analysis. But they should at least know what a normal distribution is and how to calculate correlations, so that they can appreciate their students test results and understand if their methods are actually working.

And if it's not that tests are getting easier, but rather that teaching methods are indeed getting better, resulting in everyone making a higher score?

At 8/7/09 04:36 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: And if it's not that tests are getting easier, but rather that teaching methods are indeed getting better, resulting in everyone making a higher score?

That could indeed be the case, but that is separate from their claim that the achievement gap is getting smaller.

By real numbers, possibly. But if I score one point higher than you on a test where I score 2 and you score 1, then I'm twice as smart. If I score 100 and you score 99, the gap is the same but we aren't that much different. ^^

At 8/7/09 04:37 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 8/7/09 04:36 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: And if it's not that tests are getting easier, but rather that teaching methods are indeed getting better, resulting in everyone making a higher score?

That could indeed be the case, but that is separate from their claim that the achievement gap is getting smaller.

The Claim could be disingenuous period in which case it might be more pleasing for teachers to know that the gap between students is narrowing rather than average scores increasing across the board.

This thread is funny...

Public education is a joke (at least where I went...). My teachers didn't so much "teach" as much as they made me regurgitate facts...

And you should be lucky if you get into one of those classes. Cause if you end up in a classroom where the requirements to get an 'A' are very lax...well...

Lets just say my college prof. found it strange that the students had to work so hard even when the first few weeks of lecture was supposedly "review"...

At 8/7/09 04:31 PM, Al6200 wrote: But if our math test is just "What is 1 + 1?", then everyone will pass and there will be no score gap.

Ok you have to explain something to me here because I'm not getting it.

They claim that the gap is narrowing.
In your example, it's clear that the gar would narrow AND the scores would rise.

But you also claim that the gap is not narrowing. Yet scores are rising anyway.

So my question: where do they get the "gap is narrowing" from and where do you get the "it's not" and how do you explain that all the scores are still rising anyway?

At any rate, in either cases, I guess either all students are getting better or all tests are getting easier.

At 8/7/09 07:08 PM, poxpower wrote:

At any rate, in either cases, I guess either all students are getting better or all tests are getting easier.

He's claiming the second one; easier tests.

At 8/7/09 07:08 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 8/7/09 04:31 PM, Al6200 wrote: But if our math test is just "What is 1 + 1?", then everyone will pass and there will be no score gap.

Ok you have to explain something to me here because I'm not getting it.

They claim that the gap is narrowing.
In your example, it's clear that the gar would narrow AND the scores would rise.

But you also claim that the gap is not narrowing. Yet scores are rising anyway.

So my question: where do they get the "gap is narrowing" from and where do you get the "it's not" and how do you explain that all the scores are still rising anyway?

At any rate, in either cases, I guess either all students are getting better or all tests are getting easier.

He MEANS to say that The gap is narrowing in the sense that if you compare the nominal size of one score relative to another, but the over all increase in scores is what causes this. Another poster gave a good EXTREME example. You have two students, they take a test, and one of them gets a 2, the other gets a 1. Statistically, this means student A has a score 2x as large as student B, but if you've ever taken a test before you'll know that in most cases 1 point isn't a very large difference.

if the scores were 2 and 3 respectively, 3 would be 50% larger than 2, if it was 3-4, 4 would be 33%, and so on, so forth.

On the other end, Now let's say that both students study and the retake the test. Student A gets 100 and student B gets 99. Now the difference between them is narrower. Student B's score is only 1% less than that of Student A.

Sorry but i think i may have misread your post.

But yes, if everyone is getting higher scores, the relative difference between them percentage wise would decrease, but this is highly deceptive. My feeling is that two students getting 33 and 34, are probably as academically equal as students getting 99 and 100.

At 8/7/09 08:42 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

He MEANS to say that The gap is narrowing in the sense that if you compare the nominal size of one score relative to another,

Alright I get it now.
Haha what a useless thing to compare.

im my current location, kids who are in the "regulars" program, only study for tests...

but thank god im in the college studies program..
fhew..

I would argue many teachers are relatively uneducated due to the high costs and comparatively low rewards of higher education. Simply stated, having one's MA does not increase one's salary enough to provide sufficient financial incentive.
Also, high school teachers (at least in NC) are required to have a Bachelor's in the field that they teach in. A degree in education is not required.

At 8/8/09 01:32 AM, ZhaoYun44 wrote: Also, high school teachers (at least in NC) are required to have a Bachelor's in the field that they teach in. A degree in education is not required.

You know what else isn't required?

Having a passion to teach kids. Haha...my highschool teachers couldn't care less about collectively raising our understanding of their respective subject.

Reminds me of this one time...teacher gets upset that he is being interrupted, then jumps to me randomly and asks me to repeat what he just said.

After I did it, he looks at me surprised and says "you were paying attention?"

After 1st grade I was homeschooled, and I'd never go back if I had the chance. I always had a lot of trouble with math, failing every course I tried and never "getting it". I just couldn't wrap my mind around certain concepts. My mom searched high and low and we finally found a course that worked. It wasn't that it was easy, it was still very frustrating at times. But at least I could comprehend it, a first. In public school the work would be crammed down my throat, no one caring if I actualy understood it or not. But being at home is much more relaxed, and I go at my pace so I, hey, actualy learn something! What a thought! :) Besides, when homeschooled I can actualy get the amount of sleep I need to be functional during the day. And it's given me an unforgettable bond between my mother and I :)

At 8/8/09 02:12 AM, iloveTyler wrote: And it's given me an unforgettable bond between my mother and I :)

It's the kind of bond that you only hear about on the 9:00 PM news, right next to the story about the woman who devoured her babies and drive-by shooting number 35. Oh, those were heady days.

Umm...... k? I'm saying like my mom is the fun teacher. She'll come into my room sometimes and randomly tell me that we're going on a field trip to a chocolate factory next week. What kid wouldn't want that?

At 8/8/09 02:26 AM, iloveTyler wrote: Umm...... k? I'm saying like my mom is the fun teacher. She'll come into my room sometimes and randomly tell me that we're going on a field trip to a chocolate factory next week. What kid wouldn't want that?

Is it just me or do your posts get more and more unintentionally hilarious?

"Hey... Tyler... We're gonna take a [pregnant pause] field trip next week. We're gonna take a tour of the [malicious wink] fudge factory to see how the... fudge is made. I have a feeling that we... won't be able to control ourselves... or give in to our inmost desires... for messy, creamy chocolate smeared all over our sweaty, longing faces...mmmm"

On the issue of math (also applicable to other teachers) I find them often too little inspired or they just lack motivation to teach stuff. They refuse to explain stuff and don't dare to pose any challenge.

Math lately has been in decline the last few years. they want to have it more applicable and less abstract, hence stealing all meaning from it and all real challenge.
If I were a pmath teacher, I would make things abstract and find challenges and expand course material to something other than direct applications. I would also explain things abstract, but thorough and be open for the students to ask questions.

But the major issue, I tought is that too little new teachers arrive and they have to stuff half-wits in the positions.

At 8/7/09 04:31 PM, Al6200 wrote: This made me wonder: why aren't teachers getting a strong background in quantitative psychology? I'm not saying that they ought to be able to do factor analysis. But they should at least know what a normal distribution is and how to calculate correlations, so that they can appreciate their students test results and understand if their methods are actually working.

I think you're overestimating the usefulness of Quant. Psych in a classroom setting.

First of all, it would be a distraction from teaching and they already have too much on their plate. After 16 years of Bush and Clinton's experiments with our education system they have so much bullshit that takes their attention away from the actual job of teaching. To add something like Quant Psych into the mix is just one more thing that distracts from the process of educating.

Your heart is in the right place thinking that this would be a tool for them to see if what they are doing is working. However, it is unnecessary. Teachers can tell when they are getting through to their students. They have plenty of feedback already. They can tell how students are doing through existing grading methods. They can also pick up on behavioral cues of their students.

So quantifying their student's performance would be a redundancy, and one that would be more useful to an outside researcher than the teachers themselves.

In the end, we need the government (especially the federal government) to stop getting in the way in the classroom.

At 8/8/09 01:32 AM, ZhaoYun44 wrote: I would argue many teachers are relatively uneducated due to the high costs and comparatively low rewards of higher education. Simply stated, having one's MA does not increase one's salary enough to provide sufficient financial incentive.

That's not really true. The cost of getting an MA is mitigated by tuition assistance provided by the school. Plus obtaining one's MA or Ed.D opens doors to Administrative jobs, which provides the financial incentive. Yes admin takes the teacher out of the classroom, BUT until they get the Admin position they are still in the classroom.

Furthermore, things such as on-line education making getting one's graduate degree less of a pain in the ass.

Also, high school teachers (at least in NC) are required to have a Bachelor's in the field that they teach in. A degree in education is not required.

In MO you can get a provisional teaching license with only a BA (or BS) in your field. However, you have to complete an education program that will lead to a MS in education.

"Hey... Tyler... We're gonna take a [pregnant pause] field trip next week. We're gonna take a tour of the [malicious wink] fudge factory to see how the... fudge is made. I have a feeling that we... won't be able to control ourselves... or give in to our inmost desires... for messy, creamy chocolate smeared all over our sweaty, longing faces...mmmm"

You have a filthy, filthy mind. Are you implying that I'm pregnant? Or do you simply delight in pissing people off?

At 8/7/09 04:36 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: but rather that teaching methods are indeed getting better,

That's not what it is in my case!

I've just finished high school and can confidently say that it had some of the worst teachers imaginable. My maths class was meant to be the best in the school but we went 2 years without learning anything! The entire class had to voluntarily teach themselves maths as homework to have any chance of passing.

At 8/8/09 03:11 PM, Dezimo wrote: I've just finished high school and can confidently say that it had some of the worst teachers imaginable. My maths class was meant to be the best in the school but we went 2 years without learning anything! The entire class had to voluntarily teach themselves maths as homework to have any chance of passing.

Good luck in College! I mean it ;)

The bar this country sets for itself is ridiculously low...

At 8/8/09 03:35 PM, hansari wrote:

Good luck in College! I mean it ;)

The bar this country sets for itself is ridiculously low...

Only because parents complain when the teachers fail students for limboing under the higher bars. If we just gave up political correctness and called stupid kids stupid, then maybe the smart ones could actually learn something. As long as we give a flying rat's tail end whether a student's parents are happy with their kid's grade, then we are always going to make the possibility of failure nonexistant.

i dont think its fair to blame the education system. blame the culture we live in. if a parent doesn't push his/her children to excel, then the kid won't, and there's nothing the school system can do about it. our culture has grown to accept mediocrity as the norm, and so "stupid kids" abound.

when people see an equation or a science innovation, ppl instantly say, "science wasn't my strong suit!"

when children are faced with a challenging assignment for school, they usually say, "fuck this! my teacher is crazy! i won't do my homework."

i'm not saying that teachers are not to blame. i'm saying that teachers need to improve but students won't until theres a cultural shift. why are asians so stereotypically good at school? because their culture is vastly different, relying far more on an honor system where academic success is a matter of family pride. not to mention after immigrating for a "Better life," they actually want that better life to materialize, often through their children. its an education problem, but largely a cultural problem.

early childhood education and parental counseling might help more than focusing on public schools as a first step.

At 8/8/09 02:30 PM, iloveTyler wrote: You have a filthy, filthy mind. Are you implying that I'm pregnant? Or do you simply delight in pissing people off?

How in fuck's name did you interpret "pregnant pause" as the most offensive thing in that post? I just subtly implied that you indulge coprophilia fantasies with your own mom.

At 8/9/09 01:32 AM, GayDorf wrote:
How in fuck's name did you interpret "pregnant pause" as the most offensive thing in that post? I just subtly implied that you indulge coprophilia fantasies with your own mom.

Or do you simply delight in pissing people off? I guess I was right.

I'm going to attempt answer some of these criticisms from the other side, though I haven't yet started my teacher training (I start in September).

Generally I think a lot of you are being very hard on teachers. Granted there are plenty of inadequate people working in education these days, a direct result of there being so few incentives to become a teacher and the governments desperate attempt to provide teaching staff despite there being too few appropriate candidates. But there are also a number of excellent teachers out there.

The problem (at least here in the UK) is anyone with talent is sucked up by the private school system, as that is where the money is. It is a travesty that teachers have to spend 5 plus years in higher education in this country (You have to have a degree in your subject before taking any educational qualifications) only to be paid average wages. I for example will be a solid 20 grand in debt come my first actual year as a teacher, and will only then be paid in the mid 20k range. Should I make head of department that might stretch up to 30, but it is hardly sufficient compensation for what is a stressful and important job. I get into a private school and I could be on 40k in no time.

As for the argument about finding patterns in results that perhaps aren't there, welcome to the real world. That is not the fault of the teachers, that is the fault of the government who are so determined to show that education is improving. Results are skewed in all walks of life to show what people want them to show, education is absolutely no different. Generally there is probably little difference in the actual ability of teachers to teach between now and 50 years ago, but the subjects and way that they are taught has evolved completely with changes in technology and changes in focus in the syllabus. And yes, they are probably getting easier too, as I said the government is determined to show that they are improving the education system.

Believe me, to become a teacher you have to be passionate about teaching. There is little other incentive to do it, and it is very much the focus of interviews to get on courses. The problem is that after 5 plus years of teaching the same information over and over it does become difficult to maintain enjoyment in the job, especially with students that are completely disinterested in what you have to say. That doesn't excuse teachers for becoming disinterested, but you have to realise how mindnumbing it can be to go over the same facts over and over and look at a load of blank faces staring back still completely uninterested in being there and not taking anything in.

As it is I am excited about teaching, and am determined to teach my subject in the most interesting way possible. I don't kid myself that it will be easy, or that I will enjoy it every day, but I love the subject I am teaching (biology) and want to encourage as many students as I can to be interested in it as well. Fingers crossed I'm not one of the teachers being moaned about on here in years to come...

At 8/11/09 01:58 PM, Sentio wrote: Believe me, to become a teacher you have to be passionate about teaching. There is little other incentive to do it, and it is very much the focus of interviews to get on courses...

My Biology teacher pretty much was honest when he told me was going for Med School, but gave up and took this instead rather than spend even more money into College...

Not to say all teachers are bad. Out of my 12 years in public education though, I have had only 2 teachers that actually made an impact...

At 8/11/09 01:58 PM, Sentio wrote: That doesn't excuse teachers for becoming disinterested, but you have to realise how mindnumbing it can be to go over the same facts over and over and look at a load of blank faces staring back still completely uninterested in being there and not taking anything in.

The burden is on the teacher to spice things up...

History was just constant regurgitation of facts for years...

Then I finally have a teacher that stops the class and asks if one man can really change the course of history. A debate rages on as modern references are made even and people can't decide between whether a person can or if society needs to be in the correct circumstances. "Would Hitler have rose to prominence if Germany wasn't in the mess it was in?"

Some subjects are easier than others, but if your passionate about something, you have to be able to sell it...

At 8/10/09 04:23 AM, iloveTyler wrote:

At 8/9/09 01:32 AM, GayDorf wrote:
How in fuck's name did you interpret "pregnant pause" as the most offensive thing in that post? I just subtly implied that you indulge coprophilia fantasies with your own mom.

Or do you simply delight in pissing people off? I guess I was right.

i laugh openly at you're lack of understanding of what a pregnant pause is.

Ha. Ha. HA.