There is a lot to laugh about in this title's question. Laugh-so-you-don't-cry kind of laugh. The Wall Street Journal published an article by John Merrow a few days ago covering the basics of teacher evaluation based on student test performance. My laughter comes from the subsequent letters.
Today's WSJ had a set of these. A couple are logical, straightforward comments saying that results must be the basis of any evaluation. The laugher was caused by a reply from a teacher with 20 years of experience, Karen Fisher, in New York. She writes: "Blame the teachers and the unions--how often do we have to hear the same old tired arguments as to why the American educational system is failing? ... Sorry parents--when your kids don't do well in school, it is usually due to lack of discipline at home."
What is, sort of, funny is that one of the folks engaged in teaching America's young how to think flunks elementary logic. Karen, even if, as you suggest, home-discipline is an important part of the problem, it does not follow that teachers are not an important part of the problem too. This analysis suggests that teachers account for 15%-30% of the variance (that's a lot in a social science setting).
Now, I strongly suspect home discipline is important. I also think innate talent is important as well as peer culture. There is not a lot of good data, but what there is (summarized nicely by Judith Rich Harris in The Nurture Assumption) suggests that peer culture and genetics are both more critical than home environment.
Sadly, teachers and their unions seem to be in step with Karen on all this, sailing down deNial.
No comments:
Post a Comment