The duality of learning: the two roles of the "Teacher"

Recently I had to remind students of where the line of help lies. I help them learn, I don't train them to score marks. Specifically I got an email begging to be passed for some reason or another (not usual mind you). The student asked to be passed because I had been helpful in the classroom, so I should likewise help by awarding the passing grade.  The response went something like this:
Dear student: do not mistake my friendly smile, classroom patience, and simple explanations as "easy marking" - You might be shocked.

Most teachers have to do two things: TEACH and ASSESS.  They are not the same thing. 

The person who teaches is there to assist learning.  They are your friend, and it's their job to assist you get ahead in anyway they can. Your job is to get everything out of that person that you can.





The person who assesses is there to measure if learning has occurred. Their role is certification or assurance. They are not your friend, and it's their job to only allow those strong enough to pass.  You job is to demonstrate that you are good enough. (You are of course, aren't you?)



This is a huge conflict of interest in these two roles, and there are many corrupt educators for this reason - yet the solution is not as simple as splitting the two roles out. Ordinarily people assume the student cohort's performance is a reliable indicator of teacher efficacy. The teacher that does not teach the test is far too frequently penalised - sometimes harshly. The teacher will naturally wish to teach the test, maximising scores and minimising any "irrelevant" learning that is "not examinable" (irrespective if might be useful later on for life). This means that this system of defeating the whole purpose of getting an education - learning anything useful. 


The trend towards splitting out the 2 roles
In the West we are now obsessed by "standardized tests" and rankings. This of course produces homogeneous comparison tools (a good thing) and necessarily gives rise to homogeneous students - a very bad thing. 


There is no innovation in monocultures. 


So we are back at yet another perverse incentive where the mechanism to promote the "good" outcome pretty much ensures the "bad outcome"  is the most advantageous for the agents playing the game.  The "No Child Left Behind" disaster is probably to be remembered as fondly as Mao's Great Leap Forward. 


Solution?  I'm not sure I have a simple one just yet.