NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading this (http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0503/bast.html) editorial, and it discusses a possible issue to help our educational system.

Empower teachers -- by allowing parents to choose their children's schools

by Joseph L. Bast
President of The Heartland Institute


Compared to professionals in other fields, public school teachers are surprisingly unfree.

In order to teach in most states, they must take courses at teacher colleges that are widely condemned as being useless or even counterproductive in the classroom. They must join teacher unions and have hefty dues withheld from their paychecks, money that is used in political campaigns without their consent. Merit pay to reward and retain outstanding teachers is off-limits in nearly all government school systems.

Public school teachers lost the rights that other professionals take for granted because the usual marketplace forces that protect and reward professionals do not operate inside the public school system.

Teachers, for example, are protected against competition and individual responsibility, and the absence of competition allows many superintendents and school boards to frequently change academic assessment methods and tests, making it difficult for critics to prove the absence of year-to-year progress.

The logic of bureaucracy also rewards centralization of authority, resulting in school districts and high schools that are much too large for a single curriculum to be best for many or even most students. With multiple and constantly changing curricula, however, there can be no certainty as to what students should have mastered in earlier grades, making it almost impossible for school boards, superintendents and principals to accurately assess the performance of individual teachers.

With objective measures of professional competence missing, teachers rightly fear favoritism and other kinds of managerial abuse.

The solution, offered by powerful teacher unions, is complex and detailed collective bargaining agreements which severely limit the principals’ managerial prerogatives. In some respects this strategy works: Teachers are almost never terminated for incompetency, and even the most troubled schools are nearly impossible to shut down. But this "solution" has badly damaged the teaching profession and the children in the schools.

Teaching has become a disrespected profession, with the overwhelming majority of teachers recruited from the bottom third of American college graduates. Real teacher pay has risen by 12 percent since 1982, but pay rose faster for college graduates as a group and in comparable professions. For example, pay for nursing rose by 17 percent over the same period.

Many public school principals have been forced to work around incompetent or otherwise dangerous staff members and teachers, rather than replacing them. This places greater demands on competent teachers and sometimes puts students at grave risk.

Some 15 percent of students are sexually abused by a teacher or staff member during their elementary and secondary school years. A recent study of 225 such cases found that only 1 percent of the cases resulted in an attempt to revoke the abuser’s teaching license. Often, the sexual predators were simply assigned to a different school.

* Empower teachers

There is a better path for public school teachers to follow. Allowing parents to choose the schools their children go to would simultaneously allow the teachers to recover their lost freedoms, while also boosting the productivity of K-12 schools.

If parents were allowed to choose schools for their children and if public funds followed the child, the tactics used by superintendents and school boards to avoid accountability would no longer be necessary or possible. Superintendents would have no incentive to mislead parents or voters. Accurate information about student achievement and professional competence from third party rating systems would become widely available, as in the cases of consumer reports on automobiles, hospitals and other goods and services.

If school choice were allowed, school districts and individual schools would become smaller, allowing for a variety of curricula to be applied consistently based on the needs of students and preferences of their parents. This would make possible more accurate evaluation of each teacher’s contribution to a student’s learning. Schools that retain incompetent or dangerous employees would quickly lose students to those with merit-based employment policies.

Successful schools would pay more for teachers with proven ability because they would have greater resources -- from privately or publicly financed tuition -- with which they could pay teachers.

Excessive bureaucracy would not be tolerated, and more money would flow to teachers and classrooms. Principals would no longer be prevented from offering higher pay to exceptional teachers or to those teaching difficult-to-master topics.

Finally, under a system of school choice, teachers would be free to start their own schools and compete for students, free of the bureaucracy and regulations that presently handicap them.

A wide range of exciting opportunities would emerge as old assumptions and dogmas -- that have been kept alive for more than a century behind the walls of monopoly and bureaucracy -- are finally subjected to criticism, and as those walls fall before new and better ideas.

Exactly! Personally, I think "tenure" should be totally elminated from every level of education. Insulating any profession from the consequences of incompetence is a grave mistake.

So, anybody else here agree with me and Eutrusca?

I agree with you, it seems like a fairly simple leap of logic to be taken.

Not really much to add, it seems pretty accurate:P

I certainly disagree that tenure should be removed from every level of education. Tenure is valuable at the college level, since it allows a professor to work on material or propose theories that might be frowned upon by superiors. Tenure allows academic freedom.

I dont disagree with the conclusion, but the article is so full of inaccuracies and outright lies, that I am forced to ignore the entire thing. I do not disagree with the conclusion it reaches, but the article as a whole is so terribly inaccurate that it is utterly useless in proving that point.

Expand on these lies.

Exactly! Personally, I think "tenure" should be totally elminated from every level of education. Insulating any profession from the consequences of incompetence is a grave mistake.
While I don't agree that it should be totally eliminated from every level, it should be modified so that incompetence isn't protected.

A point overlooked, IMHO, is that today's secondary eductaion focuses too much on college as a goal and doesn't reflect society. Are all plumbers, electicians, truck drivers all college washouts? I don't think so. Students would be less disruptive in class if the material more realistically focused on what they could achieve after high school.

I totally agree with the idea that High School is too focused on college. If parents could choose their children's schools, some parents could choose schools that would prepare the children for relatively high paying construction and factory jobs.

ROFLMFAO

what bullshit, i was all with the dumbass until he said we can empower them by letting the parents choose where they want to send their kids, LMFAO, what a piece of shit school voucher propaganda.


for everyone without a damn clue believing this shit let me clue your asses in, letting parents choose where their kids go to school will send all their kids to some school and out of the one they are in, well many, with every kid that stops going there, the school stops receiving money, and as the school stops receiving money here is how shit will go down in order: extracurricular activities sans sports > fine arts programs liek art and music class > new school books > teacher salaries > sports > administrative salaries. teachers will get laid off, those without tenure anyway, an asinine concept which keeps horrible teachers in work. there won't be one damned ounce of improvement in curriculum. teahcers will STILL be required to go to retarded workshops where they learn to make classes as boring and uninteresting as possible from people im sure have never been teachers in their life.

anyone who believe school vouchers will help teachers is a dipshit

Expand on these lies.

In order to teach in most states, they must take courses at teacher colleges that are widely condemned as being useless or even counterproductive in the classroom.

Lie

They must join teacher unions and have hefty dues withheld from their paychecks, money that is used in political campaigns without their consent.

Lie

the absence of competition allows many superintendents and school boards to frequently change academic assessment methods and tests, making it difficult for critics to prove the absence of year-to-year progress.

Lie

With multiple and constantly changing curricula, however, there can be no certainty as to what students should have mastered in earlier grades, making it almost impossible for school boards, superintendents and principals to accurately assess the performance of individual teachers.

This statement is true on its own but it implies that this multiple and constantly changing curriculum thing is true, it isnt.

Teachers are almost never terminated for incompetency, and even the most troubled schools are nearly impossible to shut down.

This is true but misleading. Teachers are government employees and it is a well known fact that it is very difficult to terminate government employees. This is a problem in every government system, not just education. Also, this implies that schools should be shut down if they are troubled, which is a really dumb idea. Why would you shut a troubled school down? You would only make people have to travel further to put their kids in school.

Teaching has become a disrespected profession, with the overwhelming majority of teachers recruited from the bottom third of American college graduates.

Lie

Some 15 percent of students are sexually abused by a teacher or staff member during their elementary and secondary school years.

Lie

A point overlooked, IMHO, is that today's secondary eductaion focuses too much on college as a goal and doesn't reflect society. Are all plumbers, electicians, truck drivers all college washouts? I don't think so. Students would be less disruptive in class if the material more realistically focused on what they could achieve after high school.

There are many technical high schools in the US. Perhaps there should be more of them, but the fact is that only problem kids seem to end up there because parents preffer having their kids in a normal high school.

Anti-union, anti-job security, pro-school vouchers propaganda.

Thank you LazyHippies. Upon further review, I agree that the first three statements are not true, although I don't think this has a major impact on the conclusion. The middle two statements are based on the third, which is not true. For the last two statements I would like to see the statistics. The second to last statement is possibly true. The last statement sounds like an exaggeration, but I still would like to see the statistics before concluding anything about these two.

Lie... Lie... Lie etc
I'm not against you calling them lies but could you like source your claims or give some logic for it? (example: bottom third of grads being a lie; courses not being helpfull for teachers being a lie.. etc.)

I am at a high school right now and teachers talk with me now and then about the issues the schools are facing and various parts of the article seem to relate well.

I'd appreciate it.

Some 15 percent of students are sexually abused by a teacher or staff member during their elementary and secondary school years.

Why is that statistic so completely impossible for me to believe?

Originally Posted by LazyHippies
There are many technical high schools in the US. Perhaps there should be more of them, but the fact is that only problem kids seem to end up there because parents preffer having their kids in a normal high school.

Even worse, many small schools affilliated with group homes don't prepare their students for anything. I was in two different group homes during high school. I don't know about the first one, but the one where I spent my senior year had a quantifiably terrible school. It had a college-prep type curriculum, but until me it hadn't had a kid who recieved a college scholarship since it became state affiliated; furthermore, the vast majority of its students don't go to college.
Before it was state affiliated, it wasn't a place for "problem children"; it was a place for hard-luck kids whose parents died or something terrible like that. Now it's just a stop for kids who have become institutionilized because the state decided that it could do a better job at parenting than the parents.

I haven't read all the articles, but personally (and this comes as someone who's a teacher) I was far from impressed with it. As people have said previously most of it is highly inaccurate. There's a reason too why teachers can come from the bottom of the pool. Would you want to be around a bunch of screaming kids all day? It takes dedication. It also ignores good teachers though. At the school I work with half of the staff has higher degrees with two having their PhD's. On the other hand it also has some of the dumbest people I know! Yet, with the very design of schools, allowing school choice would be the worse thing you could currently do imho!
Personally, if you want to improve it, I'd suggest the following things:
1.) Get rid of No Child Left Behind and get the Federals out of the system to the most part. A child in the Bronx has differnt needs than a child in Dallas. Both of their needs will too be quite differnt from a kid in Fairbanks. To nationally dicate it is foolish. Also, get rid of the standerized test thing. It takes up way to much time and although they have a place they should be limited.
2.) Here's one that'll make me unpopular . . . bring back corporal punishment. Now a days if you just look at a kid crosseyed you'll get sued. That's why we're in unions for protections.
3.) Stop this great emphasis on college. It's really gotten out of hand. Yes, college is important but I believe only 25%? of the nation goes to it. Rather continue to push CATE schools and adopting a system similar to Britain's wouldn't be that bad of an idea either.

These are jsut my two kopecks that I can think of immedietly.

I'm not against you calling them lies but could you like source your claims or give some logic for it? (example: bottom third of grads being a lie; courses not being helpfull for teachers being a lie.. etc.)

I am at a high school right now and teachers talk with me now and then about the issues the schools are facing and various parts of the article seem to relate well.

I'd appreciate it.

I cant honestly say I have any statistics to show that these are all lies. But neither does the person who wrote this article or else he/she wouldve provided them. What I said is based mostly on personal observation. I work with children at church and through volunteer work, so I come into contact with alot of kids, alot of parents, and alot of teachers (teachers love to volunteer for the same type of work that I do). Also, Im a college graduate myself, so I have known throughout my life various people who have pursued a career in education. In fact, it is a career I myself was interested in. I have some very good friends who are teachers as well.

Teaching is a very difficult and stressful job. To be a teacher you have to take certain courses in child development and education, which means that it is something you have to decide you want to do. So, it isnt a matter of schools taking the bottom third of graduates. Schools only take people who truly want to be teachers (thats why they enrolled in college to be educators). The teachers I know personally were not the bottom of their class, some were near the top. Think about it logically, why would you take only the bottom 1/3? what about the the top 2/3? where are the top 2/3 going? they graduated with a teaching degree, they are trained to teach. What are they doing if not teaching? Someone somewhere hired them unless they expect me to believe that the bottom 1/3 of graduates in the field of education are employed and the top 2/3 are unemployed. This makes absolutely no sense.

As far as the courses they have to take. These are courses in child development and education. They are very important courses. A good teacher should know what an 8 year old is capable of mentally as compared to a 10 year old. These are important things no matter what your teaching subject is going to be. Even if you are going to be a PE teacher, it is extremely important for you to understand for example, that 8-10 year olds focus more on experimenting with a wide variety of things and trying lots of different things out, and that they are social individuals who focus on making friends, whereas 10-12 year olds are much more competitive. Armed with this knowledge, a good PE teacher would fashion his 3rd and 4th grade classes in such a way that kids get to try out a wide variety of different sports and the focus is on trying things out, whereas the 5th and 6th graders might focus on fewer sports and more competition (splitting them into teams, etc). These courses are so important, that I read books on the subject myself in order to learn to teach better (I teach children at church).

Why is that statistic so completely impossible for me to believe?

Oh coime on, us educators are just waiting for the moment to sleep with kids
:rolleyes: ;)

Also, I forgot to add that I'd be quite against removing tenure for universities. The point of a University is a free flow of ideas. So, if a professor can be removed because he's communist and the next president is a member of the John Birch Society you've totally destroyed the university purpose. American education would quickly fall beneath others.

Exactly! Personally, I think "tenure" should be totally elminated from every level of education. Insulating any profession from the consequences of incompetence is a grave mistake.

amen.

ok heres whats wrong wtih the whole idea

well apart from the points already brought up which i agree with

suppose there are 2 schools close enough for you to go to. one has many good teachers, one has many bad teachers. so all the informed parents send their kids to the school with the good teachers. now that school is overcrowded the teachers are stressed out and they have to hire new ones. what teachers get the new jobs? the sucky teachers from the school down the road. their classrooms are empty so they will be moved to the other school. you still cant fire sucky teachers. they all work for the same school district.

ok ok but what about charter schools? "good" teachers getting together and "competing" for good students.

well DUH.

first of all teachers arent adminsitrators. not that they CANT administrate, but you dont both teach full time and administrate full time. so there you are taking good teachers out of the classroom. good principals might ask good teachers to come to their new charter schools but im sure they do that NOW, encouraging good teachers to stay where they are or to come to the school they run.

besides which, where is the INCENTIVE for a teacher to compete for students? they get paid the same amount no matter what school they teach in. they may want to start a SAFER school. they may be intrigued by the methods used in a start up or existing charter school. or it might be closer to their homes. or maybe they like the staff of a different school more. or maybe its a nicer building. but there is no competition to get "little timmy" into their classroom. their pay isnt dependant on WHO they get in their classes its the same over the district.

the idea that it would be good to lump all the good teachers and good students together leaving the rest to ROT in bad schools doesnt seem good to me. we need to work on everyones education, not make it easier for certain familes to opt out of the system on our "nickle"

I certainly disagree that tenure should be removed from every level of education. Tenure is valuable at the college level, since it allows a professor to work on material or propose theories that might be frowned upon by superiors. Tenure allows academic freedom.

Tenure is all too frequently abused by those who manage to keep their noses clean until tenure is granted. Applying the concept of tenure to the private sector would mean that many, if not most of the corporate CEO's who have been fired in disgrace over the last ten years would still be in office.

A point overlooked, IMHO, is that today's secondary eductaion focuses too much on college as a goal and doesn't reflect society. Are all plumbers, electicians, truck drivers all college washouts? I don't think so. Students would be less disruptive in class if the material more realistically focused on what they could achieve after high school.

And just how would this wonderment of determining who goes to what career be accomplished, pray tell? And who would decide?

Well, I know in the district I work in with a strong CATE program you start out with introductory courses either in lat emiddle school or 9th and 10th grade. From there you move on. It's also always the child's choice of course.

At least in the NYC public schools, which is truthfully the only one I can speak of, much of the above is untrue.

I have seen teachers who were incompetant lose their jobs -- and rightly so.

I have seen teachers accused of impropriety lose their jobs -- whether or not such impropriety was proven. This is a difficult situation, but necessary -- student safety comes first. Of course, trying to salvage one's reputation in the aftermath of this if it is proven that no impropriety occured is difficult to impossible.

My colleagues in the English Department come from such varied schools as Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia, as well as lesser-known schools. We have teachers who have lived elsewhere and been educated in Canada, Australia, Paris and other nations as well -- an asset, because it gives, I believe, and much more well-rounded world view.

In much of NYS, and outside of the city, there is no such thing as tenure. There are yearly contracts. If the school doesn't like you, you're gone. These school attract city teachers by offering roughly 10k more per year. The catch? The parents have much more say in who is retained. This may sound great, but for the teachers I know who have gone out to Long Island, the criteria for good teacher apparently is: "Teachers who give my child an A whether my child has learned anything or not." If a child gets a B or fails, the teacher is looking for another job -- when often that failure is because social life, sports, or jobs take first priority, and have nothing to do with the quality of a teacher's education or ability to teach.

As for education courses: they are good in that they give you a theoretical background to work with, and allow one to network and share ideas and techniques. However, that's all it is: a point of reference. Teaching is an art, much like cabinet-making or sculpting -- you learn by doing it, and there are mentoring programs (rather like apprenticeships) that aid the first year teacher in making his or her own style.

Teacher's unions -- they do not exist nor help the vast majority of teachers outside of a few very large school systems. Twenty miles from where I work, in public schools, there is no union to protect a teacher. I will admit some people do feel as the author did -- that one id forced into the union and has no say as to where the money goes -- but that goes for other unionized jobs as well, doesn't it? Also, when one has been accused of impropriety, if it is not true, it's nice to have union lawyers to protect one. (If it is true, the teacher is gone anyway.)

As for the multiple and changing curricula -- should we still be teaching students from 1950s science texts? Or should we keep them current? If a long-standing reading program is not achieving the results it was intended to, should we continue to use it -- or write a new one that takes into account the skills we see our children needing?

Teachers ARE gotten rid of for incompetancy, and if you think schools are nearly impossible to shut down, look at the NYC system. They have shut down tons of schools, gotten all new administrators and teachers, reopened them as "Academies" (that is, four smaller schools with four different sets of administration in the same building.) Is it working? As far as I can see, not really...

You do have a problem people never discuss: some students are not interested in or suited for an academic background, and so cannot or will not do minor things like come to school, do homework, read the assignments, take tests...

There is an assumption ALL KIDS CAN LEARN. This is true. However, NOT all kids can learn THE SAME THINGS AT THE SAME LEVEL. There are some for whom technical schools would be a boon, but because there is this belief that all kids are going to college, they are not served well at all.

Teaching is disrespected, and has been for a long time, because it was perceived as "women's work", specifically unmarried women's work. This was who, in the US, became teachers traditionally. You also, in the public schools have a different problem: it is disrespected because no one DIRECTLY pays for it. You see the same thing in free housing here -- the people who avail themselves of it sometimes have the attitude that since they aren't paying for it, it is not to be cared for or respected. Solution: charge something for books and fees, whether it is a dollar a week. Return it as a check at the end of the student's career, with interest, in order to give them their start after high school. (Yeah, I'm not entirely serious on that, but if one did know that they had to come to school and maintain a C average to get a monetary bonus at the end of 12 years, wouldn't people be more motivated?)

As for teachers being from the bottom third, that remark is incredibly disrespectful and, at least in my universe, untrue. See my comments about about my colleagues, and think about this: I have two degrees and 40 credits above my Masters. My undergrad GPA was 3.77; my grad 3.91. Does that sound like the bottom third of graduates to you? There are three PhDs in my department -- are they ill- or under-educated?

I would like to see a link to the study which proves that 15 percent of students are sexually abused by teachers or staff members. I can't say that this is not true, although I don't believe it to be true -- I need to evaluate it before I can comment.

basuing your contradictions SOLELY on new york city schools is ignorant and hypocritical to accuse the author of doing something similar to it. i know here everything said is perfectly true. teachers are tenured and you cant get rid of them, ever. and they are horrible teachers. workshops are useless shit that teach techers to do things to liven up the classroom and teach better that the students dont give two shits about.

Ashmoria reminded me of something:

In the NYC system, the newest, freshest teachers are automatically sent to the worst schools, on the theory that they, of course, need the best teachers.

If being in a classroom that contains some students who very well may be a danger to one does not appeal to you -- imagine what it means for those of us who have remained in the profession.

I LITERALLY had an eighteen-year-old paroled convict in my freshman classroom (14-15 year olds), who menaced me physically... (he stood over me and punched my desk less than four inches away from me while threatening to kill me). Because of his 'right' to an education, they could not get rid of him until he actually assaulted another female teacher, which violated his parole and got him sent back to prison.

Pray tell how this is a failure of the school system to serve this child?

basuing your contradictions SOLELY on new york city schools is ignorant and hypocritical to accuse the author of doing something similar to it. i know here everything said is perfectly true. teachers are tenured and you cant get rid of them, ever. and they are horrible teachers. workshops are useless shit that teach techers to do things to liven up the classroom and teach better that the students dont give two shits about.


I believe that I qualified my statement by saying I was giving personal observations -- which is what YOU are doing. I also have mentioned some things that happen outside of NYC. Do you mind not insulting me while you disagree since in your own words that is "ignorant" and "hypocritical"?

I went point by point, presenting a well thought out response to each, which is more than most people here have done. I asked for clarification on the one point I was not sure on -- how is that ignorant?

You do NOT know entirely what you are talking about because I HAVE seen tenured teachers fired. You have NOT taken teaching courses -- I have. And my colleagues and I do care quite a lot about our students.

Perhaps you should examine why precisely it is you felt it necessary to attack what I said and call me ignorant and a hypocrite?

Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hypocrisy&x=12&y=7

Since I am telling you what I have observed and believe, yours clearly is an incorrect definition of the word. Next?

Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED
- ig·no·rant·ly adverb
- ig·no·rant·ness noun
synonyms IGNORANT, ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED, UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED mean not having knowledge. IGNORANT may imply a general condition or it may apply to lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing <an ignorant fool> <ignorant of nuclear physics>. ILLITERATE applies to either an absolute or a relative inability to read and write <much of the population is still illiterate>. UNLETTERED implies ignorance of the knowledge gained by reading <an allusion meaningless to the unlettered>. UNTUTORED may imply lack of schooling in the arts and ways of civilization <strange monuments built by an untutored people>. UNLEARNED suggests ignorance of advanced subjects <poetry not for academics but for the unlearned masses>.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ignorant

Again, clearly your definition of the word is incorrect.

I await a reasoned response.

I believe that I qualified my statement by saying I was giving personal observations -- which is what YOU are doing. I also have mentioned some things that happen outside of NYC. Do you mind not insulting me while you disagree since in your own words that is "ignorant" and "hypocritical"?

You do NOT know what you are talking about because I HAVE seen tenured teachers fired. You have NOT taken teaching courses -- I have. And my colleagues and I do care quite a lot about our students.

Please do not feed the trolls. They are nasy and prone to bite.

Please do not feed the trolls. They are nasy and prone to bite.
Thats the first time I've seen someone tell a mod not to feed the trolls! :eek:

unions aren't some supreme god like beings.

i'm in one at work (part time at a supermarket... it puts food on my table without me having to mooch off my parents) and if i'm incompotent, i can get fired though i'm no longer on probation (last 60 days) it is harder to fire me, but not impossible, i still have to follow the rules and all that. the only thing that sucks about the teacher's unions is the seniority thing, when the government makes cuts to education (which happened a lot under harris [for those not in ontario, he was with the conservative party and made terrible cuts to healthcare and education and somehow managed to give us an 8 billion dollar defecit]) the new teachers got fired just because tehy're new and don't have as much seniority while the old teachers on the verge of retirement stayed on.

oh, but paying union dues does suck ass. terribly.

Please do not feed the trolls. They are nasy and prone to bite.


Isn't that my line? ;)

Let him back up his assertions. That's what debate is. If one chooses ad hominem attacks over reasoned response, that speaks towards the qualifications of the opinion.

Here's something to back up the "bottom one-third" claim. It is from theteachingcommision.com (http://theteachingcommission.org/publications/FINAL_Report.pdf) in the last paragraph of the page 17:
There are, of course, many excellent teachers in U.S. public schools. But we need more. Far too many of those needed to enter the profession do not have the skills and knowledge base needed to succeed. One study found that college graduates whose SAT or ACT scores were in the bottom quartile were more than twice as likely as those in the top quartile to have majored in education. Moreover, students with the highest grades and test scores were the least likely among their peers to enroll in education classes or teacher training programs. Just 14 percent of college graduates with education majors had SAT or ACT scores in the top quartile, compared with 26 percent of social science majors and 37 percent of those who majored in mathematics, computer science or natural science. Strong SAT scores are certainly no guarentee of teacher success, but they are an effective measure of an individual's verbal and cognitive abilities. And studies have shown that teachers with strong verbal and cognitive abilities are most likely to improve student achievement.

However, Katganistan's claims about NYC schools are probably true, judging from my own experience. I've never been to New York, but I go to "the best University in Kentucky and one of the best in the Southeast," and there is a recruitment program here (and elsewhere I'm sure) to get successful mathematics majors to become NYC teachers; but this doesn't necessarily apply to all school systems, as Katganistan mentioned.

Thats the first time I've seen someone tell a mod not to feed the trolls! :eek:

Hehehe! ( shrug ) Sometimes even Mods get carried away. I think that's why they have yet to dete me ... they expect me to keep them honest ( all except Myrth, who keeps me around for the humor ). :D

This is only my first year teaching, so I can't comment like Kat did.

But I *would* like to say that any of the generalizations concerning teachers is pretty much impossible. Like Kat, I had great grades and went 2 years to a grad school program. And there were people in that program with me who had PhDs, Masters in their areas, or work experience. But no matter their background, everyone was dedicated to teaching their students to the best of their ability.

Yes, there are teachers that could be doing better. Maybe even oftentimes they are the teachers that have been around awhile. One question I would ask though, is if replacing them with a brand new teacher would be the best option. As a newbie, I'm struggling to keep my head above water as it is. And I'm in a great school. Putting new teachers into schools that are experiencing difficulties doesn't start a teacher off well in their chosen profession.

Not all teachers are perfect. But if their students are learning *something*, at what point do you decide they should be replaced?

Isn't that my line? ;)

Let him back up his assertions. That's what debate is. If one chooses ad hominem attacks over reasoned response, that speaks towards the qualifications of the opinion.

I don't know. Did you copyright it somehow? :D

This dweeb has, to my knowledge, never had a single assertion he could back up with anything even remotely resembling a "fact." His posts consist almost totally of unsupported assertions, warped opinions and diatribe. I would make him the very first on my now nonexistent "ignore list," but he's fun to laugh at. :D

unions aren't some supreme god like beings.

i'm in one at work (part time at a supermarket... it puts food on my table without me having to mooch off my parents) and if i'm incompotent, i can get fired though i'm no longer on probation (last 60 days) it is harder to fire me, but not impossible, i still have to follow the rules and all that. the only thing that sucks about the teacher's unions is the seniority thing, when the government makes cuts to education (which happened a lot under harris [for those not in ontario, he was with the conservative party and made terrible cuts to healthcare and education and somehow managed to give us an 8 billion dollar defecit]) the new teachers got fired just because tehy're new and don't have as much seniority while the old teachers on the verge of retirement stayed on.

oh, but paying union dues does suck ass. terribly.

In many cases, however, Dakini, the school systems do 'buy-outs', which is to say they make it VERY attractive for the senior teachers to leave. The reason is short-sighted (getting rid of the most experienced professionals) but purely a monetary concern -- the oldest teachers make the most money. Therefore, let us give them a huge bonus to leave now (one that will, if they refuse, actually end up costing them money) so we can hire three new teachers for what it costs to keep this one who will retire within five years anyhow.

Thanks for the link, Charles de Montesquieu -- I'm interested in reading the rest of the article.


Hehehe! ( shrug ) Sometimes even Mods get carried away. I think that's why they have yet to dete me ... they expect me to keep them honest ( all except Myrth, who keeps me around for the humor ). :D

I don't see it as me getting carried away -- just insisting that if one is going to dismiss the post and be insulting into the bargain, that one back it up.

Obviously, we've not DEATed you because you've not done anything DEATworthy (so far ;)). Personally, I hope it stays that way -- I enjoy seeing your views on things well, most of the time, anyhow..... ;)

ROFLMFAO

what bullshit, i was all with the dumbass until he said we can empower them by letting the parents choose where they want to send their kids, LMFAO, what a piece of shit school voucher propaganda.


for everyone without a damn clue believing this shit let me clue your asses in, letting parents choose where their kids go to school will send all their kids to some school and out of the one they are in, well many, with every kid that stops going there, the school stops receiving money, and as the school stops receiving money here is how shit will go down in order: extracurricular activities sans sports > fine arts programs liek art and music class > new school books > teacher salaries > sports > administrative salaries. teachers will get laid off, those without tenure anyway, an asinine concept which keeps horrible teachers in work. there won't be one damned ounce of improvement in curriculum. teahcers will STILL be required to go to retarded workshops where they learn to make classes as boring and uninteresting as possible from people im sure have never been teachers in their life.

anyone who believe school vouchers will help teachers is a dipshit
LOL. You are obviously a product of one of these 'top-notch' schools as demonstrated by your articulate command of the English language and your own personal self-control. You lack the capacity to express yourself without insults or swearing - which does not lend you very much credibility and only reinforces the point of the original author.

Your presumption that as student attendance declines the primary casualty would be extracurricular activities shows your lack of comprehension about what is supposed to actually be happening at a public school (learning). With fewer students it would not be necessary to have as many teachers at a substandard school. Yes, schools may fail. So? Why should something substandard not? Let it be replaced by a more competent competitor or improve its standards to acceptable levels - do or die.

You also do not consider that new schools will open, both general education as well as unique specialized schools to accommodate students with special needs (gifted, handicapped, athletic, college prep. trade prep, etc) Vouchers and competition will expand the choices and overall quality available to students and parents.

Standardized tests are necessary to ensure that primary skills are being taught and learned. (three r's) There are considerable other things a school can do as well, which are not tested and left to the discretion of local administrators. So long as the primary needs are met they should and do have freedom to adjust curriculum to also include whatever local standards dictate.

They say, as always, that they need more money, yet only offer excuses when a private school produces results with les cost. They refuse to accept standards or competition and instead defend their monopoly solely for the sake of defending their monopoly. The public school system is comparable in many ways to the Windows OS - Without adequate competition innovation and quality suffer.

Even a 'dipshit' could understand that - which does not necessarily mean you could. Maybe if you had gone to a better school...

I'd like to remind everybody that this is an editorial, NOT an article

In many cases, however, Dakini, the school systems do 'buy-outs', which is to say they make it VERY attractive for the senior teachers to leave. The reason is short-sighted (getting rid of the most experienced professionals) but purely a monetary concern -- the oldest teachers make the most money. Therefore, let us give them a huge bonus to leave now (one that will, if they refuse, actually end up costing them money) so we can hire three new teachers for what it costs to keep this one who will retire within five years anyhow.
often the newer teachers are better.

sometimes they're really not though.

i know in highschool, the young science teachers fresh out of teacher's college (we have an entirely different system here...) were excellent teachers, my oac calc teacher sucked ass and she was fresh out of teacher's college, but then my english teacher was terrible and she was pretty close to retirement...the ones who had been teaching for around 10-20 years seemed to be the best, they had enough experience, but weren't approaching senility.

my only experience with a terrible teacher in uni has been with a young teacher (he wasn't even a prof, jsut a post doc... and would go on about how he would rather be at the campus pub than teaching our class and when he wrote an exam that only two people in the class passed, he insisted it was our fault...)

Obviously, we've not DEATed you because you've not done anything DEATworthy (so far ;)). Personally, I hope it stays that way -- I enjoy seeing your views on things well, most of the time, anyhow..... ;)

Not "DEATworthy?" Moi? Sacre blu! And me trying so hard to be too! :D

As to your enjoying my views most of the time, thank you. I won't quibble about that "most of the time." :)

Standardized tests are necesary to ensure that primary skills are being taught and learned. (three r's) There are considerable other things a school can do as well, which are not tested and left to the discretion of local administrators. So long as the primary needs are met they should and do have freedom to adjust curriculum to also include whatever local standards dictate.

Actually, while I disagree with him on many of his points, standardized tests DO, in my opinion, carry FAR too much weight in assessing a student. You can have a child who's mastered all of the tests in his subjects, produced amazing projects and oral reports, and then is prevented from graduating because he or she did poorly on ONE test... and one which not even all teachers agree measure anything worthwhile.

Give them up? no. But they should be a PART of the picture, not the final word on a students' ability to learn.

I don't know. Did you copyright it somehow? :D

This dweeb has, to my knowledge, never had a single assertion he could back up with anything even remotely resembling a "fact." His posts consist almost totally of unsupported assertions, warped opinions and diatribe. I would make him the very first on my now nonexistent "ignore list," but he's fun to laugh at. :D
this is different from you how?

and to katganistan: your views are based on NYC schools which is a strange and foreign place, especially in education, silly new york. but within the area ui know of, tn and al we have tneure and sucky teachers stay in school and i dont see how school vouchers, what teh article is advocating, manages to help teachers at all. it is pure propaganda to get people to support vouchers, well everyone meaning teachers, all of which in this area at least or anywhere else i have heard of are against all conservatives chganges made to the education system: like the NCLBA and such

-snip- post on standardized tests
Yeah, Standardized tests aren't good; they don't assess a sutdent according to his/her ability, rather by the "average"

so to keep with the theme of this thread...

what suggestions do you professional teachers have for improving public schools? there are some horrifyingly bad schools out there. can the FEDERAL government do something about them? should we only look to the local level? can "no child left behind" be revamped to have some meaningful effect on the country as a whole?


what do people who know stuff think?

Ashmoria reminded me of something:

In the NYC system, the newest, freshest teachers are automatically sent to the worst schools, on the theory that they, of course, need the best teachers.

If being in a classroom that contains some students who very well may be a danger to one does not appeal to you -- imagine what it means for those of us who have remained in the profession.

I LITERALLY had an eighteen-year-old paroled convict in my freshman classroom (14-15 year olds), who menaced me physically... (he stood over me and punched my desk less than four inches away from me while threatening to kill me). Because of his 'right' to an education, they could not get rid of him until he actually assaulted another female teacher, which violated his parole and got him sent back to prison.

Pray tell how this is a failure of the school system to serve this child?

There was no way the school system failed to serve that student. It failed to serve the other students in your class by not removing him.

can the FEDERAL government do something about them?
I don't believe the Federal government can do anything . . . it's mostly up to the states, from what I understand

Here's something to back up the "bottom one-third" claim. It is from theteachingcommision.com (http://theteachingcommission.org/publications/FINAL_Report.pdf) in the last paragraph of the page 17:


However, Katganistan's claims about NYC schools are probably true, judging from my own experience. I've never been to New York, but I go to "the best University in Kentucky and one of the best in the Southeast," and there is a recruitment program here (and elsewhere I'm sure) to get successful mathematics majors to become NYC teachers; but this doesn't necessarily apply to all school systems, as Katganistan mentioned.

If that is what the author of this badly researched editorial was reffering to, then he/she has mislead you. Read what you just quoted and compare it to what the author claimed. SAT and ACT scores are used to qualify you for enrolling in a college or university. So, it turns out that what the author is actually claiming isnt that the bottom one third of a graduating university class ends up being teachers, but rather that people who performed poorly on standardized tests in high school end up pursuing a career in education. There is a huge difference here. What the author claimed is that the people who are teachers are badly trained because they are slackers who were at the bottom of their graduating class, when what is really shown by these studies is that people who dont perform well in tests during high school are more likely to seek a career in the field of education when they go to college. What the author claimed would be bad news, the reality isnt. So what if educators are the type of people who dont perform well on the SAT or ACT? It makes perfect sense for them to go into the field of education. The field of education (as it applies to k-12) does not require you to be a very intelligent individual. It is far more important to be an organized individual who is good in the social aspects (as it relates to people, children in specific). Someone like Einstein or Stephen Hawkin would be a terrible K-12 teacher. The intellectual types are better at jobs that require intellect above social skils. Intelligence will not help you maintain control of a classroom.

Yeah, Standardized tests aren't good; they don't assess a sutdent according to his/her ability, rather by the "average"
My understanding is that the point of standardized tests are to make sure a student has an apropriate grasp on essential skills (the three r's) .

Regardless of a student's ability, every healthy and normal student has the capacity to do these things at their grade level. My understanding of these tests is that they verify if the school is competent at teaching the primary skills. It would reason that since every student has the capacity to perform at grade level that if they do not responsibility falls on the school and the teacher.

My understanding is that the point of standardized tests are to make sure a student has an apropriate grasp on essential skills (the three r's) .

Regardless of a student's ability, every healthy and normal student has the capacity to do these things at their grade level. My understanding of these tests is that they verify if the school is competent at teaching the primary skills. It would reason that since every student has the capacity to perform at grade level that if they do not responsibility falls on the school and the teacher.
the ponit of standardized tests is to get into college and to get funding if i recall the latter correctly.

the tests dont really verify anything, no one is gonig to change to curriculum if people are screwing up on the tests or anything.

the ponit of standardized tests is to get into college and to get funding if i recall the latter correctly.

the tests dont really verify anything, no one is gonig to change to curriculum if people are screwing up on the tests or anything.



My reaction is to disagree. Do you have any evidence to back your assertions?

I don't believe the Federal government can do anything . . . it's mostly up to the states, from what I understand

i tend to agree wtih you

but even the "no child left behind" act has had some positive effect.

quite a few schools here in new mexico have been shaken (a bit) out of their complacent attititude toward being bad schools by failing those test miserably. the threat of losing control of their schools has spurred them on to actually making an effort to improve.

so it can do SOMETHING even if it isnt the best approach

It seems to me that the public schools in the US are having to do a great many things that use to be the exclusive purview of parents.

I've done several stints as a substitute teacher and if my own children had behaved like a disconcerting number of the current crop of kids do, I would have descended upon them like the Wrath of God!

Even as much as I trusted my own children, in any confrontation between a teacher and one of them, I would suspend judgment until I knew the facts.

It seems to me that the public schools in the US are having to do a great many things that use to be the exclusive purview of parents.

I've done several stints as a substitute teacher and if my own children had behaved like a disconcerting number of the current crop of kids do, I would have descended upon them like the Wrath of God!

Even as much as I trusted my own children, in any confrontation between a teacher and one of them, I would suspend judgment until I knew the facts.
I agree. One theing that should be a major part of educational reform is the ability to quickly remove disrupitve elements from the classroom and either isolate them in specialized programs or expel permanently.

i tend to agree wtih you

but even the "no child left behind" act has had some positive effect.

quite a few schools here in new mexico have been shaken (a bit) out of their complacent attititude toward being bad schools by failing those test miserably. the threat of losing control of their schools has spurred them on to actually making an effort to improve.

so it can do SOMETHING even if it isnt the best approach
It is obviously better than what stood before.

the ponit of standardized tests is to get into college and to get funding if i recall the latter correctly.

the tests dont really verify anything, no one is gonig to change to curriculum if people are screwing up on the tests or anything.

Incorrect; but hey, NY is strange and foreign that way.

You DO realize that NY, California, Illinois and a handful of other states pretty much influence education in ALL of America?

It seems to me that the public schools in the US are having to do a great many things that use to be the exclusive purview of parents.

I've done several stints as a substitute teacher and if my own children had behaved like a disconcerting number of the current crop of kids do, I would have descended upon them like the Wrath of God!

Even as much as I trusted my own children, in any confrontation between a teacher and one of them, I would suspend judgment until I knew the facts.


Amen, fellow teacher.
Both my parents taught, and they made quite sure my brother and I understood that if we were at fault -- not paying attention, being disrespectful, etc. -- we'd be in a world of hurt. That said, they always got to the bottom of any dispute between us and our teachers... if we were at fault, we got punished big time. If the teacher was at fault -- and it did happen, occasionally -- it was rectified immediately.

I agree. One theing that should be a major part of educational reform is the ability to quickly remove disrupitve elements from the classroom and either isolate them in specialized programs or expel permanently.

Agreed.

Agreed.
OMG!! We AGREE??? Then I must be wrong, better go check my facts!

:)

Consider the implications of school choice as a solution to low quality education. If the solution involves allowing parents in an area with bad schools to send their children to another area with good schools, it seems evident that the problem is based in geography. Some areas have good schools, others don't. This seems to be corraborated by the system of funding schools locally that is most common in the USA. Schools in high income areas and high tax surplus areas will be funded better than schools in low income areas, especially because those low income areas are more likely to have a higher demand for government services. So the problem shifts from the perceived mismanagement of some schools (to which school choice would be an excellent solution) to a fundamental disparity in revenue and demand between different administrative districts. The truth is, the USA remains a segregated nation. We can address this by allowing richer parents in low income areas to send their children to schools outside of their neighborhoods, abandoning their local schools to those who can't afford to work to make them better. On the other hand, we can pursue solutions that address this issue of segregation.

So after reading the editorial, it seems to me that, while having more, compeating schools certainly sounds good, i wonder if it would work in practice. After all, people already can choose their schools, using permits to get into other districts (at least around me). And some do. Yet, for the most part, people will go to the school closest to them, simply becuase it is convineant. You make more schools, make it easier to go to different ones, people will still go to the closest ones - espically if they are people in low-income districts, where they need every minute of the day working just to get buy - and can't afford to drive their children for an hour or so to get a better education.

Another question i would have is, where would all the money come for this? Right now (at least with the current policies on education), schools are already underfunded. When you start building more schools, and must pay teachers more to keep the good ones (which is a good idea, but still), there's a lot of money thats going to be required. And who's going to pay for it? The taxpayers? I think not - they are willing to have a massive debt for their tax cuts.

So, though something must be done about our schools, I'm not sure if this editorial has found the answer to that question.

PS. I hope no-one has made these points before, I haven't had the chance to read all the posts.

Consider the implications of school choice as a solution to low quality education. If the solution involves allowing parents in an area with bad schools to send their children to another area with good schools, it seems evident that the problem is based in geography. Some areas have good schools, others don't. This seems to be corraborated by the system of funding schools locally that is most common in the USA. Schools in high income areas and high tax surplus areas will be funded better than schools in low income areas, especially because those low income areas are more likely to have a higher demand for government services. So the problem shifts from the perceived mismanagement of some schools (to which school choice would be an excellent solution) to a fundamental disparity in revenue and demand between different administrative districts. The truth is, the USA remains a segregated nation. We can address this by allowing richer parents in low income areas to send their children to schools outside of their neighborhoods, abandoning their local schools to those who can't afford to work to make them better. On the other hand, we can pursue solutions that address this issue of segregation.

You begin with two flawed presumptions - that schools in high income areas receive more funding than those in low income areas as well as that schools with higher funding produce better results. Schools in Wash DC spend more per student while produce some of the lowest scores. Your entire argument is spoiled by the use of flawed data.

You conclusion, that we can address this by only allwing 'rich parents in low income areas' (huh? did you really say that?) to send their children outside of their area is also flawed, since vouchers are give to allow poor people more choice - rich people already have one. The value of vouchers does not vary by neighborhood or income. It would allow considerable equity among students.

You begin with two flawed presumptions - that schools in high income areas receive more funding than those in low income areas as well as that schools with higher funding produce better results. Schools in Wash DC spend more per student while produce some of the lowest scores. Your entire argument is spoiled by the use of flawed data.

You conclusion, that we can address this by only allwing 'rich parents in low income areas' (huh? did you really say that?) to send their children outside of their area is also flawed, since vouchers are give to allow poor people more choice - rich people already have one. The value of vouchers does not vary by neighborhood or income. It would allow considerable equity among students.

In California at least, local area property taxes go to the loca school districts. IE, the more expensive the property the more money the school gets. Thusly the richer areas do get more funding.

Here's a solution: get the federal government out of education completely!

In California at least, local area property taxes go to the loca school districts. IE, the more expensive the property the more money the school gets. Thusly the richer areas do get more funding.
likewise here. also, any areas with expensive housing get the best treatment: roads, streetlights, sidewalks, etc

Here's a solution: get the federal government out of education completely!
wont work. principals of private schools are asses and will make sure there are no trouble makers at all in school, but hold up, when i say trouble makers i dont mean people who go around starting shit all the time, i mean people that MIGHT be problems bu no guarantee: people with various mental and physical disorders. when the principal of a private school i was in stepped down, the next bitch started kicking out everyone with adhd and other things like it

wont work. principals of private schools are asses and will make sure there are no trouble makers at all in school, but hold up, when i say trouble makers i dont mean people who go around starting shit all the time, i mean people that MIGHT be problems bu no guarantee: people with various mental and physical disorders. when the principal of a private school i was in stepped down, the next bitch started kicking out everyone with adhd and other things like it

Ever since the federal government first got involved in education, education has gone downhill. Prior to that, we had one of the best education systems in the world, if not the best.

Ever since the federal government first got involved in education, education has gone downhill. Prior to that, we had one of the best education systems in the world, if not the best.
and when did this magical thing happen? maybe it was when everyone decided standardizing stuff was a good idea

Originally Posted by LazyHippies
The field of education (as it applies to k-12) does not require you to be a very intelligent individual.

I disagree. Notice the end of the quoted paragraph:

And studies have shown that teachers with strong verbal and cognitive abilities are most likely to improve student achievement.

Your reaction might be to say "Of course smarter teachers perform slightly better, but this is not as important as understanding child and adolescent psychology." However, if this is your reaction, you apparently didn't read much of the article I referenced. The whole point was to say that although some public school teachers have talent in the area they teach, few really have the level of ability in a subject to command student interest and respect.
"Recommendation Three" of this report (on page 40) was that "States must improve -- or overhaul -- their licensing and certification requirements. Within this recommendation is the comment that "It [the licensing program] should also entail replacing low-level basic competency tests with challenging exams that measure verbal ability and content knowledge at an appropriately high level." This means that an educator should be knowledgeable in the field that he or she teaches because we should expect a teacher to be "a very intelligent individual."

http://www.sepschool.org

In California at least, local area property taxes go to the loca school districts. IE, the more expensive the property the more money the school gets. Thusly the richer areas do get more funding.
You are only considering one source of funds. In CA there is state funds, Federal Funds, lottery funds and I think a few others as well.

that said, if real estate taxes were the only revenue source for schools then school vouchers would be the ultimate solution, since the vouchers are the same per student regardless of geography or income.