SENATE BILL: The Let Us Have More Teachers Act (Law'd) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 15, 2024, 05:13:53 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: The Let Us Have More Teachers Act (Law'd) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: The Let Us Have More Teachers Act (Law'd)  (Read 2081 times)
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« on: June 27, 2014, 02:24:52 AM »

If more than 75% of prospective teachers demonstrate they are capable, and there is a need for them, I do not see a reason to turn them away.  Any standards should be set according to criteria that are considered necessary for effective teaching, and not relative to what other prospective teachers happen to get on a test.

While the AITA is a valuable project, this bill will also clarify that regions retain their traditional role in being able to set their own standards for licensure according to their needs. 

75% might be an arbitrary cutoff, but so is any other cutoff for a standardized test that we might devise.

And, if the perceived problem is a lack of teachers, lowering the barriers to entry isn't going to improve the quality of education.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2014, 10:26:43 PM »

I believe there is a compromise to be made here. I would ask the Senate to consider increasing the rigor of the exam and also repeal the cap. This ensures quality why expanding the access to teachers.

How does one legislate "rigor"?
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2014, 07:13:18 PM »

Nay
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2014, 10:29:35 PM »

If the bar doesn't move, how is that any less arbitrary?

Essentially, you're putting extreme faith in your test writers that the test will be consistent and of equal difficulty every time. That's not to say such a guideline is inherently worse, but it doesn't strike me as "better" either.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2014, 02:15:10 AM »

You can't design a test to admit a certain percentage of takers. But even if you could, 75% seems awfully arbitrary. The way this would work is you list all the scores of the test takers and then convert them to a percentile. The highest score or scores would be the 99th percentile and on down. The lowest 25% would be deemed to have failed. So, you could get the same score twice, fail once, and pass the second time. I don't think that's particularly fair. It's simpler and fairer to debate and select a raw score cut-off, and call that the passing score. Just my view of it.

Right, but that same score would be on different tests. Performance relative to one's peers is the important indicator.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 12 queries.