Measurable Objectives

No valid assessment can be made in any field without the use of measurable objectives. Without measurable objectives, evaluation of what has occurred will be haphazard at best, and perhaps grossly misinformed at worst. Measurable objectives are an integral part of the teaching-learning process, and are used primarily to drive assessment of the learning and measure the efficacy of programs and individual success. It is the difference between opinion and fact. Measures, by definition, are quantitative and give the ability to separate scores based on actual evidence of achievement, rather than supposed achievement. Although much goes into any individual performance, measurable objectives are the best way to fairly assess the status of any learning that has occurred.

Defining objectives in measurable terms determines what information needs to be collected in order to make appropriate evaluations and decisions based on objective data. (New Mexico State University). Those kinds of evaluations and decisions are crucial to the learning process, making measurable objectives a valuable and important part of the completion of the task. That is their function, and to ignore the objectives is to waste the effort involved in the process in the first place, and to end up with no evaluative data that is useful.

In order to teach well and to be effective as a facilitator of learning, it is vitally important to get the kinds of information needed to make valid decisions about planning for future learning and about the kinds of things that are taught. It really is all about validity. Teachers are paid to present information in such a way that student mastery is at least a possibility. If there is no fair way to determine whether that has occurred, one cannot be sure that it has indeed occurred. Making objectives measurable ensures that how well something has been taught is measurable, and that the data is valid with regard to the content of what is taught.

Capitalism and Education

The institution of education is a crucial linchpin between an individual and his or her quality of life. Because the integrity of education depends upon the adequate funding of schools, changes in the economy can drastically impact the way that this institution functions. The following discussion will examine the potential flaws in the capitalist system to adequately and consistently fund education.

Foster argues that the correspondence principle explains how the social relations of education are linked to the social relations of production so needs for labor controls both school curriculum and teacher's work to reproduce privilege. Foster's use of evidence is a strength. Corporate model alternatives, including charter schools, serve its own interests for new markets, but fail to deliver superior educational outcomes. The main weakness is that there are other ways to interpret the evidence Foster uses. Teachers and their goals and purpose are one example. Public schools are still funded by property taxes not the state and federal governments, so local school boards and teachers are responsible for corporate incursions. Even though Foster prefers to view teachers as radical outsiders, they too support standardization but want it delinked from their performance. Thus it seems more likely that teacher anger is aimed less at the commodification of students than their own lack of freedom. Since teacher opposition is crucial to the argument, stronger evidence, like that against charter schools, would have helped.

There is little doubt that if poverty is not to have an impact on educational outcomes for children then public schools must continue to be public. In some senses the funding issue per child, which is always in the papers, is wrong so privatization is not the answer. Yes DC pays more per student than many "rich" school districts, but included in the DC budget is not just teacher's salaries. In the poor districts across America, they lack a lower tax base to finance schools and decent infrastructure. The schools have century-old boiler systems, sagging roofs, leaking windows. The cost to keep infrastructure going must also be factored in. Rather than paying teachers more, or giving kids quality up-to-date facilities and textbooks, the money goes to infrastructure. Thus privitizing public education will most certainly ensure that the 23% of America's children growing up in poverty will be more than likely to die that way too, since corporate money will go where there is the best return on the dollar: new schools with the best teachers. The circle will continue doing little to close the so-called "achievement gaps."