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

[Haggridd]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "psychic_serpent" 
<psychic_serpent at y...> wrote:


Barb,
Your responses were reasoned and moderate--except in your reflex 
defense of the NEA.  If you will permit, I will delete your quotes of 
my original points for brevity's sake, and answer yours in turn.

> --- 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.

Renovation of buildings to code:  agreed
Computers: agreed
Increased personnel:  Not if thery are the personnel about which I 
posted my original rant.  The class size at my elementary school was 
60 students throughout all eight years.  I realize that this is 
anecdotal, but theses kids learned just fine.
  
> (One thing, however, that I think could be reduced in many 
districts 
> is the number of folks in the bureaucracy at the school boards.)
>

Agreed
 
> 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.  
>

After implementing the reforms I suggested, agreed.  Your 
characterization of the taxpayers seems a little snide in its own 
right.  The quality of schools has historically been a prime factor 
in choosing where to live, irrespective of the property taxes quality 
schools may require.
   
> > 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.
> 


You have been fortunate in your teachers.  As long as we are being 
anecdotal, let me share that my experience has been otherwise.   I do 
admit, that there is a "chicken/egg" problem here.  You won't get 
those tax resources you want if the status quo continues, however.
  
> > 1.  
> This is something that has some merit, but will be fought tooth and 
> nail by the unions. 

You have made my point #7.

> 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.
>

Why should teachers have more job security than others in the 
workforce?  If the more experienced teachers cannot demonstrate that 
their experience actually makes for better teaching, then why should 
they not compete with new hires?  This might free up some funds to 
increase the compensation of the better teachers.
 
  
> > 2.  Abolish degrees in education. 

> 
> 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).  

In Louisiana, this requires a special Masters degree-- In Education.  
This doesn't address point #2.

> 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.  
> 

I have suggested that teachers minor in education courses myself. I 
did not suggest that they be abolished, only the degree program in 
education process.

 
> 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.
> 

Apples and oranges...
The college system is not analogous.  There, Grad students are 
required to teach in pursuit of their doctorates, and Professors are 
rewarded for research.  This situation does not obtain in primary and 
secondary eduaction.

> > 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?
>

As with your comment about the taxpayers above, we both are less than 
angelic.  I apologize for the tone of my remark, if not the 
substance.  A teacher who really knows and loves the subject at hand 
is the most stimulating environment for a student, Hollywood 
notwithstanding.

> > 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).
>

Your response has nothing to do with my point.  Phantom Continuing 
Education courses have nothing to do with retesting teachers and 
holding them to the results.  Phantom courses will not help them pass 
such a test.


> > 5.  
> 
> 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.)
>

Why don't we implement those overhauls on which we do agree, and take 
stock after that?


> > 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.
>

I simply do not accept poverty as an excuse for poor teaching.  
Experience with vouchers in poor areas belies that claim.
 
> > 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.
>

Ah.. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.  Passions 
are rising dangerously on both sides.  Okay?  
 
> > 8.  Vouchers, vouchers, vouchers.  
> 
> Where do I start?  So what?  I'll tell you what--a little thing 
> called the First Amendment, that's what. 

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not preclude 
purchasing educational services from private sources.  
The "restriction of funds to a specific purpose" argument has been 
used by people from all sides of the political spectrum to justify 
spending the money, from Voucher advocates to those who want to fund 
Planned Parenthood only for those services that do not include 
abortion.  Both sides know that money is fungible.

> 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. 

I am equally tired of that same old song.  Monopolies lead to 
inefficiencies in many other arenas than in education.  The solution 
is to break the monopoly, not make it stronger.  Did you ever 
consider that poor teachers might have made that unfortunate kid into 
a student that no one else wants?

> 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) 

The most inefficient system for educating studnets is the current 
publi system.  In response to the outside competitition, the public 
system will either get better, obviating the need for the vouchers, 
or shrink, as it should if it doesn't do the job that others can do.

> 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.  
> 

Again, anecdotally, I know of many parents frustrated at the 
entrenched system (read NEA) that makes PTA meetings powerless.

> 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?"
> 

See above argument re NARAL and abortion funding.


> 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.  
>

Parents would not be forced to send their kids to private schools.  
They still have the opportunity to have their children attend public 
schools, with all the many advantages you describe...

The truly egalitarian thing would be to empower poor parents to have 
the same options as more affluent parents.  In the instances where 
this choice has been implemented, Parentes have "voted with their 
feet" time and time again.
 
Don't get me wrong.   I want to increase teacher pay by a great deal, 
by over 100% in most cases.  I cannot justify doing this for the 
present system.

Haggridd/John