My own education rant ( Re: Reading, Writing, and Multiple Choice)

[psychic_serpent]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Haggridd" 
<jkusalavagemd at y...> wrote:
> I keyed on the above lines from Richelle, because it reflects a 
> common mistaken attitude:  that low teacher pay is the reason our 
> students don't learn, and that raising teacher pay will correct 
> the situation.

I'm afraid you're simplifying arguments many others in this country 
have made concerning how to improve student performance.  While much 
more money should be going to the schools, the increase should not 
be going solely to increase teachers' salaries.  Additional funds 
need to be allocated for buildings that are safe and up to code, for 
computers and for increased personnel, among many other things.  
(One thing, however, that I think could be reduced in many districts 
is the number of folks in the bureaucracy at the school boards.)

That said, however, raising teacher pay would, as a start, prevent 
the private sector from leeching good teachers from the schools who 
would otherwise have to choose between being able to follow their 
calling or paying their mortgage.  In places like the Bay Area 
(around San Francisco) real estate is at a premium even for people 
making six figures; workers in jobs like teaching and police work 
need to commute ridiculous distances because the wealthy people they 
serve are unwilling to part with a little more of their income to 
let these folks live in the same community.  They end up feeling 
like domestics who have to live on the "wrong" side of the tracks.  
  
> In the current situation with most school systems in the U.S.-- 
> Louisiana is not alone-- teachers have tenure, and their salaries 
> increase because of longevity irrespective of their abilities.  
> Any increase in teacher pay will be largely absorbed by the 
> current cohort of teachers, be they Mr. Chips or be they barely 
> literate (which, unfortunately, has been the case).

I have only encountered one or two teachers of dubious ability in 
all the years I've had contact with the public schools, both as a 
student and parent.  One was a social studies teacher who was a) the 
department head, and b) about a year from retirement.  Yes, he had 
tenure.  No, we didn't learn a damn thing about the Constitution 
during our senior year (no thanks to him, anyway).  I had an English 
teacher in tenth grade who cared more about reliving her high school 
years and hanging out with cheerleaders (I am not making this up) 
than fairness, but she did know what she was teaching, and in the 
end I performed better in her class because I had something to prove 
to her.  (Every time I turned in a paper or test I said a 
silent, "So there!")  If some districts are in fact hiring 
unqualified people, it may be because it is hard to attract people 
to the area, which probably comes back to money again.  You need an 
adequate budget to attract qualified, motivated people, and if you 
skimp on that, frankly, you deserve what you get.
 
> 1.  Abolish teacher tenure.  Tenure was created to protect freedom 
> of thought in Universities in medieval Europe, where the local 
> sovereign could otherwise behead professors who held disturbing 
> notions.  It has no place in American education at all.  This is 
> doubly true for elementary and secondary education.

This is something that has some merit, but will be fought tooth and 
nail by the unions.  Tenure does bring higher salaries for teachers 
just by dint of their having stuck it out for a number of years, 
regardless of how they performed during those years.  However, if it 
were abolished, experienced teachers would have no advantage at all 
in districts that are strapped for money, where they can save by 
hiring much more inexperienced (and lower-paid) teachers.  Those 
folks lose all job security, much as older managers in business get 
pushed out by youngsters fresh out of business school.  When you've 
been a middle-manager for twenty years, it's rough to be in the job 
market again, especially if you're in your mid-fifties.  You may be 
perfectly qualified, but no one will want to hire you just for your 
abilities and experience if someone with those abilities but no 
experience will accept 33% less salary.  Some companies have learned 
the hard way that they need experienced people around.  My husband 
and several other people were hired to be old, basically (average 
age among them: 40) at a company where the average age was around 
27, because they finally realized that they needed people who'd been 
around.  While tenure should not be the sacred cow it is now, 
perhaps with some tweaking it can serve to be a protection for the 
truly qualified teachers and yet something that escapes the grasp of 
people who've merely stuck it out, biding their time.  On the one 
hand, tenure has been given a bad rap; on the other hand, it's not 
completely undeserved, as there has been abuse.  Don't end tenure; 
end the abuse of tenure.

> 2.  Abolish degrees in education.  Teachers should learn an 
> substantive body of knowledge and get a degree in a "real" , so 
> that they will understand their subject well enough to be creative 
> in communicating it in different ways to their pupils.  Those 
> process course in educational techniques should be a minor for 
> prospective teachers, but the "process" is far less important than 
> the "who, what, when, where and why" of a subject-- any subject.

This is actually a growing trend, but I don't believe that education 
degrees should be abolished.  They may simply fall by the wayside 
eventually as more people acquire degrees in a given field and then 
go through training to teach that subject (there are loads of 
schools offering teacher certification programs to people with 
specific degrees, rather than education degrees).  However, with 
younger children especially, the process is still important.  We 
need elementary teachers to have degrees and training in teaching 
the myriad subjects that must be covered by a first, second or third 
grade teacher.  There is no one liberal arts degree that would 
probably sufficiently prepare a person to teach these young minds in 
an appropriate manner with the simple addition of some student 
teaching and a course or two on pedagogy.  Some of the most 
impressive teachers I've ever met teach these early grades, and the 
interdisciplinary approach they bring to teaching the kids impresses 
me no end.  Future teachers need very specific training in teaching 
young children; otherwise they would need to carry about ten 
different majors in school and then go through teacher training on 
top of that.  

Even with people who have a degree and are pursuing certification, 
they are required (as they should be) to go through student teaching 
and evaluation, and if they are not approved by their supervisor, 
even a perfect score on the certification exam will not make them  
teachers.  Some people should just not be in the classroom.  I found 
that out in college.  Some folks should only do research.  I 
encountered many dreadful teachers in college (as opposed to my 
younger years), where you only need a graduate degree to teach.  
They were teaching their specialty and they were still dreadful, 
having no idea how to reach students, be fair, communicate their 
thoughts or hold discussions that didn't become name-calling 
matches.  I think those professors could have used some education 
courses, frankly.  Their brains contained a lot of knowledge, but it 
sure as hell didn't include how to TEACH.

> 3.  A corollary to #2 is to facilitate certification of 
> individuals who know their subjects, but do not have 
> an "education" degree by exam.  I mean an exam about the subject, 
> not about how to make posters as audio-visual aids.

This is rather snide, don't you think?  Especially as children need 
stimulating environments (see the film "Matilda," especially the 
scene where the teacher hides the lovely posters in her classroom 
from her drill-sergeant headmistress).  And as I noted above, this 
is already taking place.  Why don't you know about this?

> 4.  Retest teachers on their knowledge about the subjects they are 
> teaching periodically, with real sanctions if they do not pass.

I think this is also going on in some places.  Most other districts 
give credit to teachers who pursue additional training.  However, 
there has been some abuse of this sort of credit.  My husband was 
tapped to give a talk about sexual minority youth to local teachers 
during a conference dedicated to diversity.  Only a small fraction 
of the people who signed up for his workshop actually showed up.  I 
have a bad feeling that the fact that these people signed up will be 
on the record, but not that they didn't actually attend, let alone 
learn anything about the subject.  Teachers should be rewarded for 
going out of their way to increase their knowledge both of their 
subjects and of the psychological problems with which young people 
grapple, but there should be accountability.  You shouldn't just be 
able to show that you signed up for a workshop and get credit for 
being there.  This really irked my husband, who prepared for weeks 
for his presentation to FIVE people (thirty signed up).

> 5.  Severely restrict the administrative structure that is soaking 
> up ever more of the education budgets of school systems.  
> Assistant principals, guidance counselors, janitors and even 
> schoolbus drivers partake of the same perquisites that we bestow 
> on teachers, and leave less of the education budget dollar to go 
> to those who actually teach.

Excuse me, but who do you expect to clean the toilets, drive the 
buses and counsel the students?  These folks don't sit around 
twiddling their thumbs all day.  In Philadelphia, the bus aids were 
cut at some schools, and those buses immediately became Lord of the 
Flies on wheels.  It is disingenuous to believe that only teachers 
are necessary to run a school district.  Support personnel keep 
things running smoothly.  Their salaries should be commensurate with 
those working in the private sector.  And a principal needs 
lieutenants; it's a rough job, and I don't know of any vice-
principal who doesn't work 12-hour days (they're not being paid for 
those extra hours, I can guarantee you).  It is the administrative 
structure outside of the schools that needs some overhaul in many 
districts, I believe.  That is where you see plenty of bloated 
staffs which seem largely dedicated to finding ways to justify their 
further employment and have little direct impact on the students--
except negative.  (These are the sort of folks who tend to make 
decisions like cutting bus aids.)

> 6.  Pay raises should be merit-based, not longevity-based.  

As noted above, there should probably be some weight given to 
experience, but perhaps not as much as there is now.  Merit pay is a 
difficult thing to measure in districts where extreme poverty is a 
major factor in the challenges faced by both students and teachers.  
If anything, teachers in impoverished areas should probably be paid 
more than teachers elsewhere, as they have more hurdles to leap over 
on a day-to-day basis.

> 7.  Recognize the NEA for what it is:  a craft union whose first 
> interest is jobs, not education.  Its actions need to be seen in 
> the proper light.  In districts where the students are performing 
> abysmally, it vigorously attacks home-schooling, for example, on 
> the grounds that the parents are not qualified to teach their 
> children.  Physician, heal thyself.

The NEA is unfairly attacked as a "craft union" when it in fact 
often safeguards the rights of teachers and STUDENTS more vigorously 
than their home districts.  The NEA is admittedly left-wing and 
liberal and for this it is constantly under attack.  We need the NEA 
to continue to support diversity training, teaching of real science 
(which is to say, NOT creationism), teachers who sponsor 
Gay/Straight alliances at schools and distribution of birth control 
in the schools, as well as attacking censorship, including 
censorship of the HP books. The NEA is a strong national lobby for 
education and we might not have public schools still if it weren't 
for politicians who feel the need to get their vote.  I'd rather 
elected officials worry about what the NEA thinks of them rather 
than the NRA or the Tobacco Lobby, I'll tell you that.

> 8.  Vouchers, vouchers, vouchers.  Unless there is a the ability 
> for parents to opt out of a failing education system completely, 
> and thereby deny it the funds allotted for that "seat", there will 
> be little incentive to take the vigorous measures that are 
> necessary, especially in light of #'s 1,5,&7 above.  Parochial 
> schools should be eligible to participate in this voucher system, 
> though no funds should go to support religious studies. (Yes, I 
> realize that money is fungible; so what?)

Where do I start?  So what?  I'll tell you what--a little thing 
called the First Amendment, that's what.  I get so tired of people 
thinking vouchers are the be all end all solution for education.  
Vouchers would kill the public schools, pure and simple.  The fact 
is the public schools take the students no one else wants.  All 
private and parochial schools may choose their students.  They don't 
HAVE to take just anyone--and they don't (this doesn't even have 
anything to do with money).  This is just one of the challenges the 
public schools have, but it's also one of the best things about 
them.  They're available to everyone.  Even if you had a voucher in 
hand for the full tuition to a private or parochial school (and 
there's no way a voucher would ever cover a tenth of a private 
school or a third of a parochial school) there's nothing to force 
the school to take the child in question (or to keep their tuition 
at current levels).  You say parents should have the right to opt 
out.  I say those parents have the right to get involved in their 
schools and make a difference.  

As for no funds going to support religious studies, it is 
disingenuous to believe that in any school that is sectarian the 
underlying religious beliefs do not permeate the entire school 
experience--as they should, actually, or what is the point of the 
school having a religious affiliation?  In our local parish school, 
the children in kindergarten color images of the Virgin Mary, which 
are hanging in the corridors of the school.  When I attended a 
Lutheran school briefly as a youngster, we had chapel on Wednesday 
and Friday mornings, a religion class taught by Sister Ruth (I never 
knew before that there were Lutheran nuns, as I'm not Lutheran) and 
a school choir where we sang Christian anthems.  Our reading 
anthology (for English class) had selections from the Bible.  If I'd 
received a voucher to pay for part of my tuition, how would it be 
possible to determine whether it was going for "religious studies?"

Right now, our school district pays for buses to get students at 
parish schools to and from school.  Those students also have the 
opportunity to attend advanced or remedial classes at public 
schools, because such things are not offered at their schools.  If 
we neglect the public schools, we lose a bastion of egalitarian 
opportunity.  Private and parochial schools are not required to take 
everyone, or to teach diversity, or tolerance, or classes for 
advanced students, or remedial students.  They are not required to 
keep students who step one toe out of line or wear the wrong 
uniform.  Public schools already pick up the slack in this way; 
vouchers would truly make public schools the last resort of anyone 
looking for a school for their kids, and the only option for someone 
who wants a truly non-sectarian education for their kids.  

Even at our local Friends' schools, the pacifism taught there was 
considered to be inadequate for the local Mennonite community, which 
started its own high school in our neighborhood to rectify the 
situation (instead of sending their kids to boarding school in 
Lancaster County, which they used to do).  Don't think there's a 
difference in the brand of pacifism practiced by Quakers and 
Mennonites?  Think again.  This is another example of a religious 
tenet that permeates all aspects of school life, which cannot be 
extracted from the curriculum when vouchers are given to students, 
so that it can be said that public money is not going to pay 
for 'religious studies.'  Everything at a sectarian school can, in 
the long run, be considered 'religious studies' if the school is 
truly a credit to the religious tradition in question.
 
--Barb

http://www.iwgonline.org