via www.nypost.com
I've seen the recent headlines about the Standard Hotel's windows which often feature naked guests or employees of the hotel. I have not bothered to read the stories behind the headlines because I figure I knew it already: exhibitionists check in to the hotel and voyeurs stroll along NYC's new High Line for optimum viewing pleasure. I did not realize that the Standard's window displays didn't just feature people occasionally flashing their chests or their backside. Pedestrians have also looked up and seen men masturbating and couples having sex in full view. Some might see these displays as avant garde and fun but these displays mean that the public can only take advantage of the High Line if they are willing to accept these grotesque displays. The High Line is a public park, paid for by our taxes, as such it should not be a resource controlled by perverts. The Standard may be operating on the motto 'There is no such thing as bad publicity' but it seems to me if they don't change their tune, they will only be able to attract a very odd subsection of the population. If the Standard will not curb this behavior, it will be up to the city to make a change (tinted windows perhaps?!).
Extra Education vs. Test Scores: They both have downfalls
via roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com
During Communist rule of the Soviet Bloc, the central government would set benchmarks for what factories should achieve. They set a level of wood they wanted used in one month in furniture making, they set the number of watts that they wanted produced from a light bulb factory. The result? The factories who were set these goals achieved them the easiest way that they could: the furniture factory turned out pieces of furniture that were so large and heavy they were next to impossible to move, the light bulb factory produced bulbs that had such a high wattage, they would blow any fuse that they were connected to. The problem here was incentives: you tell someone that they should be focusing on how much wood they use or how many watts there end-product has and that is what they will do, and they will ignore the other standards that might also be important to you.
The importance of incentives applies to everything, in this case, teaching. If a teacher's promotion (read: pay raise) is based on how much extra education and training they get, that is what they will focus on. While I'm sure there are plenty of teachers who do genuinely care about their performance in the classroom, the fact that that performance has nothing to do with whether they get promoted, get more money or more seniority means that there is an incentive for them to take their eyes off of teaching and instead do as many extra courses as they can.
Clearly, it is not optimal for students to have teachers spending time becoming accredited when they could be preparing lessons. The Obama administration has noticed this and so they are recommending that promotions be based on children's performance. This sounds like a move in the right direction but then you may ask yourself 'How will a class' performance be quantified?' The easy solution is with standardized tests. Tests present there own host of issues because, like with basing promotion of degrees, if this is what a teacher's advancement depends on, this is what they will focus on. In the past when tests have been used to rate teachers they have devoted a disproportionate amount of class time to getting their students prepared for the tests, this has meant that skills like writing or creativity that are not tested have been ignored. In some extreme cases, the pressure on teachers to have students that achieve high scores has caused the teachers to cheat, giving their students the answers!!
The bottom line is that it is impossible to quantify a 'good teacher' in a way that can be evaluated by the people that run the public school system. I have long been in favor of a voucher system that allows students who would otherwise be stuck in public school, to attend private institutions. This would give students and parents the ability to vote with their feet for institutions that have a good teaching staff. Schools that were filled with teachers that didn't care would close down for lack of public funds (by why of the vouchers).
It's just an idea.
Posted at 11:25 AM in Cultural Commentary, New York Groove | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)