Comment by icarus_drowning | Hacker News Reader

Comment by icarus_drowning | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

icarus_drowning

I teach 6-8th grade music at a local charter school, and while my performance isn't tested through standardized exams, I can attest to my colleagues' enormous frustration with this very issue.

For example: during our standardized testing this year, the school put in huge amounts of effort to align student incentives, most of which were silly and clearly ineffective. (My personal favorite? Disallowing students to bring their own books to read after they finished the test to "encourage" them to check their work instead of hurrying through so they could read the next chapter of The Hunger Games. Talk about easy ways to incite student frustration and contempt!)

I can attest to students finishing a test in less than 10 minutes despite being given more than an hour, or refusing to do any of the test at all. I've heard horror stories of students using the multiple-choice answer documents to make pictures by filling in the bubbles, or simply choosing to color in bubbles so lightly that they can't possibly be read. I know of examples in prior years wherein students chose to write essays about how much they hate testing on the essay portion instead of addressing the infantile tripe they were assigned.

Now, these are obviously exceptions to the rule (I'm a bit biased, but I think our students are almost uniformly excellent), but it is amazing how much damage one student can do by choosing not to care. (Or, in some cases, using their answers to vent their frustration).

And why should they? As far as I know, rewarding students for higher performance is disallowed, leaving teachers with very few tools with which to convince students that these tests matter. Sure, you can go on and on about how their scores will be "important" in their future (which, to my knowledge, isn't always true), but that only goes so far. Sometime during the 2 weeks of intensive testing, the kids just don't care anymore.

I'm all for assessing the performance of teachers, and I'm not sure how to fix the problem (or even if it can be fixed), but one thing seems clear to me: they're doing it wrong.

[Updated to fix punctuation errors]

Sounds similar to the situation of a programmer with an app in the Android store. Your users will give 1 star reviews for minor problems or as feature request blackmail, without caring they're undermining your livelihood.

The incentive for the person grading is just disconnected from the supposed meaning of the rating itself.

Want an incentive to have students perform better?

Schools need to implement a standard performance-based path for skipping grade levels so that students can get out sooner.

I was reading Hawking, Nietzsche, and college-level humanities books in my free time in 8th grade because I was bored out of my gourd with my classes. In 12th grade, I was forced to take classes that taught, for example, how to balance your check book.

I'm pretty sure that when he's older, I'm going to encourage my son to get a GED when he's 16 yo or so, just so that he doesn't have to put up with all of the bullcrap classes.

And, I don't care about your socialization arguments. My son is 2 yo and already has great table manners, is polite, shares, and is quite empathetic. Most of the "normal" young people I meet these days behave either like wild Indians (feather not dot) or slovenly Barbarians.

Clearly your great mind hasn't yet come to realise why some of us are aghast at stupid racist statements like yours.

hnhg,

Thanks for saying that because it brings up a problem that HN has that I've been thinking about for awhile. HN seems to be stuck in an upper to upper-middle class/Leftist/Politally-Correct viewpoint, and I think that is to its detriment. Why do so many HNer's startups focus on things like iPod Apps, whose chances for profitability are very questionable, instead of markets like industrial sales software, which is very under-served?

Shouting "That's racist!" every time someone expresses a non-Leftist opinion here is a symptom of your limited viewpoint, and frankly is embarrassing for you.

Would you express the same righteous indignation if I was trying to distinguish between groups of Europeans and had said "lederhosen not shamrock"?

I used to live in an Alaskan Native tribal village, and my friends there would be some of the first ones to tell you that some Indians are wild while some are not. (Note, in my comment, I am not saying all Indians are wild, I am only specifically referencing the wild ones.) And, by wild, I mean those who stereotypically disregard personal and communal property rights and engage in harmful activities like thievery and poaching for the fun of it.

hnhg, I don't know if my point will get through to you or not. I can only hope that you will actually go out and experience the greater world sometime.

If you're angry, please go ahead and downvote me. I've been voted down to -80 karma before. It is close-minded people like you who are the reason why PG no longer shows karma scores for users.

1. I'm not sure how startups' focus on iPod apps is related to race and ethnicity. Probably because it isn't, but hey, you were on a rant so okay.

2. Indian people in the United States do not identify themselves as "dot Indians". Perhaps it is easy to differentiate between different peoples who are called "Indians" by whether or not they stereotypically wear a bindi, but it also, unfortunately, propagates the notion that "them Indian people over there with them dots." It's yet another stereotype people have to deal with on a daily basis when trying to fit into society, and it takes away the focus from treating people as, well, as people, and focusing on the work they do or the value they bring.

3. Similarly, by speaking of "wild Indians" it does indeed marginalize a people and shoehorn them into a stereotype of being uncouth individuals. There are thieves and poachers in all parts of the world, and to say that Native American poachers are any worse than any others is, again, a stereotype and probably untrue.

4. In that light, I never really grew up in a society where rampant poaching by Native Americans was a problem. Perhaps living in a native tribal village, where everyone was part of an Alaskan Native tribe, the only people around to do any poaching were natives. But there is no reason to believe that they would be any more despicable than poachers of any other ethnicity.

This isn't about politics. It's about treating people fairly and equitably, and since that is something that we often do a poor job of doing, well, the things we write and say help form our culture.

And since we're on hacker news, where we tend to value correctness, the presuppositions that your comments make are unfounded and lack truthiness. That isn't being "politically correct"; merely "correct".

> I used to live in an Alaskan Native tribal village, and my friends there would be some of the first ones to tell you that some Indians are wild while some are not. (Note, in my comment, I am not saying all Indians are wild, I am only specifically referencing the wild ones.) And, by wild, I mean those who stereotypically disregard personal and communal property rights and engage in harmful activities like thievery and poaching for the fun of it.

So, you're not racist, because of course you weren't talking about all Native Americans. But if not all 'feather indians' are wild, and not all of those that are wild are 'feather indians' then what was the point of comparing certain kids to them? The only purpose I see is in reinforcing a stereotype that does not apply.

Did you immediately understand what set of behaviors I implied by saying "wild Indian" and "slovenly Barbarian"? (Why isn't anyone upset that I included the Barbarians?) Then you know exactly why I mentioned them - a literary short-hand mechanism.

Simply using existing stereotypes is not racism. I have neither commented on the superiority-level of Indians and Barbarians, nor have I modified their access to resources and opportunities.

From le wik: Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others or as practices that discriminate against members of particular racial groups, for example by perpetuating unequal access to resources between groups.

In fact, stereotypes can be quite useful, for example, when you are trying to determine which VC to impress or what demographic is most likely to use your kitten-photo sharing Facebook App.

"Why isn't anyone upset that I included the Barbarians?"

Because Barbarian isn't a racial or ethnic group. It's a term basically meaning "the savage foreigner." It's demeaning to call someone a barbarian, but there's no Barbarian peoples that are offended by the use of the term.

edit: Gonna go ahead and disagree with this point too:

"Simply using existing stereotypes is not racism. I have neither commented on the superiority-level of Indians..."

Your interpretation of this definition seems to be that using a negative stereotype is not racist because it's not a direct value-judgement. That is wrong.

Even if you're not passing judgement, it is very much racist to say that (for example) Asians are all martial-artists and computer experts, or that Jews control the world, or that Native Americans are wild savages.

Why is that racist? Because it pigeonholes these people into weird and untrue stereotypes, and is therefore offensive to them.

If it's offensive to a racial group, it's probably racist.

There's so much wrong in your comment, I barely know where to start.

> Did you immediately understand what set of behaviors I implied by saying "wild Indian" and "slovenly Barbarian"?

No, actually, I still have no idea. My guess was that those behaviors do not include "great table manners, is polite, shares, and is quite empathetic" but beyond that, I can barely guess.

> (Why isn't anyone upset that I included the Barbarians?)

Who are "the Barbarians"?

> Simply using existing stereotypes is not racism.

Response a) So what, only new stereotypes is racism? b) Yes, it is, when those stereotypes are based on race.

> I have neither commented on the superiority-level of Indians and Barbarians

Um, you said your kid is well-behaved, unlike those other people. That directly implies your kid is superior to them. And I guess your Alaskan Native friends are superior to the "wild" ones. Also, 'positive' racism (e.g. "asians are good at math") is just as bad,

> or have I modified their access to resources and opportunities.

Not directly, but racism is hardly so overt these days.

> In fact, stereotypes can be quite useful, for example, when you are trying to determine which VC to impress or what demographic is most likely to use your kitten-photo sharing Facebook App.

What?! I would never invest in someone that makes business decisions based on stereotypes rather than data, or that approached me because of stereotype they had about me.

I have to say...

hnhg seems correct here your arguments can definitely be 'distilled'. In that distillation process the references to 'Indians', 'Shamrocks' and 'Barbarians' would be the first to go as they add no support to your material point.

Of course, hnhg's comment approaches Ad Hominem. It could also be better worded.

Just trying to be fair.

It would be Ad Hominem if hnhg said "that's racist, therefore you're wrong" but all he said was "that's racist"

Thanks. I appreciate the fairness.

I agree that I could have merely said something like, "...wild and slovenly behavior, such as x,y,and z...." At the time, I was trying to create a vivid verbal picture that conveyed additional concepts such as the Barbarian's penchant for tattoos and piercings. Maybe next time I should just spell it all out instead of refactoring it for the sake of brevity.

^ Wow surprised at the pushback on that. The term "Wild Indians" is referring back to the "Wild West" days and is no way indicative of actual modern day American Indians. Maybe another term could have been used however I think it was blown out of context.

I think what he was trying to get across by using the term is this: http://vimeo.com/25239728

Edit Never Mind: missed the "Dot" part. Yes that was clearly over the line.

"Shouting "That's racist!" every time someone expresses a non-Leftist opinion here is a symptom of your limited viewpoint, and frankly is embarrassing for you."

You are drastically missing the point. This has nothing to do with Left vs Right at all. In fact I agreed with you completely up until this point in your rant.

You're implicitly calling all Native Americans (a racial group) "wild" and comparing them to barbarians. That's dictionary-definition racism, plain and simple.

It's precisely because I've gone out and experienced different cultures that I don't use lazy stereotyping to describe the world. It's the same with your left/right political stereotyping - again lazy and inaccurate.

EDIT: keeping this short as I don't want to get into a slanging match but my for the record politics aren't on the left, I don't have the belief that cultures are morally equivalent, etc, etc.

the racist bit was not "feather not dot", it was holding up the "feather indians" as some stereotypical bogeyman of wild, uncivilised behaviour.

At the start of 11th grade, my parents got the idea that I might be happier at a local college than in high school. They asked the principal if he would write a recommendation letter for me. He wrote that he did not believe I could adequately perform at the college level.

My parents disregarded this, and I got enrolled in classes. Once I was there, I was enjoying school much more than I was at the high school, and I often did better than the regular college students...

I would like to think that this sort of promotion out of drudgery would be common-place by now, but I have no idea.

I wish it were common place.

From what I understand, many school districts in the USA have rules against this. Or, they have no advertised route for early completion, which is effectively the same thing.

When I was in high school, I only managed to skip one math class. I was forbidden from taking AP physics without first taking non-AP physics, and the school was unwilling to work with me so that I could take classes at a local college (i.e. I wouldn't graduate because they wouldn't help me make the schedule work).

This was at a small, elite private school.

"Most of the "normal" young people I meet these days behave either like wild Indians (feather not dot) or slovenly Barbarians."

I hope you realize this is incredibly racist.

You can skip grades in public school. I was getting in a lot of trouble becuase I was bored out of my mind at school, yet I could pass the tests multiple years ahead of me. My parents fought pretty hard but ultimately the school let me take a bunch of tests to prove I could make it by skipping a grade or two. I passed them and was given the option of skipping 8th grade and going straight to high school from 7th.

I didn't take that option. I knew a lot of the kids in my neighborhood and they were all 1-2 years older. They would all know that I had skipped ahead and many were bullies. That was definitely a fear of mine if I stayed in the same school district.

Thus my parents looked at private schools. All the private schools were willing to let me skip to high school as well. Unfortunately they were expensive (my parents didn't make an issue of this, but I was aware of it). I also didn't really want to leave my friends and a lot of the kids at the private school seemed more stuck up.

So I ended up staying with my normal grade and the public school jumped me ahead with a lot independet study stuff as much as possible. It helped a bit. What helped a lot more was the principal telling the teachers that I was allowed to read during their classes so long as I wasn't getting in trouble. I basically spent middle school as one giant independent study reading books from the town library.

Thankfully when I got to high school, the classes got massively better. I ended up basically finding 3 teachers that really pushed me to go above and beyond the regular curriculum. I took 3 history classes from one of the best teachers I've ever had. I had 2 years of science from a guy with a chemical engineering phD and who powered through MIT in 3 years. And I had a drafting/wood shop/stage craft teacher who let me build and draw stuff as much as I wanted. Those three guys helped me to learn an enormous amount in high school and have a great time.

Once I got to college, I was really glad I didn't skip ahead.

I'm very thankful that my parents pushed the school to let me move ahead when I made it clear I wanted that. I'm also glad they didn't force me to do it after they fought so hard to get the school to let me. They were very supportive, but not over bearing.

If your kid wants to move ahead, help him. If he doesn't, don't force him. One of my dad's coworkers forced his daughter through school ahead of schedule like you want to. She graduated high school at an early age, went to Princeton, and was out by age 18. She went to med school and was a doctor by 22.

She can't get any patients. Nobody actually wants a doctor who is 22. She is depressed, doing research (that she doesn't want to do) and is pissed off about missing out on high school, college, etc. For what?

The end result was his coworker getting divorced and barely ever seeing his daughter.

On the other hand, I worked with a guy who graduated high school early, graduated college by the time he was 20, and he's one of the smartest, nicest, most succesful people I know.

My personal experience is that the BS is late elementary and middle school. If your parents teach you simple math and reading at home you can jump ahead 2-3 years. By high school the availability of AP classes, independent study, and better electives (music, stagecraft, architecture, art, etc) make it far more enjoyable. I don't think shortening high school makes as much sense as shortening middle school.

I also think you have to listen to what your kid wants to do, not go based on what you want them to do.

I agree that forcing would be wrong and counterproductive. I'll merely encourage and support if it is something my son would like.

My wife is a doctor who often gets mistaken for a high-schooler. Has your friend tried different marketing and service packages as a way to obtain and retain patients? Medicine is a business like any other.

Some schools allow students to graduate earlier. I got out of high school a semester early; my sister and mother both received their Bachelors at nineteen.

While making no call on the politeness of the phrase, "feather not dot" is one of the best I've read in days.

> While making no call on the politeness of the phrase, "feather not dot" is one of the best I've read in days.

Really? It was an inappropriate remark, I was surprised to read it and even more surprised to see it lauded by someone else.

Seriously? The first time I encountered the phrase was at a picnic while talking with an Eskimo tribal administrator and a physics professor from Khalilabad. For the life of me, I can't remember which one used it first.

I was under the impression that it was an acceptable short-hand for distinguishing which culture/ethnicity is being referenced when either is equally likely. Do the PC-police now disagree?

As I said, making no call on the politeness.

[obligatory] It is inappropriate and morally reprehensible. [/obligatory]

Can you not look at nuclear reactions and separate that they are used to make a nuclear bomb?

It was a succinct phrase. It is visually and connotatively arresting. As is evinced by the amount of ire it has provoked.

As a side note, I still read the phrase 'wild Indians' with an image of children misbehaving, especially as it is paralleled later by Barbarians, a generic term for uncivilized behavior. So to me the phrase 'feather not dot' was a preemptive defense against moral grandstanding; what's more, to me it conjured up (in just three words) the very history of the name 'indian' (which when googled on my browser, despite having no interest in baseball, only returns the Cleveland team) - a name misapplied by foreigners.

Now, reading the poster's later defenses[1], I can see that he in fact had no such thoughts when using it...but I am a relativist when it comes to art and believe the perception of the audience supersedes the intent of the artist, and so for me, the phrase still stands as evocative without being ugly.

1.http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3987141 : "Note, in my comment, I am not saying all Indians are wild, I am only specifically referencing the wild ones."

I'm referring more to the "like wild Indians" comment, which is qualified by a cute remark intended to clarify exactly which culture is supposed to be offended there. I'm not being PC.

I was under the impression that it was an acceptable short-hand for distinguishing which culture/ethnicity is being referenced when either is equally likely. Do the PC-police now disagree?

It's (basically) acceptable, but most likely not if used by you. It's not that sensitivities to the phrase have changed; it's that you're not a "safe" speaker in this regard.

To briefly recap the positive aspect of "PC" norms: speech which disparages or generalizes about racial/sex groups communicates to others a willingness to disrespect the members of those groups categorically. This creates a sense of acceptability[1] for outright oppression. Oppression continues to happen, routinely, though generally it is secret.

Compare PC-norms to the Byzantine Generals' Problem[2]: racial minorities and those who seek racial harmony are in the middle. The attacking generals are attempting to coordinate with each other to attack the harmonists. But if the generals are inhibited from coordinating attacks using public speech forums, the harmonists stand a better chance of success. So even "coded" or minor messages should be stamped out, because they are the foundation of coordination.

Now, if you're a member of the minority in question, your use of offensive generalizations does not usually suggest an attack, which potentially changes the acceptability and meaning[3]. "Feather-not-dot" is a particularly interesting example, since it symmetrically stereotypes two groups. I've heard it many times and it generally gives me pause. When spoken by a Native American or East Indian, it's generally fine, but really only when a high level of mutual regard is quite clear.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Generals%27_Problem

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation

Deleted comment

>I've heard of other schools also doing "real-time" scoring to grade teachers and catch kids falling behind early.

Why would this be a good thing?

Kids learn at different rates. I submit that the core of the problem in education is the expectation that kids should ever be forced to learn in lock-step.

Kids are developmentally all over the map on a dozen axes. I've read many stories of "unschooled" kids not learning to read until they were 12 or older, and then learning to read past "grade level" in anywhere from hours to weeks. One kid who avoided ALL math until he was 15 managed to learn standard math through High School Geometry in less than six weeks of intensive study (with a tutor), once he was internally motivated to learn it.

Given that he wasn't particularly gifted in math, think about how many hours of "instruction" in a subject he didn't like that he would have had to sit through "for his own good." And how bad he would have felt about himself if he were forced into "remedial" math classes. And the attitudes that would have formed about math.

Similarly, kids who just didn't care enough to learn to read would have been thrown into remedial classes in first grade in some schools. In first grade!

Kids that learn at their own pace (say, using Khan Academy or equivalent, or by actively unschooling them) actually learn the material better, and, more importantly, don't end up learning that "learning is boring." Which unfortunately is what almost all schools teach.

The job of "Teacher" should morph into "Mentor," and all learning should be student-driven. I actually doubt Khan Academy is "good enough" to do what I'm suggesting here, but something in that vein should replace the current broken system.

Learning shouldn't be adversarial; if it weren't, then rating teachers (i.e., mentors) would just involve asking the students whether they were helpful in their learning.

And no, I'm not just spouting utopian ideals that don't work in real life; there are thousands of families using this teaching method to good effect, producing happy, intelligent, well-educated and well-adjusted young adults (I've met several now), as well as a category of school that uses a similar teaching/mentoring technique successfully. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school

“I think the big mistake in schools is trying to teach children anything, and by using fear as the basic motivation. Fear of getting failing grades, fear of not staying with your class, etc. Interest can produce learning on a scale compared to fear as a nuclear explosion to a firecracker.”

Stanley Kubrick

This is a good idea, but it can also lead to burnout. Our kids take a lot of assessments (too many, IMHO), and they start to get cynical really fast. Our school does a comprehensive assessment at the beginning and end of the year to track overall progress (in addition to smaller-scale techniques like the ones you mentioned), which would be fine except that there are so many government-mandated tests* that also have to be given that students start to burn out.

Most professional educators have a pretty good grasp on the pedagogical practices that stress small, repetitive checks for understanding, which-- you're right-- works far better than massive, mind-numbing tests that demand significant student effort.

*Of course, we get the results from these so late that it doesn't give us the ability to make on-the-fly judgements.

> a lot of assessments (too many, IMHO)

I definitely agree there. Just the other day, one of my mother's kindergarten students was drawing pictures of her and her teaching assistant and decided to caption the assistant's with "she helps us with our work" and my mother's with "she tests us."

"Of course, we get the results from these so late that it doesn't give us the ability to make on-the-fly judgements."

And isn't that a bit bizarre? At least the multiple choice portion could be in your email in three days, if these were seriously intended to be used for any sort of guidance.

Because these are statewide standardized tests that intend to treat everyone equally, not to help students learn.

Testing throughout the year and measuring performance based on that seems like a bad idea to me. When I was in school the only important tests were at the end of the year (the tests everyone in the country would take at the same time: GCSE, AS Level, A2 Level etc.). Therefore I only worked hard for them and put little effort into other tests throughout the year as there were no long-term consequences for doing badly. So the only good way to judge a teacher based on performance would be to look at the final exam results and to ignore the results throughout the year.

Yeah, you're incentivized to punish your students for disobedience, and not respecting The Test. That's not a bug, but a feature. (At least from the perspective of those who formulate policy.)

Would you want your employees to seriously disrespect tasks they morally disagree with, like sabotaging your advertising system because they think advertising is harmful to society, or changing your website to admit how you're raiding people's pensions? Telling off your big corporate/military customers? (If you did, you probably wouldn't last long in your position.)

I don't know many bosses who want their subordinates to rush through their tasks, in order to read some book of personal interest, or to build a competing company with better service.

Perhaps the most important difference between employees and students is that employees get paid for their time.

The school system we have in place was designed to train students to be employees.

Absolutely, and I think that is its most serious flaw. Is that really the purpose of education?

I think the analogy was being made between employees of your company, and the teachers at a school, not between employees and students.

Let me re-phrase that:

Would you want your employees to hack the current process, because they morally disagree or are bored, or simply curious.

Maybe not. But someone will. Welcome to Schumpter's law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com