Cantorsdust posted:

You know primes. Sometimes primes come in pairs only two apart, like 11 and 13, or 29 and 31. It's been proven that there are an infinite number of such "twin prime" pairs. But what about primes appearing three apart? Or four apart? Some number n apart? Are there an infinite number of "n prime" pairs for any n? If not, which n's?

Main Paineframe posted:

The problem with teacher assessment isn't the standards or methodology, it's the actions taken based on the results of the assessments. The dominant forces in school reform policy right now don't want to assess teachers in order to help them improve, they want to assess teachers so that they can fire a bunch of "bad teachers". It's not too much different from how No Child Left Behind addresses failing schools by cutting their funding and then firing all the staff. As long as reform policy is centered around punishment rather than helping to improve, teachers are going to resist teacher assessment to their dying breath, because it's being pushed in order to hurt them rather than help them.

Main Paineframe posted:

The problem with teacher assessment isn't the standards or methodology, it's the actions taken based on the results of the assessments. The dominant forces in school reform policy right now don't want to assess teachers in order to help them improve, they want to assess teachers so that they can fire a bunch of "bad teachers". It's not too much different from how No Child Left Behind addresses failing schools by cutting their funding and then firing all the staff. As long as reform policy is centered around punishment rather than helping to improve, teachers are going to resist teacher assessment to their dying breath, because it's being pushed in order to hurt them rather than help them.

Lightanchor posted:

There is only one pair of primes appearing three apart.

Slobjob Zizek posted:

I think the narrative lot union-busting/teacher resentment/etc. is implicitly tied to the idea that the profession of teaching (or medicine or the academy or whatever) has some intrinsic value. But does it? Do teachers really "know what's best for their classroom"?

Pro-teacher (and pro-physician) arguments seem to be that "it's not their job" to deal with social problems or "it's not their fault" that their students/patients are more disadvantaged than others. Maybe so, but if we have this population of beneficiaries that needs to be catered to in new ways, why are the professional concerns of teachers/doctors/professors/etc. always paramount? In short, why do we care about professional autonomy so much?

Slobjob Zizek posted:

I think the narrative lot union-busting/teacher resentment/etc. is implicitly tied to the idea that the profession of teaching (or medicine or the academy or whatever) has some intrinsic value. But does it? Do teachers really "know what's best for their classroom"?

Pro-teacher (and pro-physician) arguments seem to be that "it's not their job" to deal with social problems or "it's not their fault" that their students/patients are more disadvantaged than others. Maybe so, but if we have this population of beneficiaries that needs to be catered to in new ways, why are the professional concerns of teachers/doctors/professors/etc. always paramount? In short, why do we care about professional autonomy so much?

Main Paineframe posted:

The problem with teacher assessment isn't the standards or methodology, it's the actions taken based on the results of the assessments. The dominant forces in school reform policy right now don't want to assess teachers in order to help them improve, they want to assess teachers so that they can fire a bunch of "bad teachers". It's not too much different from how No Child Left Behind addresses failing schools by cutting their funding and then firing all the staff. As long as reform policy is centered around punishment rather than helping to improve, teachers are going to resist teacher assessment to their dying breath, because it's being pushed in order to hurt them rather than help them.

PT6A posted:

Either we need to figure out how to measure actual teaching ability without regard to the quality of the "raw materials" (sorry if that's an insensitive metaphor), or we need to give up on the concept altogether.

Asiina posted:

Slobjob Zizek posted:

I think the narrative lot union-busting/teacher resentment/etc. is implicitly tied to the idea that the profession of teaching (or medicine or the academy or whatever) has some intrinsic value. But does it? Do teachers really "know what's best for their classroom"?

Pro-teacher (and pro-physician) arguments seem to be that "it's not their job" to deal with social problems or "it's not their fault" that their students/patients are more disadvantaged than others. Maybe so, but if we have this population of beneficiaries that needs to be catered to in new ways, why are the professional concerns of teachers/doctors/professors/etc. always paramount? In short, why do we care about professional autonomy so much?

Skeesix posted:

Nice post. I think that content knowledge is a real problem that people like to push aside because it's so hard to bring up to teachers. No one wants to tell someone who's been teaching for 30 years that they need to work on content knowledge because it sounds like you're saying that they don't know fractions. But still there's a difference between knowing fractions and really mastering them. There's one guy at Berkeley who wrote a 100 page text just on fractions in all their incarnations. Similarly, in college many education majors do not want to take content knowledge courses. The best books for teacher training are the ones that sneak in content knowledge under the umbrella of manipulative training like Beckmann's book.

Avalanche posted:

Common Core in of itself isn't bad, but like many have said... implementation is the issue. And the implementation is complete poo poo.

The standards are great when you are dealing with a class of upper middle class white kids with IQs straddling the mean that all come from 2 parent households. poo poo falls apart when wrenches get thrown into the works.

For example, special education, speech pathology, and psychology all have to tailor their teaching/therapy to common core standards as well. They must show substantial progress month after month with common core goals. Again, nothing wrong with data collection and analysis, but it becomes pretty pointless with so many confounds. It becomes a real pain in the rear end trying to get a 7th grader with Downs Syndrome to meet a 7th grade goal when they have the mental capacity of a 1st grader. Or, trying to get Benardo to show progress towards his behavior goal when dad got shipped back to Mexico, mom is never home, and older sister is mainlining heroin.

And... if you are not demonstrating progress, then obviously something is wrong with YOU and YOU need to be fired. I've literally seen a speech pathologist fudge data and convince herself little Jimmy is doing so much better this week compared to last week just from fear of "Not making progress/getting fired".

I've seen the same thing in the private sector with retail. Corporate releases a new "performance metric", and the moment someone finds a way to exploit it, it is exploited to the maximum capacity out of fear. Honesty will just lead to getting yourself fired. Dishonesty means you keep your job.

You would think Special Ed Teachers/Speech Paths/Psychs who all require a Masters or Ph.D to teach/practice would have supreme integrity in data collection and metric reporting, but no. They are people too that don't want to be kicked to the street for not meeting a bullshit metric they have no control over.

Asiina posted:

Oh man, I'm so excited that people are talking about math education. I'm a researcher in math education!

[amazing post]

quote:

Many states and school districts have adopted Value-Added Models (VAMs) as part of educational accountability systems. The goal of these models, which are also referred to as Value-Added Assessment (VAA) Models, is to estimate effects of individual teachers or schools on student achievement while accounting for differences in student background. VAMs are increasingly promoted or mandated as a component in high-stakes decisions such as determining compensation, evaluating and ranking teachers, hiring or dismissing teachers, awarding tenure, and closing schools.

The American Statistical Association (ASA) makes the following recommendations regarding the use of VAMs:

• The ASA endorses wise use of data, statistical models, and designed experiments for improving the quality of education.

• VAMs are complex statistical models, and high-level statistical expertise is needed to develop the models and interpret their results.

• Estimates from VAMs should always be accompanied by measures of precision and a discussion of the assumptions and possible limitations of the model. These limitations are particularly relevant if VAMs are used for high-stakes purposes.

• VAMs are generally based on standardized test scores, and do not directly measure potential teacher contributions toward other student
  outcomes.
  
• VAMs typically measure correlation, not causation: Effects – positive or negative – attributed to a teacher may actually be caused by other
  factors that are not captured in the model.
  
• Under some conditions, VAM scores and rankings can change substantially when a different model or test is used, and a thorough analysis
  should be undertaken to evaluate the sensitivity of estimates to different models.

• VAMs should be viewed within the context of quality improvement, which distinguishes aspects of quality that can be attributed to the system from those that can be attributed to individual teachers, teacher preparation programs, or schools. Most VAM studies find that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores, and that the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level
conditions. Ranking teachers by their VAM scores can have unintended consequences that reduce quality.

As the largest organization in the United States representing statisticians and related professionals, the American Statistical Association (ASA) is making this statement to provide guidance, given current knowledge and experience, as to what can and cannot reasonably be expected from the use of VAMs. This statement focuses on the use of VAMs for assessing teachers’ performance but the issues discussed here also apply to their use for school or principal accountability. The statement is not intended to be prescriptive. Rather, it is intended to enhance general understanding of the strengths and limitations of the results generated by VAMs and thereby encourage the informed use of these results.

Value-Added Models and Their Interpretation
In recent years test-based accountability for schools and educators has become a prominent feature of the education landscape. In particular, the use of sophisticated statistical methods to create performance measures from student achievement data, often through VAMs, has become more prevalent. VAMs attempt to predict the “value” a teacher would add to student achievement growth, as measured by standardized test scores, if each teacher taught comparable students under the same conditions. VAM results are often regarded as more objective or authoritative than other types of information because they are based on student outcomes, use quantitative complex models, and rely on standardized test scores and common procedures for all teachers or schools.

This statement by the American Statistical Association provides guidance as to what can and cannot be reasonably expected, given current knowledge and experience, from use of VAMs. It is intended to enhance general understanding of the strengths and limitations of the results generated by VAMs and thereby encourage the informed use of these results. It is not meant to be prescriptive or advocate any particular VAM specification or promote or condemn specific uses of VAM.

Value-added models typically use a form of regression model predicting student scores or growth on standardized tests from background variables (including prior test scores), with terms in the model for the teachers who have taught the student. The model coefficients for the teachers are used to calculate their VAM scores. In related models known as “growth models” a regression model is fit to predict students’ current test scores from previous test scores. A percentile is calculated for each student from the model, relating his or her growth to the growth of other students with similar previous test scores. The median or average of the percentiles of a teacher’s students is then used to calculate the teacher’s VAM score. The statistical issues underlying the use of these various types of models are similar, and in this statement, the term “VAM” is used to describe both traditional value-added models and growth models. In both types of models, if a teacher’s students have high achievement growth relative to other students with similar prior achievement, then the teacher will have a high VAM score. Some VAMs also include other background variables for the students.

There are a number of key questions states and districts should address regarding the use of any type of VAM. VAMs are being used for the evaluation of individual teachers on the basis of claims that they can measure those teachers’ effects on student achievement growth. These questions are concerned with how well VAMs measure these effects and how the results should be interpreted.

• The measure of student achievement is typically a score on a standardized test, and VAMs are only as good as the data fed into them. Ideally, tests should fully measure student achievement with respect to the curriculum objectives and content standards adopted by the state, in both breadth and depth. In practice, no test meets this stringent standard, and it needs to be recognized that, at best, most VAMs predict only performance on the test and not necessarily long-range learning outcomes. Other student outcomes are predicted only to the extent that they are correlated with test scores. A teacher’s efforts to encourage students’ creativity or help colleagues improve their instruction, for example, are not explicitly recognized in VAMs.

• VAM scores are calculated from classroom-level heterogeneity that is not explained by the background variables in the regression model. Those classroom-level differences may be due in part to other factors that are not included in the model (for example, class size, teaching “high-need” students, or having students who receive extracurricular tutoring). The validity of the VAM scores as a measure of teacher contributions depends on how well the particular regression model adopted adjusts for other factors that might systematically affect, or bias, a teacher’s VAM score.

The form of the model may lead to biased VAM scores for some teachers. For example, “gifted” students or those with disabilities may exhibit smaller gains in test scores if the model does not accurately account for their status.

• VAM scores are calculated using a statistical model, and all estimates have standard errors. VAM scores should always be reported with associated measures of their precision, as well as discussion of possible sources of biases.

VAMs are complicated statistical models, and they require high levels of statistical expertise. Sound statistical practices need to be used when developing and interpreting them, especially when they are part of a high-stakes accountability system. These practices include evaluating model assumptions, checking how well the model fits the data, investigating sensitivity of estimates to aspects of the model, reporting measures of estimated precision such as confidence intervals or standard errors, and assessing the usefulness of the models for answering the desired questions about teacher effectiveness and how to improve the educational system.

Quality Improvement and Value-Added Models
Statistical science has a rich and continuing history of successful contributions to quality improvement undertakings. While the methods and approaches vary, consensus exists that:

1. The quality improvement process should be monitored and informed using relevant quantitative information;
2. Almost all systems of measurement contain random variation;
3. Attaching too much importance to a single item of quantitative information is counterproductive — in fact, it can be detrimental to the goal of improving quality. In particular, making changes in response to aspects of quantitative information that are actually random variation can increase the overall variability of the system.

When used appropriately, VAMs may provide quantitative information that is relevant for improving education processes. For example, the models can provide information on important sources of variability, and they can allow teachers and schools to see how their students have performed on the assessment instruments relative to students with similar prior test scores. Teachers and schools can then explore targeted new teaching techniques or professional development activities, while building on their strengths.

Using VAM scores to improve education requires that they provide meaningful information about a teacher’s ability to promote student learning. For instance, VAM scores should predict how teachers’ students will progress in later grades and how their future students will fare under their tutelage. Various studies have demonstrated positive correlations between teachers’ VAM scores and their students’ future academic performance and other long term outcomes. In a limited number of studies, teachers have been randomly assigned to classes within schools, thus reducing systematic effects that might arise because of assignment of students to teachers. These studies indicate that the VAM score of a teacher in the year before randomization is positively correlated with the test score gains of the teacher’s students in the year after randomization, but the correlations are generally less than 0.5. Also, studies have shown that teachers’ VAM scores in one year predict their scores in later years.

These studies, however, have taken place in districts in which VAMs are used for low-stakes purposes. The models fit under these circumstances do not necessarily predict the relationship between VAM scores and student test score gains that would result if VAMs were implemented for high-stakes purposes such as awarding tenure, making salary decisions, or dismissing teachers.

The quality of education is not one event but a system of many interacting components. The impact of high-stakes uses of VAMs on the education system depends not only on the statistical properties of the VAM results but on their deployment in the system, especially with regard to how various types of evidence contribute to an overall evaluation and to consequences for teachers.

It is unknown how full implementation of an accountability system incorporating test-based indicators, such as those derived from VAMs, will affect the actions and dispositions of teachers, principals and other educators. Perceptions of transparency, fairness and credibility will be crucial in determining the degree of success of the system as a whole in achieving its goals of improving the quality of teaching. Given the unpredictability of such complex interacting forces, it is difficult to anticipate how the education system as a whole will be affected and how the educator labor market will respond. We know from experience with other quality improvement undertakings that changes in evaluation strategy have unintended consequences. A decision to use VAMs for teacher evaluations might change the way the tests are viewed and lead to changes in the school environment. For example, more classroom time might be spent on test preparation and on specific content from the test at the exclusion of content that may lead to better long-term learning gains or motivation for students. Certain schools may be hard to staff if there is a perception that it is harder for teachers to achieve good VAM scores when working in them. Overreliance on VAM scores may foster a competitive environment, discouraging collaboration and efforts to improve the educational system as a whole.

Research on VAMs has been fairly consistent that aspects of educational effectiveness that are measurable and within teacher control represent a small part of the total variation in student test scores or growth; most estimates in the literature attribute between 1% and 14% of the total
variability to teachers. This is not saying that teachers have little effect on students, but that variation among teachers accounts for a small part of the variation in scores. The majority of the variation in test scores is attributable to factors outside of the teacher’s control such as student and family background, poverty, curriculum, and unmeasured influences.

The VAM scores themselves have large standard errors, even when calculated using several years of data. These large standard errors make rankings unstable, even under the best scenarios for modeling. Combining VAMs across multiple years decreases the standard error of VAM scores. Multiple years of data, however, do not help problems caused when a model systematically undervalues teachers who work in specific contexts or with specific types of students, since that systematic undervaluation would be present in every year of data. A VAM score may provide teachers and administrators with information on their students’ performance and identify areas where improvement is needed, but it does not provide information on how to improve the teaching. The models, however, may be used to evaluate effects of policies or teacher training programs by comparing the average VAM scores of teachers from different programs. In these uses, the VAM scores partially adjust for the differing backgrounds of the students, and averaging the results over different teachers improves the stability of the estimates.

Statistical science has an important role to play in raising the quality of education, through developing and refining statistical models for use in education, providing guidance on designing experiments and interpreting statistical results, and applying quality and process improvement expertise to help guide judgments in the presence of uncertainty. The ASA promotes sound use of statistical methodology for improving education.

quote:

VAMs are generally based on standardized test scores, and do not directly measure potential teacher contributions toward other student outcomes.

Main Paineframe posted:

Can you explain how firing experienced teachers and replacing them with poorly-trained fresh-faced interns will somehow fix social issues or improve the lot of students? I'm not saying that teachers "know what's best for the classroom"; after all, the original topic of this thread was largely about how teachers are failing to properly adapt to new teaching styles thought to be more effective. I'm saying that rather than addressing those problems and helping teachers to improve their teaching style and fix their problems, most "reform" attempts primarily concern themselves with firing and replacing teachers every year till test scores go up. In addition to completely ignoring the non-teacher-related factors in education and being unlikely to actually have a positive impact on teaching quality, it turns teachers into a reactionary group by teaching them that "education reform" is just a code-word for "screwing over teachers".

Slobjob Zizek posted:

The US federal government is currently budget-constrained, and has been so for a while (the idea of a balanced budget was important since at least the mid-80s. During that same period, many of our social services (healthcare, education, prisons, etc.) have been getting shittier.

Slobjob Zizek posted:

How would you run things differently, given these constraints? It would be as if you ran Subway at the corporate-level and franchisees were free to use your branding and products, but turn down certain directives as they saw fit. Obviously, this would lead to some Subway locations being shittier than others, and the brand might sag as a whole. Maybe great for certain franchisees, but not for the whole company. Same thing happens with US education as a whole and the individual schools that is composed of.

Trabisnikof posted:

No one would have heard about this program if they named it the %State_Name% State Curriculum Program or whatever. No one would get frothy mouthed about the Iowa State Curriculum Program but "common" and "core" are both scary words. The name doomed them, I'm serious.

Slobjob Zizek posted:

How would you run things differently, given these constraints? It would be as if you ran Subway at the corporate-level and franchisees were free to use your branding and products, but turn down certain directives as they saw fit. Obviously, this would lead to some Subway locations being shittier than others, and the brand might sag as a whole. Maybe great for certain franchisees, but not for the whole company. Same thing happens with US education as a whole and the individual schools that is composed of.

Main Paineframe posted:

How about increasing the amount of federally-provided mandatory training to go along with the new curriculums being sent out? Regardless of which Subway location you work at, Subway requires all newly-hired franchise employees to go through a corporate-run online training program. Subway employees are also required to follow certain procedures and policies, and inspectors from both Subway corporate and the government are regularly sent to Subway locations to ensure that employees are following government rules and Subway policies, ranging from "wash your hands after you take out the trash" to "put the right amounts of food on people's sandwiches and follow the corporate recipes". It's not at all difficult for a centralized authority to influence semi-autonomous locations not under their direct control.

Slobjob Zizek posted:

Pro-teacher (and pro-physician) arguments seem to be that "it's not their job" to deal with social problems or "it's not their fault" that their students/patients are more disadvantaged than others. Maybe so, but if we have this population of beneficiaries that needs to be catered to in new ways, why are the professional concerns of teachers/doctors/professors/etc. always paramount? In short, why do we care about professional autonomy so much?

Jackson Taus posted:

One of the things that aways annoys me in discussions of Common Core are parents who are somehow engaged enough to throw a fit that their children's curriculum is different from what they learned 30 years ago, but not engaged enough to take 10-15 minutes and figure it out. Like they always circulate these examples where it's like "oh God this is so ridiculous how are our kids supposed to understand this New Math" but the examples make plenty of sense if you look at them for a minute to two, much less if you go over with the kid what the teacher said in class or look at the textbook or online resources or whatever.

Slobjob Zizek posted:

Next, we have the issue of professionalism. Teachers are direct employees of districts, but they are unionized and individual districts cannot force them to teach a certain way. They are not like employees of a retail business; the line of authority is much more diffuse. Okay, great, teachers have academic freedom, tenure, etc. That's great for them. Maybe great for students, but only if the teacher's freedom leads him or her to teach better than the standards. If not, then the freedom is a net negative for students. Again, the federal government cannot do anything about this anyway, it can only effect teachers through several layers of management by holding funding hostage at the school-, district-, and state-level.

litany of gulps posted:

Speaking as a former retail employee, the line of authority is not that much different. I went from Wal-Mart management to inner city public school teacher, and it really struck me how similar the policies, procedures, and due process were in both institutions. In both cases, extreme failure resulted in lengthy documentation processes to terminate the employee. I've seen both happen from up close and they were pretty much equal in terms of duration and burden of proof.

Jackson Taus posted:

One of the things that aways annoys me in discussions of Common Core are parents who are somehow engaged enough to throw a fit that their children's curriculum is different from what they learned 30 years ago, but not engaged enough to take 10-15 minutes and figure it out. Like they always circulate these examples where it's like "oh God this is so ridiculous how are our kids supposed to understand this New Math" but the examples make plenty of sense if you look at them for a minute to two, much less if you go over with the kid what the teacher said in class or look at the textbook or online resources or whatever.

Luigi Thirty posted:

Parents? My friend is a teacher and she complains about Common Core new math being so stupid she can't understand it or teach it to the kids.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

The "Johnny got this wrong answer.What mistake did he make?" questions are probably the best "do you understand arithmetic" questions I've ever seen

Skeesix posted:

Call me crazy but I'd hope it would be quicker and easier to fire someone from Walmart than from a teaching job. What you're describing to me is just that, perhaps especially in Texas, there are no more employment protections for teachers than for your average Walmart employee anymore.

Malmesbury Monster posted:

The expectations placed on special ed. by NCLB are probably the worst part of the entire law and nobody's in any hurry to fix it because "we need to have high expectations for all students." Data collection and analysis are wonderful, but turning them into a bar for teacher evaluation makes the data a punishment rather than a tool.

In regards to implementation, I guess I'm arguing over semantics. I see the fight for teacher evaluation/charter schools/union-busting as existing prior to and in spite of Common Core. I worry that, by lumping all of it under one umbrella, people in power will jettison the easy part - the standards themselves - and leave the actually bad things, like Louisiana has. I think we all agree that the implementation has been really lovely, though, and that drags the entire enterprise down.

Avalanche posted:

May God have mercy on all speech therapists and special ed. teachers.

Speech therapists who work with all kinds of stuff from plain old stuttering to severe Downs Syndrome even have to closely follow common core based goals. Speech therapists are trained from day 1 to recognize a disorder, write goals that target the disorder's specific impact on speech and/or language, and collect data on the intervention techniques.

But noooo, every goal must now be common core based. So you end up with these really hosed up situations where Sally Sue a 7th grader with severe Autism that can only communicate through basic vocalizations like screaming, crying, and 2-3 echolalic phrases has to now somehow meet this standard:

L 7.6 Vocabulary Acquisition and Use
Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases; gather vocabulary knowledge when considering a word or phrase important to comprehension or expression.


It's like telling a doctor that he can't treat a child with the flu unless his prescriptions and recommendations meet a common core science standard.

KillHour posted:

Am I missing something? Why would a child with autism so severe that they are unable to communicate ever be in 7th grade? Or even in a traditional school?

Edit: And your analogy makes no sense.