> what is the difference between coaching football or basketball and teaching history or English?
1. A sports coach can force a player out of the games or out of the team if that player doesn't attend the practices. Teachers have no such power: students can't be forced to practice the material out of school, and they can't be removed from class for not practicing.
1. Standardized testing reflects, at best, decently the purpose and aims of general education.
A competitive game of fotball, on the other hand, reflects perfectly the purpose and aims of football training. Simply said, the purpose of sports is to train a player to win the game. The purpose of general education is not to write a test successfully. Rather -- it shouldn't be the purpose of general education.
The purpose of education is to disseminate knowledge and critical thinking skills. That purpose needs to be measured in a correct fashion.
Think how silly it would be, instead of a competitive game of football, that each team was given a set of drills to perform, on their own, on an empty field, to prove their worth in football. It'd be absurd. It doesn't fit the purpose of their training.
The purpose of education shouldn't be to pass some tests.
A more constructive conversation, I believe, would be to find places, distinct disconnects if you will, where the method used to measure progress and achievement in education does not reflect the purpose and aims of education.
1. A sports coach can force a player out of the games or out of the team if that player doesn't attend the practices. Teachers have no such power: students can't be forced to practice the material out of school, and they can't be removed from class for not practicing.
1. Standardized testing reflects, at best, decently the purpose and aims of general education. A competitive game of fotball, on the other hand, reflects perfectly the purpose and aims of football training. Simply said, the purpose of sports is to train a player to win the game. The purpose of general education is not to write a test successfully. Rather -- it shouldn't be the purpose of general education.
The purpose of education is to disseminate knowledge and critical thinking skills. That purpose needs to be measured in a correct fashion.
Think how silly it would be, instead of a competitive game of football, that each team was given a set of drills to perform, on their own, on an empty field, to prove their worth in football. It'd be absurd. It doesn't fit the purpose of their training. The purpose of education shouldn't be to pass some tests.
A more constructive conversation, I believe, would be to find places, distinct disconnects if you will, where the method used to measure progress and achievement in education does not reflect the purpose and aims of education.