"It's a long-standing complaint, echoed throughout American history: teachers don't get the respect they deserve. But it's a long way from that age-old complaint to the current campaign of vilification directed at our nation's more than three million teachers. Although politicians claim they want to reform education, it is impossible to see how reducing the status and rights of teachers will advance that goal. The roots of this campaign of vilification can be traced to the 2002 federal law called No Child Left Behind. That law mandates that all students must reach "proficient" on state tests by 2014, a goal never reached by any nation or state. Any school that cannot reach that utopian goal will eventually be declared "failing," with dire consequences, including firing the staff and closing the school. The assumption behind this punitive approach is that poor student performance is caused by incompetent teachers and principals, despite the fact that decades of social science show that family income is the most reliable predictor of test scores. The Obama administration's Race to the Top program took the attacks on teachers to a new level by encouraging states to evaluate teachers by their students' test scores. This approach holds teachers alone accountable for student effort. Only teachers of reading and mathematics in grades four through eight, a minority of all teachers, may be judged in this way, since other subjects and grades are not regularly tested. A year ago, President Obama and Secretary Arne Duncan cheered when school officials in tiny Central Falls, R.I., announced their plan to fire the entire staff of its only high school. Eventually, a settlement was reached, but staff morale plummeted: 20 percent of the teachers quit, and another 15 to 20 percent are absent on any given day. Last summer, the Los Angeles Times used student scores to rank the "effectiveness" of 6,000 teachers and posted the results online. Leading testing experts have warned that such rankings are likely to be inaccurate and unstable, Secretary Duncan applauded, teachers were outraged, and the newspaper stood by its decision. The New York Post wants to do the same in New York City, but must overcome a legal challenge by the United Federation of Teachers. Now it's open season on teachers and their profession. Many states are trying to end collective bargaining, due process rights, seniority, and other job protections to make it easier to fire teachers and to retain novices. A large contingent of National Board Certified teachers are planning a march on Washington in July to express their opposition to these attacks on their profession. A historic strain of anti-intellectualism in American thought has merged with fiscal conservatism, producing the present campaign to dismantle the teaching profession. It echoes a deeply-ingrained American belief that anyone can teach, no training or experience necessary. Although politicians and corporate leaders claim they want to reform education, it is impossible to see how the campaign against teachers will advance that goal. No high-performing nation in the world is reducing the status and rights of the teaching profession. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...teachers/it-started-with-no-child-left-behind Brilliant and sensible analysis of what's going on in the teaching profession.
The National Education Association began in 1857.....so I'm sure in your view America has been "going downhill ever since then".
I thought you were a fan of the U.S.'s global position in the 1950's? - - - Updated - - - That was my backup response! (*)(*)(*)(*)it. Now comment on the article; what role do you see standardized testing playing in the U.S. educational system?
The NEA may have been organized in 1857 but it was much later before they got real union contracts that protected incompetent teachers. Without some sort of standardized testing, how can the taxpayer assess school performance? Don't even bother with grades. Teachers can be intimidated easily into inflated grades. That there is such a squall over standardized tests baffles me. The standardized tests are so dumbed-down that a concrete lock can pass them. At least with standardized tests, we know about how many high-school graduates cannot read, write, or make change.
The standardized test performance (and academic achievement in general) is tied to how much money the child's family makes much more correlatively than teacher performance. Why should I be fired because I teach in a low income school, or because I teach general education students instead of honors of AP students?
Sorry to break it for you but the union of teachers has absolutely nothing to do with education . Same way union of workers in tractor manufacturing has nothing to do with the quality of corn.
But you didn't say that. See, it's a pretty good bet, that unless you're 200 years old....you were taught by unionized teachers. And look how you turned out?..........ohhh, wait....maybe I'm actually making your point? - - - Updated - - - Pretty good bet that one of Taxcutter's favorite CARS?....was built by people in a union.
...and anyone who knows anything about cars knows the one built on Mondays and Fridays are of poorer quality than those built on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. Thanks to the UAW there is far too much tolerance of absenteeism on the assembly lines. I can read VIN codes and don't accept Monday or Friday vehicles. "... the union of teachers has absolutely nothing to do with education ." Taxcutter says: Then why have teachers at all? From test data, home schoolers do it better. The Indiana standardized tests are pass/fail. About all they really ask is basic skills like reading and writing and a little arithmetic. Somebody who fails those has been a waste of taxpayer money. Are low income children a waste of money to teach?
It is myopic to think that No Child Left Behind was the beginning of the problem with education in America as the problems are far more extensive than that. This is not to say that No Child Left Behind isn't contributing to the decline in education because it changed the focus of the teacher from educating the child to "teach to the test" which is not education. They teachers are teaching the "answers" to the test as opposed to providing the education where the test measures that overall educational accomplishments of the student. Mentioned as also being relevant is the "wealth" of the families of the child as poor children have historically preformed at lower levels that the children of wealthy families but it's actually deeper than that. Denial of equality in opportunity for African-Americans due to generational racism has diminished the motivation of African-American children which directly affects their educational achievement. Why, for example, work hard in school if the person is going to be denied a job when they are equally qualified with a "white" person because of racism? Studies have shown a 20 point drop in IQ scores based solely upon "motivation" of the person taking the test and generational discrimination has destroyed to motivation for a significant percentage of African-American children because they will be denied equality of opportunity due to racism when they become adults. Teacher's unions have been condemned but they are only half of that problem because we must remember that the local government agree to the teacher's contracts. One clause in "teacher's contracts" that I don't believe our government should ever have agreed to is the requirement that all teachers must be college graduates with teaching credentials. I agree with the teaching credentials but it doesn't take a four-year college degree to teach K-6 education and many K-12 classes don't require a four-year college degree. Yes, the teacher must be profiencent in the subject matter but it doesn't require a four-year college degree to accomplish that. Requiring a four-year college degree that isn't necessary to teach the course creates an unnecessary cost in providing education. Next is the fact that our education systems have not evolved with technology and advances in education. Our system was always based upon "brick and mortar" schools but technology has advanced and much of the education we provide could and should be accomplished by online courses that offer numerous paths to gain the knowledge. Additionally our education systems were predominately based upon rote memorization as opposed to competency based learning. The children memorize the answers but don't acquire the knowledge behind the answers. This is, as was previously noted, the problem with No Child Left Behind because the teachers are teaching the answers without providing the knowledge. They're teaching to the test. Last, at least for this post, is that we have institutions motivated by profit that are continually trying to make another buck off of the system. There have been few changes in the knowledge related to K-12 education. Basic English, Math and Science have not changed but the text book manufacturers are constantly revising the books, generally with insignificant changes, to generate the demand for the new text books so they sell more books. Of course this problem predominately goes away if we stop using printed material and convert to online information and courses. Yes, there is a cost related to updating online information but that cost is minimal as opposed to having to replace entire school books because a new paragraph is being added or an old statement revised.
Home schoolers do better due to third variables; in order to home school kids, you must be wealthy enough to get by on one income, you must have a parent qualified to home school a kid (generally more than a high school/GED degree), and you must be invested enough in your child's academics to make the sacrifices necessary to home school.
Home schoolers - lacking access to standardized tests - have almost no capability of "teaching to the tests" yet home-schooled kids routinely whip the socks off of public school students on standardized tests. Private school teachers have access but rarely bother to teach to the tests. "...it doesn't take a four-year college degree to teach K-6 education and many K-12 classes don't require a four-year college degree." Taxcutter says: I absolutely concur. Home schoolers, armed with nothing more than a high school education and a lot of motivation, easily get the information of K-6 over to their kids. For higher specialty subjects like chemistry and mathematics (a recruiting nightmare for public schools) retired professionals teaching part time could handle this easily without the nonsense of having to get an education degree. "The children memorize the answers but don't acquire the knowledge behind the answers." Taxcutter says: Some memorize. Some get the knowledge behind it. Whether that is a result of higher intelligence or higher motivation is not important, but it is essentially the difference between good students and mediocre students. "Basic English, Math and Science have not changed but the text book manufacturers are constantly revising the books, generally with insignificant changes, to generate the demand for the new text books so they sell more books." Taxcutter says: I completely concur. The problem is even bigger in higher education. I thought my calculus book was overpriced at $35 (way back when) but those today cost over $500. This is a place where there is plenty of scope for cost-cutting if new competitors - aligned with electronic publishing - are allowed into the market. Teacher would get a lot more sympathy if they were to address the externalities of education (like student motivation), but deserve no respect when the only answer they know is "More money! More money! More money!"
I don't want more money for me; I'm content with my salary given my experience. I fully support merit pay if it's instituted equitably; I do not support merit pay if it's an excuse simply to fire some teachers, freeze wages of most teachers, and award minimal ($300 a year, in some cases) raises to a very select number of teachers. In short, merit pay needs to be funded, which is something these mandates always leave out; how to fund the programs. What I really want more resources for is to upgrade our schools in terms of technology.
In some aspects it has. The 4th and 10th amendments are meaningless today, the federal government doesn't recognize the right of states to secede from the union, we didn't have legal tender laws in 1957, we weren't engaging in foreign aid or entangled in alliances or multiple useless wars abroad, the UN, IMF, World Bank, and WHO didn't exist, we didn't have an income tax, the size of the government relative to GDP was far smaller, the size of the debt relative to GDP was far smaller, we had free(r) trade, we had free immigration, we had no compulsion to join SS/medicare/medicaid, we had no NDAA/Patriot Act/Police State. I could keep going, but I think I've made my point.
There are a lot of externalities that have to be addressed. Schools are as subject to capricious regulation as business. Years ago my high school got by with minimal administration. Today, it seems as if administrators - mostly involved in complying with regulations - outnumber the teachers. I say get rid of the regulations and the administrators. A big one is that motivation of students is a big factor. If there were sufficient carrots and sticks applicable to the students performance would improve. Dress codes, driving privileges,and sports (among others) can be manipulated to provide motivation. To a great extent, K-12 has become so dumbed-down that it appears to be more government daycare than education. With reasonable measurement of performance and student motivation the schools could meet their real function - transfer of basic information - in at least two years less than it does. In the case of exceptional students maybe more. With society's basic information transferred to the next generation, the kids could be emancipated and become productive at a younger age. But all the unions can say is "More money! More money! More money!" - - - Updated - - - There are a lot of externalities that have to be addressed. Schools are as subject to capricious regulation as business. Years ago my high school got by with minimal administration. Today, it seems as if administrators - mostly involved in complying with regulations - outnumber the teachers. I say get rid of the regulations and the administrators. A big one is that motivation of students is a big factor. If there were sufficient carrots and sticks applicable to the students performance would improve. Dress codes, driving privileges,and sports (among others) can be manipulated to provide motivation. To a great extent, K-12 has become so dumbed-down that it appears to be more government daycare than education. With reasonable measurement of performance and student motivation the schools could meet their real function - transfer of basic information - in at least two years less than it does. In the case of exceptional students maybe more. With society's basic information transferred to the next generation, the kids could be emancipated and become productive at a younger age. But all the unions can say is "More money! More money! More money!"
What I know is that there ARE some really bad teachers.....and those need to be weeded out and fired. We need to allow students to change schools IF theirs is not getting the job done. No one should be trapped in a bad school.
there are some really good teachers out there , I still say the parents are the key , if you are into your childs education they will respond!!
The greatest single factor is parental involvement in the child's education. While "home-schooled" children do well when compared to all students in educational institutions, both public and private, I haven't seen them compared to just those students in educational institutions where high patental involvement is used as the criteria for comparison. It is my belief that when compared to regular school students when the parent is heavily involved in the childs education that the "home-schoolers" would fall significantly below them in achievement. Basically we'd probably be comparing home-schooled children with roughly the top 10% of children in our public schools because the top 10% typically have a lot of parental support.
There is a fundamental problem with "tests" of any kind because they don't really measure knowledge but instead measure a lack of knowledge. By way of example a person may have a lot of knowledge about the American Revolution but might not know that the Declaration of Independence was signed/approved on July 4, 1776. They might even know the date when representatives began signing the DOI but might get a question wrong related to it because the last person to sign the DOI didn't do so until August of 1776 as I recall. That is why I advocate competency based learning which ensures that all of the knowledge is acquired all of the students and not just the very limited knowledge required to pass a test.
The school system is in kind of a mess, but I lay the blame entirely at the feet of the boomer and echo-boomer parents. I think they deserve a shot at taking care of their own kids for a change. Shut down the schools, we won't miss 'em.
