Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | schmave's commentslogin

This graph, shown at 12:50, shows how good four different factors are at predicting whether a teacher will raise the test scores of her students, and they are:

1) Past Performance (presumably, whether the teacher raised his students' test scores the year before, although it's not defined)

2) Whether or not the teacher majored in math

3) Whether or not the teacher participated in TFA

4) Whether or not the teacher has a Master's in Education

The best predictor is #1, which just means that the best predictor of whether a teacher is good at raising test scores is to see if they were good at that last year too. That doesn't seem very surprising to me.


As a few other people here have suggested, standardized test scores are a pretty narrow measure of education quality. Bill Gates mentioned that everyone in the room had probably had a few great teachers to get them to where they are now. When I think about the great teachers I have had, I certainly don't think they were great because they raised my standardized test scores. They were great because they gave me a much deeper understanding of a topic, or opened my eyes to something I hadn't seen before.

Yes, the best teachers I had may have increased my standardized test scores some as a side effect, but it would be an insult to them if that's why I admired them so much as teachers.

Test prep can be done in a factory, but not education.


Production is solved for now, but our solution (at least in the US, as I understand it) depends on abundant supplies of fossil fuel and fossil water, which are not going to be around forever.

So, there is plenty of work to do to see that this problem stays solved.


Abundant supplies of fossil fuel's are in use because they are cheep. Zero technological advances are required to provide a stable food supply for 20 billion people. It's actualy difficut to find the maximum stable food supply with current technology over the long term.

For example: "there are 1.3 billion cattle in the world today"

Now some of them are a net food source because they feed in areas that humans can't. But, effectively feeding cows costs the world well over 1 billion humans worth of food.

Topsoil does not actually get destroyed. Rivers just deposit it as silt which can be recovered.

etc.


feeding cows costs the world well over 1 billion humans worth of food.

RBST can reduce that impact. http://www.google.com/search?q=rbst+efficiency

rbST reduces carbon footprint of dairies

The present study demonstrates that use of rbST markedly improves the efficiency of milk production and mitigates environmental parameters, ...


Topsoil does not actually get destroyed. Rivers just deposit it as silt which can be recovered.

Interesting. Silt also piles up behind dams. http://www.google.com/search?q=irn+dams+silting Perhaps dam silt could be even-more easily recovered.


fossil water is not an issue - aquifers are constantly replenished with rainwater (and manual recharging via pumping treated water back into the aquifer...a debatable idea). At least that's the case in the mid- and north-west. Coastal and dryish states may vary. I seem to remember seeing somewhere that Los Angeles was putting an evaporative water purification plant in, which would give the aquifers in that area a rest.

fossil fuel, however, is still an issue.


If you are interested in what he has to say about education, you might also like the writings of John Taylor Gatto:

* http://www.spinninglobe.net/againstschool.htm

* http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/


This article throws the term "hook" around. Do they mean binary rewriting or some other kind of hooking? That's awesome if Xobni went the rewriting route.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: