I'd also be interested in seeing if this is a contributor to boys leaning more towards the maths and hard sciences, because there is less bias in a field with concrete answers.
This is why we need to focus on teacher proofing scholastics and academia as much as possible, such as by mandating direct instruction, as well mandating that schools divide students by cognitive ability rather than the present, idiotic age-based social-promotion system, which should be banned at the federal level. The leftwing bias will be baked into society for as long as smart people are disproportionately likely to hold left wing political views, which will be the case for as long as hereditarianism remains broadly rejected by the public.
We shouldn't be trusting these people with things we can't objectively measure. We sure as shit shouldn't be trusting them with the political development of our nation's youth.
There is certainly room for allowing teachers to give a second opinion that contrasts with the test results if they are wildly different from how that student usually performs. Making high school students' futures dependent on having a good day on certain test days is just throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Except, it isn’t. You just aren’t willing to make that sacrifice so you give your children to the government for 8 hours a day starting at 5 years old.
The very fact that you are commenting here means that you are more intelligent than 90% of teachers at least through middle school. Of course you would do a better job.
> Bredtmann: We suspect that teachers are *unconsciously* trying to compensate for social disadvantages by giving more positive grades
Should we see that comment as a moral defence? Or as an inability of Bredtmann to understand that teachers might do it consciously?
If it's the latter, it amazed me… A researcher using his time and tools to help a certain population (by providing proof of discrimination) cannot say that teachers use their time and tools to help the same population?
I don't think it's an either/or situation. I think both behaviors exist, and sometimes both exist in a single teacher.
I was a former elementary school teacher (in the 70s) in a predominantly Hispanic public school in California. I'm basically motivated by meritocracy, but not for any moral consideration: it simply optimizes all outcomes that are shared by a society. Competent dog-catchers are better than mediocre ones.
But it's damned hard not to try to encourage your students, especially observing a lot of honest effort with not a hell of a lot positive result to show for it, by fudging a grade upward a bit.
And one would *never* fudge a grade downward--this is malicious, and malice has no place in a classroom. In my 7 years of teaching, in my estimation I not only never saw or heard of an instance of downgrading, but in honesty never even met a personality type who would consider it. Elementary teachers, by nature, are extremely positive in outlook--almost ridiculously so, which is one reason I left.
That said, whenever appropriate, objective machine grading is far more accurate, but this is less important at a younger age, where encouragement by a respected authority has some level of value.
I’d bet my house the same result holds for sex.
Boys will do relatively better on tests than classroom-based assessments as they spend less time sucking up to teacher.
I'd also be interested in seeing if this is a contributor to boys leaning more towards the maths and hard sciences, because there is less bias in a field with concrete answers.
Truly interesting take
Possibly, but there are other male-female group differences as well
In an ideal world no leftwing teachers would be allowed and highschool doesn’t exist.
This is why we need to focus on teacher proofing scholastics and academia as much as possible, such as by mandating direct instruction, as well mandating that schools divide students by cognitive ability rather than the present, idiotic age-based social-promotion system, which should be banned at the federal level. The leftwing bias will be baked into society for as long as smart people are disproportionately likely to hold left wing political views, which will be the case for as long as hereditarianism remains broadly rejected by the public.
We shouldn't be trusting these people with things we can't objectively measure. We sure as shit shouldn't be trusting them with the political development of our nation's youth.
"we should entirely get rid of teacher-given school grades and only use test scores." Yes.
There is certainly room for allowing teachers to give a second opinion that contrasts with the test results if they are wildly different from how that student usually performs. Making high school students' futures dependent on having a good day on certain test days is just throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Thanks in part to the Teachers Union, school is a tool for indoctrination, not education.
It always was and I survived okay! I remember lots of tedious stuff about poor children in the Third World (1980s) to make me feel guilty.
Otherwise free, universal primary schooling is an immense social and economic good.
For sure there are problems at the margins but people shouldn’t lose sight of the benefits.
The "I'm alright Jack mindset ".
I disagree with aspects of my kids’ schooling but it’s radically better than me homeschooling them ineptly.
Except, it isn’t. You just aren’t willing to make that sacrifice so you give your children to the government for 8 hours a day starting at 5 years old.
The very fact that you are commenting here means that you are more intelligent than 90% of teachers at least through middle school. Of course you would do a better job.
Homeschooling was forced upon me by the government in spring 2020.
I planned to chase my kids back to school afterwards but they were fast ahead of me.
> Bredtmann: We suspect that teachers are *unconsciously* trying to compensate for social disadvantages by giving more positive grades
Should we see that comment as a moral defence? Or as an inability of Bredtmann to understand that teachers might do it consciously?
If it's the latter, it amazed me… A researcher using his time and tools to help a certain population (by providing proof of discrimination) cannot say that teachers use their time and tools to help the same population?
I don't think it's an either/or situation. I think both behaviors exist, and sometimes both exist in a single teacher.
I was a former elementary school teacher (in the 70s) in a predominantly Hispanic public school in California. I'm basically motivated by meritocracy, but not for any moral consideration: it simply optimizes all outcomes that are shared by a society. Competent dog-catchers are better than mediocre ones.
But it's damned hard not to try to encourage your students, especially observing a lot of honest effort with not a hell of a lot positive result to show for it, by fudging a grade upward a bit.
And one would *never* fudge a grade downward--this is malicious, and malice has no place in a classroom. In my 7 years of teaching, in my estimation I not only never saw or heard of an instance of downgrading, but in honesty never even met a personality type who would consider it. Elementary teachers, by nature, are extremely positive in outlook--almost ridiculously so, which is one reason I left.
That said, whenever appropriate, objective machine grading is far more accurate, but this is less important at a younger age, where encouragement by a respected authority has some level of value.
...my two cents.
Of course, that's why I said *might*.
Wow