I don’t need any more carrots to inspire me to constantly improve my practice. I’ve got 29 pretty darn good ones sitting in my classroom each weekday morning.

We need to cut this school's carrot budget.

29? Really? That seems quaint.

I guess the problem with standardized tests are that they have to be fill in the blank or multiple choice. If you really wanted to do a better job at education reform, the answer to me, seems to be to develop a better test rather than throw out the paradigm of testing completely.

I think that there's obvious merit in identifying who does a really good job at teaching children and adapting those techniques in a widespread way, but it seems like it's really difficult to identify who does a good job at teaching given current measurements.

To me, the problem where people are using poor measurements is the definition of a "Moneyball" problem.

Hiring school teachers to evaluate major league organizations is the new market inefficiency.

However, despite a bevy of superstars and data-driven prognostications for success, the 2011 Red Sox fell short of the playoffs for the second consecutive year. Sports pundits were quick to suggest that the team’s shortcomings came neither in talent nor ability, but in leadership, team chemistry and effective coaching.

Yes, but why would you want to listen to those idiots? Just take their word for it, and don't bother looking for any other answers...

If you are looking for a reason why the Sox came up short in September, try counting the number of healthy SP's they had from their originally planed rotation. I trust our teachers can still count to zero. But maybe I am overlooking the healing effect of good leadership...

The thing that's really cool about baseball is the measurement of it. Almost no human endeavors are as susceptible to statistical analysis as baseball. It's a terribly fun thing about baseball, but it makes transfering ideas from baseball into other settings highly problematic. It's not given that simple metrics can be as useful at measuring quality and skill in another field as they are in baseball.

try counting the number of healthy SP's they had from their originally planed rotation

And the astronomical rise in errors? Mental and physical? Extra-inning OPS is a frigging disgrace compared to the rest of the league. 9th inning OPS compared to their other work is woeful, but I guess you can chalk it up to facing closers, but that extra-inning work is horrible.

I think that there's obvious merit in identifying who does a really good job at teaching children and adapting those techniques in a widespread way, but it seems like it's really difficult to identify who does a good job at teaching given current measurements.

This is true. Figuring out what to do is hard, though. Many fierce advocates of testing--Bloomberg most obviously--will only pay for the cheapest possible tests, even though those tests are far less effective than more-expensive ones. I get it; finances are finite. But the abstract discussion of testing/no testing doesn't embrace the quality of particular tests. We end up with a grim situation where we increase our testing while reducing its quality, thus flushing classroom time down the toilet.

Some countries have invested a great deal more in testing, requiring long-form writing (which means paying qualified people to grade that writing appropriately.) I wish the discussion about tests were reconfigured in the way you raised but I don't see it happening.

Billy Beane never should have taught 3rd grade math.

However, despite a bevy of superstars and data-driven prognostications for success, the 2011 Red Sox fell short of the playoffs for the second consecutive year

Yea, the Red Sox will never win a championship under Theo Epstein and his nerd stats!

At this point it looks highly unlikely.

However, despite a bevy of superstars and data- emotional-driven prognostications for success, the 2011 Red Sox Angels fell short of the playoffs for the second consecutive year

I mean why do these writers focus so squarely on just one or two stat based teams, when you have non-stat based teams like the Angels, who aren't making the post season either.

But the Angels manager carries a 43.6 NTPG. (Nose-touches per game). Everyone knows Sciocia is the best manager. How can they not be stat-based.

Same old same old. People don't understand probabilities. WAR and all the other advanced statistical measurements do not guarantee wins or losses, they simply give people information to make their own informed guesses.

There will always be teams who wildly outperform their pythagoreans just as there will always be horses that win at 150-1 odds. Perhaps the motivation of the jockey or the HGH (horse growth hormone) secretly injected into the horse have something to do with it; perhaps the mischievously pernicious god Loki mutters a fast-leg-spell into the horse's ear. Who knows? These things are not measurable, but some of them doubtless have an effect that is greater than zero.

The Mariners last year had a superb clubhouse atmosphere, they virtually always hustled, they had two exceptional on-field and off-field leaders in Olivo and King Felix, yet they sucked.

However, for Mr. Lee, this is just what the Red Sox need. Hence, he should be willing to trade the Red Sox team (and for that matter their budget) for the Mariner team.

As a lifelong baseball fan, and hence an expert like Mr. Lee, I propose this trade and have no doubt that, however reluctantly, Mr. Lee if he were Red Sox GM would consider this a done deal.

But the Angels manager carries a 43.6 NTPG. (Nose-touches per game)

Mitch from "Dazed and Confused" scoffs at such a low number.

Cliff Notes: Please don't measure teachers. You won't like what you find if you do.

Yclept Posted: December 23, 2011 at 04:48 PM (#4022811)

Same old same old. People don't understand probabilities.

The author's a math teacher and doesn't understand probabilities.

That could be a problem.

DB

It's a terribly fun thing about baseball, but it makes transfering ideas from baseball into other settings highly problematic.

OTOH Moneyball principles (i.e., taking advantage of market inefficiencies) readily transfer to other settings.

Many fierce advocates of testing--Bloomberg most obviously--will only pay for the cheapest possible tests, even though those tests are far less effective than more-expensive ones.

Americans don't want the best.

They want the cheapest.

That's why government contracts always go to the lowest bidder.

Penny wise, and pound foolish.

DB

OTOH Moneyball principles (i.e., taking advantage of market inefficiencies) readily transfer to other settings.

I mean, yes, but "taking advantage of market inefficiencies" is mostly jargon that means "getting good deals".

Everyone is always trying to "identify market inefficiencies" in some form or another - Moneyball is about the use of a certain set of metrics to make those identifications, and the utility of those metrics for evaluating baseball performance. What makes baseball special is that we can identify market inefficiencies through the use of relatively simple metrics.

The author's a math teacher and doesn't understand probabilities.

That could be a problem.

DB

Most of my high school math teachers couldn't speak English. Given what a decent math-related degree is worth on the job market, schools are forced to take the dregs.

Whoa! I went to grad school with the writer of this piece. We used to talk #### about baseball since I'm a Yanks fan. Anyway, I wish he hadn't drawn the parallel with moneyball, but I'm not going to argue against a piece that says teaching quality shouldn't be measured by test scores.

I'm not going to argue against a piece that says teaching quality shouldn't be measured by test scores.

Test scores <=> Fld%

Discuss.

I think that there's obvious merit in identifying who does a really good job at teaching children and adapting those techniques in a widespread way, but it seems like it's really difficult to identify who does a good job at teaching given current measurements.

To me, the problem where people are using poor measurements is the definition of a "Moneyball" problem.

There is no "market' in education to be efficient. Public education simply can't be good, successful or efficient because it's "public". There is no market, no choice, to avoid completely pouring money down the rathole of public education we rely on tests as a mediocre proxy to "measure" "results", instead of letting the consumers (parents and kids) pick and choose where their money is best spent, and what measures best guide their decisions.

The union drones should just accept testing as a minor cost so they can be overpaid, under managed and under-worked while they wait to retire at early ages with lush pensions.

Public education simply can't be good, successful or efficient

I think it could be efficient, but it isn't set up for excellence. It's designed to get the masses to a state of competency. If efficient, it does this, but if it misses that mark at all, you have mediocrity and worse.

On the other hand, the primary advantage of most private schools is pure demographics. It has little if anything to do with teacher quality, and everything to do with the family situation the kids are coming from.

There is no "market' in education to be efficient. Public education simply can't be good, successful or efficient because it's "public". There is no market, no choice, to avoid completely pouring money down the rathole of public education we rely on tests as a mediocre proxy to "measure" "results", instead of letting the consumers (parents and kids) pick and choose where their money is best spent, and what measures best guide their decisions.

This is all true in old textbooks, but economists now devote most of their time to talking about the ways that markets fail to produce excellence or efficiency. Market isn't magic! And privatizing government services often leads to higher expenses and worse outcomes; it all depends on how, not whether, services are privatized. But the main question is definitional. Public schools are designed to serve the public. Do they? Well obviously not perfectly, but it is hard to say that public schools haven't played a big role in creating a literate society in which people in the broad middle are able to perform the types of jobs that are available, when those jobs are available. It's inconceivable that we could have transformed from an agrarian society to an industrial one to a post-industrial one without public schools.

In terms of overpaid, this is also puzzling, given that teachers make less than similarly educated people and routinely make less that uneducated people in civil service positions. And of course make far less here than they make in many other countries.

The interesting thing about public education is that it is always in crisis, and yet it is perilously difficult to find any scalable system that surpasses it. Some portion of small charters do, but many of them lose their advantage as soon as they scale upward. And on the whole charters underperform public schools, once you control for student body. Most private schools, even the famous ones, at best keep up with and often underperform public schools once you control for population. (There is though value in having your students in a completely selected environment, even if that value isn't to be found in educational achievement.) So sure public education stinks, but what are the alternatives? A more-expensive, less-regulated, lower-performing system of charters and fly-by-night invented-yesterday private schools that would spring up if the public schools were dismantled?

Test scores <=> Fld%

I would say this overstates the effectiveness of test scores.

They're measuring the wrong things. In the big city public school system my kids go to school in, it's like the place is run by flat earthers. They're all about test scores and nothing else. There's never any discussion about what those tests are measuring. It's hideous.

They're measuring the wrong things. Talking to traditionalists about fielding is like talking to flat earthers. They're all about Fld% and nothing else. There's never any discussion about what Fld% is measuring. It's hideous.

Yup, I think I nailed it.

In terms of overpaid, this is also puzzling, given that teachers make less than similarly educated people and routinely make less that uneducated people in civil service positions. And of course make far less here than they make in many other countries.

I think by "overpaid" the writer is arguing that educators who do not actually educate the students they're supposed to educate are not doing their jobs and would be overpaid if paid at all.

For example the CEOs of Bank of America and Citibank would be overpaid in my view since they operated their companies in a way that they would be bankrupt if not for a government bailout -- precisely the type of bailout that smaller banks and savings and loans did not get in the early 1990s. I really don't care how much they would make as salaried people if they were to look for a job on the open market.

You should get paid based on what value you add, not how much your classmates make.

Thank you very much, GregD.

I know lots of teachers, and anyone who calls them overpaid or under-worked (especially that one, if that's possible) has no idea what he's talking about. And they all hate standardized tests. That's something that has been forced on them by politicians, not something they came up with themselves.

I know lots of teachers, and anyone who calls them overpaid or under-worked (especially that one, if that's possible) has no idea what he's talking about. And they all hate standardized tests. That's something that has been forced on them by politicians, not something they came up with themselves.

I know lots of students in the St Louis public school that aren't being educated by their schools. Something like 9% of students in the district are reading at their grade level. This is the tragedy. I don't give a flying **** about whether their teachers think they're overpaid or underpaid, or whether or not they hate or don't hate standardized tests.

I know lots of students in the St Louis public school that aren't being educated by their schools. Something like 9% of students in the district are reading at their grade level. This is the tragedy. I don't give a flying **** about whether their teachers think they're overpaid or underpaid, or whether or not they hate or don't hate standardized tests.

In the end, you have the right final goal--students should be educated. But your methodology seems akin to giving Art Howe the West Side Under-12s, sending them out to the National League, and then using their 0-162 record to damn his managing ability.

To talk about the quality of education, you have to start by separating out two factors: 1) the level of students as they come in and 2) the level of improvement while they are in the system. Many fine public and private schools coast by on #1--they have students who are high achievers when they come in and high achievers when they go out, based on whatever connection of family background (family income is the best predictor of kids' education achievement), family support, native talent, whatever. But many of those schools actually do quite poorly on #2--the kids are great but don't get relatively better. Maybe that's not their fault; maybe it's like Albert Pujols 3 years ago. How much better can a person get? But it's still generally so; many of the "best" schools do a poor job when measured by standard #2.

And quite a few "terrible" schools do quite well on #2. They get students who come in reading 4.2 levels below grade level and send them out reading at 2.1 levels below. That's a great success. But by your measure, they're a failure, and the school that did nothing with gifted kids is a success.

To address #1--the level at which students enter the system--we have to consider massive programs. It may not be possible to make the kind of dents we'd like even with massive programs. But that's about our society's role in preparing the next generation, not about schools.

The debate on education has to be focused on #2--what schools do with what society gives them, and things like what percent are reading at grade level tells you nothing about that, unless you pretend that everyone is a perfectly blank slate and starts at exactly the same place on the first day of kindergarten.

And quite a few "terrible" schools do quite well on #2. They get students who come in reading 4.2 levels below grade level and send them out reading at 2.1 levels below. That's a great success. But by your measure, they're a failure, and the school that did nothing with gifted kids is a success.

This may be true in other parts of the country, but I would be shocked if this were the case in the St Louis City School District. It's not that only a minority of students are reading at grade level, it's that almost no one is. And it's not because there's a massive influx of immigrants coming in at various grades speaking dozens of different languages. Hardly anyone moves to St Louis. Most kids in the district do start school in the district. It is also true that the school cannot control the level of support the student gets at home, and lots of kids in the St Louis City schools get very little support at home.

If I heard teachers make 1/100 the noise about how much the students are suffering as they do about how much they deserve to be paid and how they should be evaluated I might have a lot more sympathy for them. Might.

This may be true in other parts of the country, but I would be shocked if this were the case in the St Louis City School District. It's not that only a minority of students are reading at grade level, it's that almost no one is. And it's not because there's a massive influx of immigrants coming in at various grades speaking dozens of different languages. Hardly anyone moves to St Louis. Most kids in the district do start school in the district. It is also true that the school cannot control the level of support the student gets at home, and lots of kids in the St Louis City schools get very little support at home.

You seem to be confirming what I wrote. You lay out several reasons for deplorable educational outcomes, none of which has anything to do with what goes on in classrooms. Going from that to blaming to teachers for the outcomes is like criticizing Art Howe for not winning the National League pennant with the West Side Under 12-s. Now, terrible teaching may be going on also--I don't doubt that. But your factors--language background, family support, family educational achievement, family economic levels--are all in category #1.

If I heard teachers make 1/100 the noise about how much the students are suffering as they do about how much they deserve to be paid and how they should be evaluated I might have a lot more sympathy for them. Might.

Surely all institutions are imperfect communicators, but I can't help but wonder where you get your sense of the noise teachers' unions make. Their own lobbying positions--easily accessible by Google--are mostly about broad economic issues affecting the country, and their organizations lobby hard for things like universal health care, expanded social programs, and progressive taxation, even though they won't benefit directly from these programs since they all have health care, are unqualified to work as social workers and--according to this thread--make so much money that surely they will be hurt by tax the rich schemes. Teachers' unions aren't perfect and can fall into narrow, self-interested fights like anybody, but their overall commitment to social programs for their students is at the very highest level, much stronger than almost any interest group. Of course no one would know that from one of the websites funded by the Gates Foundation.

As a teacher who knows many teachers, I agree with every word GregD has written in this thread.

As a teacher who knows many teachers, I agree with every word GregD has written in this thread.

Seconded. Thanks, Greg.

You seem to be confirming what I wrote. You lay out several reasons for deplorable educational outcomes, none of which has anything to do with what goes on in classrooms. Going from that to blaming to teachers for the outcomes is like criticizing Art Howe for not winning the National League pennant with the West Side Under 12-s. Now, terrible teaching may be going on also--I don't doubt that. But your factors--language background, family support, family educational achievement, family economic levels--are all in category #1.

It's not a question of blame, it's a question of accountability. I wouldn't think that Art Howe is a terrible manager because he didn't win the pennant with crappy players, but I wouldn't have a lot of sympathy for him if he demanded a raise either. I would think that whether or not he's terrible, the Under 12-s resources need to be allocated in a way that leads to better outcomes, whether or not it includes Art Howe. The team exists to try to win, not to pay Art Howe. Art Howe has to prove he's relevant to the ultimate objective, not just to prove that he's non-terrible at his narrow job.

Surely all institutions are imperfect communicators, but I can't help but wonder where you get your sense of the noise teachers' unions make. Their own lobbying positions--easily accessible by Google--are mostly about broad economic issues affecting the country, and their organizations lobby hard for things like universal health care, expanded social programs, and progressive taxation, even though they won't benefit directly from these programs since they all have health care, are unqualified to work as social workers and--according to this thread--make so much money that surely they will be hurt by tax the rich schemes. Teachers' unions aren't perfect and can fall into narrow, self-interested fights like anybody, but their overall commitment to social programs for their students is at the very highest level, much stronger than almost any interest group. Of course no one would know that from one of the websites funded by the Gates Foundation.

I've never heard of the Gates Foundation, and I'm not sure I've ever interacted with you before, but I now have a lot of respect for you. Merry Christmas!

Test scores <=> Fld%

I would say this overstates the effectiveness of test scores.

They're measuring the wrong things. In the big city public school system my kids go to school in, it's like the place is run by flat earthers. They're all about test scores and nothing else. There's never any discussion about what those tests are measuring. It's hideous.

It truly is that bad. I know several bright, caring people who got started through Teach for America, and within five years they all fled rather than spend their productive lives teaching to tests.

Kids simply aren't in classrooms long enough to make up for a lack of education and support at home. It's the educational equivalent of a team that's 20 games out of first on Sept. 1 trading for an All-Star and then wondering why they didn't make the playoffs. Even hero teachers can't make up that much ground in such a short amount of time.

When it comes to education spending, the U.S. is way past the point of diminishing returns, at least within the context of the current educational system. Graphs like this prove as much.

Public school teaching can be a double-edge sword. The pay isn't enough to draw in the "best" compared to the hours, stress, etc. At the same time I am sure there are some teachers who are there to collect a decent paycheck (and it does not take a whole hell of a lot to become a certified teacher, and schools who have a hard time attracting teachers might even take less qualified teachers). I teach at a high performing public high school in Louisiana. I know my job is a little easier than others in the same district because my students have a huge head start over their peers. I agree completely with what GregD has said.

I don’t need any more carrots to inspire me to constantly improve my practice. I’ve got 29 pretty darn good ones sitting in my classroom each weekday morning.

We need to cut this school's carrot budget.

I don't know why there's 39 other posts in this thread, because no one is topping this.

I agree with GregD, Vaux, et al. Inner-city schools are a special case, not representative of other public schools. First of all, the districts have no money. This is an incredible inequality, and impossible to blame on teachers. Second of all, the people who live there are transient. Sure there may not be much inmigration to places like the general St. Louis municipality from other places, but reading a book like this open your eyes to how often people have to move from house to house, kids have to move from school to school, kids have to move from relative to relative, and so on. Third of all, the immediately available role models, people who haven't moved miles away, are not people who got where they are by getting straight A's. Fourth, and I may lose some people with this, but our society has no need for people who come from the inner city, our society has no need for manual labor anywhere other than farms, and people growing up there know there's almost no hope for them.

Fourth, and I may lose some people with this, but our society has no need for people who come from the inner city, our society has no need for manual labor anywhere other than farms, and people growing up there know there's almost no hope for them.

Until we have personal services robots, we still need people to do janitorial, groundskeeping, pick up our trash, stock the shelves at the grocery store, etc. I'm not really sure what you mean there.

I worked for a facilities maintenance company a couple of years ago. The people that I worked with didn't suffer from lack of hope. They were happy to have a job, they had families they enjoyed.

First of all, the districts have no money.

This might be true in some cases, but it's certainly not true nationwide. Some of the worst-performing public schools in America are at or near the top when it comes to per-pupil spending. I believe D.C. is one such example.

Fourth, and I may lose some people with this, but our society has no need for people who come from the inner city, our society has no need for manual labor anywhere other than farms, and people growing up there know there's almost no hope for them.

I volunteer at an inner city Catholic primary and middle school in St Louis where families pay whatever they can to send their kids anywhere but the local public school, whether they're Catholic or not. The school then places the better performing kids in good Catholic high schools in the area and HELPS PAY THEIR HIGH SCHOOL TUITION, so that they believe that their primary/middle school efforts are not in vain.

These families are making somewhere in the neighborhood of $20K-$30K per year in mostly irregular jobs. Many of them cannot afford the $3000 annual tuition per child. The school helps them get scholarships and offers the parents on-campus work to help however they can. None of them wants their kid to grow up to be a manual laborer. To assume that inner city kids have no option other than manual labor is incredibly offensive and totally inaccurate.

To assume that inner city kids have no option other than manual labor is incredibly offensive and totally inaccurate.

I think--and I'm speaking for someone else here so maybe I'm wrong--that's misstating the point CA was making. His point wasn't that people in the inner city have no aspiration beyond manual labor (which is obviously both offensive and inaccurate for a goodly portion) but that society--admittedly an imprecise term--has no use for them. That's a subtle difference, but a crucial one and one that, speaking for myself, I largely agree on.

society--admittedly an imprecise term--has no use for them

How are they different, and in particular less useful to society, than any other children if they have the same innate abilities and ambition as anyone else?

How are they different, and in particular less useful to society, than any other children if they have the same innate abilities and ambition as anyone else?

They aren't different, but because of factors involving, in many cases, their home environment, or the historical condition of their schools, it is easier to simply write them off than try to make use of their talents.

Mind you, I don't agree with that view--I disagree pretty strongly, in fact--but I also don't think it's unfair to say that is (often unstated) view of society on those kids.

but that society--admittedly an imprecise term--has no use for them. That's a subtle difference, but a crucial one and one that, speaking for myself, I largely agree on.

If this was true, the top line on the graph I linked in #39 would be a lot flatter, the government wouldn't guarantee college loans for just about anyone (including, in places like California, non-citizens), etc.

There's no big mystery to the educational problems in the U.S. these days. More and more kids are growing up in single-parent homes, which means more and more kids are behind when they enter school. Some of the statistics are staggering, to the point that it's little more than a pipe dream to expect the government or some hero teachers to perform educational miracles.

One of the studies I've read said that the average kid from a two-parent professional household hears 48,000,000 words by age 4, while the average kid from an average household hears 30,000,000 words, and the average kid from a low-income (and typically single-parent) home hears just 13,000,000 words. That's a huge Day 1 educational deficit that can't be made up in kindergarten or first grade, and probably sticks with and hinders such kids throughout their educational careers.

Mind you, I don't agree with that view--I disagree pretty strongly, in fact--but I also don't think it's unfair to say that is (often unstated) view of society on those kids.

Then our society is not just unfair, it's unconscionable and stupid.

One of the studies I've read said that the average kid from a two-parent professional household hears 48,000,000 words by age 4, while the average kid from an average household hears 30,000,000 words, and the average kid from a low-income (and typically single-parent) home hears just 13,000,000 words. That's a huge Day 1 educational deficit that can't be made up in kindergarten or first grade, and probably sticks with and hinders such kids throughout their educational careers.

This indicates that well off children have an advantage, not that poor children have no hope or are of no use to society.

Some of the statistics are staggering, to the point that it's little more than a pipe dream to expect the government or some hero teachers to perform educational miracles.

And yet it is happening in some places, sometimes with government and sometimes without, and with no "hero teachers". It takes a combination of:

-- getting the kids to believe that they can amount to something
-- getting the parents to be interested and involved in the childrens' education
-- insisting on a high level of academic and ethical performance by all parties

Most of all it means making the kids the one and only priority for the school, not teachers, not administrators, not politicians, not the "community", and not parents. All those people are there to serve the kids. Period. I've seen it work with my own eyes.