Re: [Phys-L] student proficiency, or lack thereof

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 10/04/2015 09:44 AM, Donald G Polvani wrote:

> In recent times, teaching introductory physics at a community college
> (calculus-based) the students seemed to be familiar with the concept of a
> vector but needed a little review to become proficient.  The need for review
> was also evident in their knowledge of algebra, trigonometry, and calculus.

That's true, but the situation is even worse than that.
There are some students who don't reliably know the 
difference between a preposition and a pronoun, don't 
reliably know how to add fractions, and aren't entirely
sure whether X minus X equals zero.

> I wonder why the modern emphasis on AP courses in HS doesn't seem to produce
> students (at least, students at a general admission community college) who
> are as well prepared as my generation which did not have AP classes.

There is an obvious hypothesis that explains a great many of
the observations:

One of the fundamental rules of management at every level is:
   *Measure the thing you care about.*

To say the same thing the other way:  Avoid measuring something
that is only a proxy for the thing you care about.  As soon as
you start rewarding and/or regulating the proxy, it ceases to
be a reliable measure.  In this double-negative form it is 
known as Goodheart's law:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

The same principle exists in many other forms, e.g.
  *Do not confuse the symbol for the thing symbolized.*

To be sure, proxies and symbols are useful in their own way
... but they must never become substitutes for the real thing.
This basic idea is at least 2300 years old.
  http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

Let's apply this principle to the educational system.  For years 
we have had a situation where students, teachers, and entire schools 
are harshly judged on the basis of multiple-guess tests bought from
Pearson or the like.

There are several obvious defects.

1) For starters, there is not the slightest evidence that the tests
 are valid for this purpose.  In educationalese there are many
 different definitions of "validity", but for the moment let's stick
 with /construct validity/.  That means the test measures whatever
 it's supposed to measure.  Even if we ignore the fact that the
 definition is largely circular, you know the test is not valid, 
 because you can't even get a straight answer as to what it's 
 supposed to measure.

   Sometimes they say it is supposed to measure "college and career
   readiness" but that's a joke.  
    -- What college?  Julliard?  MIT???
    -- What career?  Cosmetology?  Cosmology???

   Furthermore, even if the test were valid for that purpose, it
   wouldn't be valid for other purposes, e.g. measuring teacher
   and school performance, because of myriad uncontrolled variables.

2) The test measures student performance on a particular day.  This
 is what the teacher is /required/ to care about.  From the teacher's 
 point of view, all the reward structures revolve around this, not
 around the student's actual performance in career or college.

 Obviously, this foments crutches, cramming, and other short-sighted, 
 penny-wise / pound-foolish tactics.

3) Federal law requires testing, but leaves the details to the states.
 This is a guaranteed recipe for bizarre behavior in every direction.
 States that want to maximize their Federal funding have every incentive
 to purchase a test on which even the dullest student gets a passing 
 score.  Other states might choose to purchase a test loaded with
 racially and culturally biased questions.  Other states might want
 a test where only the most selective charter schools will do well.

4) The system is set up so that insofar as it measures anything, it
 identifies the schools most in need of help and takes resources
 /away from/ them.

*) Et cetera.......

Bottom line:  Making life-altering decisions on the basis of obviously-
invalid data must be considered managerial malpractice on an epic scale.



Also, here's an additional hypothesis.  This feeds on the testing
issue and exacerbates the testing issue, but at some fundamental
level it's not quite the same thing:

++ Teaching used to be considered a profession.  One of the defining
 properties is that a professional gets to choose the tools and the
 means of achieving a given goal.  There has been a long campaign
 to reduce primary and secondary school teachers to non-professional
 blue-collar status, or indeed to robots whose every move is scripted.

 Micro-management in general is bad enough, but this is worse, because
 the so-called managers are pushing things in the wrong direction.

================================

To anticipate the obvious follow-up question:  If you are wondering
how anybody could possibly be stupid enough to set up a system like
this ... I say that a great deal of it is worse than stupid: it's
intentionally evil.

There are lots of people out there whose goal is to destroy the
public education system.  That's because they want to re-segregate
education along racial, sectarian, and partisan lines.  This is
payback for Brown v Board of Education:  They say, "If you want to 
desegregate the public schools, fine ... we will nuke the public 
schools and leave you to deal with the glowing rubble."

These people are smart, well-funded, and very, very determined.
They have been working on this for years, and they will not give
up until they succeed.  At this point they are almost guaranteed 
of success in many areas, insofar as they have weakened the public
schools beyond the point of no return ... unless drastic counter-
measures are taken.