tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7499360174740018122.post4168679452105959914..comments2023-05-27T10:40:48.188-05:00Comments on Training: Keeping Score, Take 2Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08279077111112195273noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7499360174740018122.post-63942106369216188972010-08-29T18:29:23.193-05:002010-08-29T18:29:23.193-05:00I didn't mean to imply that teachers and docto...I didn't mean to imply that teachers and doctors are the only professionals whose outcomes depend on the actions of others, if that's what it sounded like. Obviously that's untrue. I sometimes think about football coaches (right up your alley, Charles) in this regard. How much of a team's success can be attributed to the coach's actions independently of what the players do, or would have done without him? There's obviously some influence, but it is very hard to measure precisely. Nevertheless coaches are still held responsible for the success or failure of the team, and are paid and fired based on what the players do on the field. Sometimes this is fair and sometimes it's not. In other fields it will be the same, sometimes fair and sometimes not. In the case of coaches, they at least have some ability to select the players they coach, unlike many other professionals.<br /><br />In football, the definition of success is pretty clear-cut, wins (or more importantly in the NFL, playoff wins). In education, it might be test scores, maybe. If we think of test scores as ends in themselves, like wins on a football field, then the only debate we're left with is that of how much influence a teacher can have, like in the case of the football coach, and the answer is certainly "at least some - but only some". But assuming that the purpose of education is to lay a foundation for people to succeed in a job or profession later, test scores are less precise a predictor, since they are just correlated with success in the future, rather than defining it. In some areas of medicine, say in management of diabetes, lower blood glucose levels are a pretty good predictor of better outcomes in the long run. In my field, scores on a questionnaire might be, but we're not as sure. So I think it depends. In education, if we want kids who will go on to have productive work lives, test scores are correlated (not sure how highly) but other things that could influence success (confidence, motivation, discipline, creativity, maturity) are much harder to measure. So we don't measure them. Furthermore, we don't know how much teachers influence these variables either (though I remember my favorite teacher ever, who did more than anyone in my life to give me confidence, which was extremely important), so it may be equally unfair to hold them responsible for these variables as well. I don't really have an answer. As I said, I do fundamentally agree with measuring outcomes in some way. I think I just want to make sure that the limits are understood properly.<br /><br />Regarding your point that the professions should come up with their own productive proposals, rather than just complain about being measured, I couldn't agree more. The ain't-it-awful stuff without something to contribute irks me a lot. I think the reason there aren't many counter-proposals is that once you start trying to do it yourself, you realize just how hard it is. I don't think teachers or doctors have any better ideas, really. But the stakes can be high, which is where the complaining comes from. I'm sure certain football coaches complain just as much.Eric Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05834990204694280551noreply@blogger.com