freakonomics
D and I just started reading a very interesting book, Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt. Its basic premise is that people weigh lots of different incentives in making decisions, doing business, dating, and everything else, and many times the "conventional wisdom" about certain problems is just wrong. For example, they talk about why drug dealers, if they make so much money, still live with their moms. The answer is that 95 percent of drug dealers don't make that much money, but they are competing for the boss job, which makes a ton. But most people give up or are shot before they can get to that job. A nice summing-up of nearly every career with the potential for big money (business, hollywood, professional atheletes).
Even careers without a lot of dough have a lot of cheating, like teaching. They talk about high-stakes testing and how certain incentives (say, 25 thousand extra bucks for a dramatic increase in test scores) are dead easy to attract cheaters. Just confirming my already low opinion of high-stakes testing, and the warped philosophy of public education in general.
I used to teach art in a wealthy county in Virginia, in a great school that had scored poorly on their high-stakes tests, the SOL's (No joke, their tests were called the Standards of Learning, and you were SOL if you failed them). Our school could have been reconstituted if we didn't up the scores within 2 years, and the teachers--including the art teacher--were given 2,000 extra bucks that next year to bring up the scores. What I found ironic, or just sad, about the whole thing was when I was hired all the phone interview questions harped on the belief that every child can learn, that all different learning styles were essential to incorporate in my teaching. Meaning, I needed to not just verbally give information, but get those kinesthetic children physically involved in the lesson, use visual directions (check!), help kids interact as groups and on and on. I believe in that, it works in the classroom to get everybody's learning style participating. However, a timed, high-pressure, 3-day test where you fill in thousands of little bubbles after reading or listening to selections only tests two learning styles at most, verbal and some visual learners. You can't very well act out parts of the test, or anything else besides. It sounds really nice to say "we really support diverse modes of learning," but the money goes to learning how to take this stupid test, sit in your chair, and fill in bubbles just so with your number 2 pencil.
Even careers without a lot of dough have a lot of cheating, like teaching. They talk about high-stakes testing and how certain incentives (say, 25 thousand extra bucks for a dramatic increase in test scores) are dead easy to attract cheaters. Just confirming my already low opinion of high-stakes testing, and the warped philosophy of public education in general.
I used to teach art in a wealthy county in Virginia, in a great school that had scored poorly on their high-stakes tests, the SOL's (No joke, their tests were called the Standards of Learning, and you were SOL if you failed them). Our school could have been reconstituted if we didn't up the scores within 2 years, and the teachers--including the art teacher--were given 2,000 extra bucks that next year to bring up the scores. What I found ironic, or just sad, about the whole thing was when I was hired all the phone interview questions harped on the belief that every child can learn, that all different learning styles were essential to incorporate in my teaching. Meaning, I needed to not just verbally give information, but get those kinesthetic children physically involved in the lesson, use visual directions (check!), help kids interact as groups and on and on. I believe in that, it works in the classroom to get everybody's learning style participating. However, a timed, high-pressure, 3-day test where you fill in thousands of little bubbles after reading or listening to selections only tests two learning styles at most, verbal and some visual learners. You can't very well act out parts of the test, or anything else besides. It sounds really nice to say "we really support diverse modes of learning," but the money goes to learning how to take this stupid test, sit in your chair, and fill in bubbles just so with your number 2 pencil.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home