>How is it possible that a student is worse off having the knowledge necessary to pass a test than to have no knowledge?
That's a totally false dichotomy. My point is that the test rewards students for simplistic thinking. It rewards the children who are not learning how to learn, but learning how to memorize.
>Kids are dumb. Their "complex thought" is really quite simple.
That's a terrible attitude to design a curriculum around. Curricula need to be designed around the concept that every child has an immense capacity for learning and complex thought. Curricula should be designed to reward complex thought. Rewarding rote memorization is not a bad thing, but it is at best a supplement to critical thinking.
Bad teachers teaching bad tests is worse than bad teachers left to their own devices.
Bad teachers don't teach. They don't convey knowledge.
That's a terrible attitude
No it isn't, it's reality. Kids are dumb. That's the point of growing up: you become inherently more intelligent and schooling gives you progressive knowledge which is (hopefully) just beyond your full grasp at any given time.
every child has an immense capacity for learning and complex thought
Do you actually know any children? They only have an immense capacity for complex thought if your expectations are low enough.
By the way, I love kids and enjoy interacting with them. But I don't for a second think they're precious, brilliant little snowflakes. They're still dumb. They may be smart among their peers, but they're still dumb on an absolute scale.
> Bad teachers don't teach. They don't convey knowledge
Teaching is not a simple matter of shoveling some quantity of "knowledge" into children. Education requires purpose, focus, and motivation. Good teachers inspire children to learn on their own. Bad teachers actively harm students' achievement.
As for my comment on tests, tests that encourage students to write terrible essays loaded with factoids are bad because they encurage students to write terrible essays. This has nothing to do with the teacher - except that if used as a metric for evaluating teachers, it will cause us to devalue teachers who teach students to write better essays.
And I stand by my assertion that no one who calls children dumb should be involved in their education. Motivation is a primary piece of education, and calling students dumb is profoundly demotivating.
I don't know why you're telling me the obvious. Nor do I see what it has to do with the distinction between good and bad teachers. You're making a lot of proclamations without any supporting evidence.
if used as a metric for evaluating teachers, it will cause us to devalue teachers who teach students to write better essays.
Why? What is the basis for that claim? Teaching a testing strategy for a unified test has very little to do with week-to-week teaching and testing. That's sort of the point, it's a standardized test meant to establish baseline comprehension. Why does an essay that hits at least a couple of key points somehow qualify as 'bad'?
And I stand by my assertion that no one who calls children dumb should be involved in their education.
What are you talking about? Who was talking about people involved in education calling children dumb? Who was even talking about calling children dumb? I describe children as dumb, because that's the reality, I don't call them dumb.
That's a totally false dichotomy. My point is that the test rewards students for simplistic thinking. It rewards the children who are not learning how to learn, but learning how to memorize.
>Kids are dumb. Their "complex thought" is really quite simple.
That's a terrible attitude to design a curriculum around. Curricula need to be designed around the concept that every child has an immense capacity for learning and complex thought. Curricula should be designed to reward complex thought. Rewarding rote memorization is not a bad thing, but it is at best a supplement to critical thinking.