• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

700+ Teachers Fired in DC

And I disagree. I think the drive of the kid is what makes a successful student or not. Now home life may be a factor in that drive but it is only one factor and not a super-majority factor either. So I disagree; if a student fails its on partially them especially when that student gets more and more toward graduation. Now during evaluations, the system can see if they are getting the right knowledge or not but, if they are getting the right knowledge to be successful, so be it.





And this is nothing but an excuse. So every student a teacher gets assigned to is a "slow perform." or has a low IQ. So everyone in the DC school system has a low IQ. That is not how this works. The curve is clear there should be and is a range of IQ. If you are within set standard deviations from the mean, you are able to handle the material. This is nothing but a ready made excuse for a teacher who can not motivate or teach to blame their failure on the student. Teachers are responsible for poor achievement because that is the measure everyone has selected. So again, there is no reason to doubt that these were not bad teachers.

I have plenty of reason to doubt that these were all bad teachers.

Just take a look at how ****ty society is as a whole when it comes to parenting......
 
And I disagree. I think the drive of the kid is what makes a successful student or not.

If the student fails or not, it is almost entirely on them. If a student is failing, and does not want to continue to fail, they will and do seek help from more sources than just their teacher. Parents, other teachers, deans, counselors, successful students... it is a rare thing to find a student that is capable and motivated, that still fails. A rare thing indeed.

And this is nothing but an excuse. So every student a teacher gets assigned to is a "slow perform." or has a low IQ. So everyone in the DC school system has a low IQ. That is not how this works. The curve is clear there should be and is a range of IQ. If you are within set standard deviations from the mean, you are able to handle the material. This is nothing but a ready made excuse for a teacher who can not motivate or teach to blame their failure on the student. Teachers are responsible for poor achievement because that is the measure everyone has selected. So again, there is no reason to doubt that these were not bad teachers.[/QUOTE]

They are responsible for this because that is the measure, what some of us are saying is that the measure is unrealistic. Teaching is unlike most professions. The product is not a case or a successful surgery... it is an individual person that has their own set of values, likes and dislikes. Judging a teacher is very difficult, since there are so many unique factors that many of us think are not being taken into consideration. Teaching is very easy at the most basic level. Open your book to page 12. Do questions #1-10. Now listen, I will go over a few examples. 1+1=2. Are there any questions? OK Johnny, let me show you that again. ... now, Susie doesn't do ****, doesn't ask a question, doesn't care... you can have classes like this were even those that care don't learn well, and what? The teacher is to blame?

Now, for crappy teachers that have most students in most classes failing, fire them. But, I have never met one of these teachers... ever. 700+ in one district? Sounds fishy...
 
The teachers that are crap got canned. Of course the Teacher Union is complaining :roll:

I think what they did is AWESOME! And should be comended! If you arent doing your job or arent doing it at least to par.... Buh Bye.

VIDEO: msnbc.com Video Player

I *love* Michelle Rhee. She is one of the best school chancellors in the entire country, and Mayor Fenty has given her total support. For that reason, I'll be giving Fenty my total support on Election Day.
 
You cannot motivate or teach a kid who doesn't want to learn, and stupid people cannot be made smart. I actually am a teacher, an I taught in an urban district as a student teacher. The classes were completely unmanageable. They refused to do anything, and then threatened the teachers whenever a demand was made of them. It's rather easy for non-teachers to blather on about "no excuses," when you aren't the one there being called a "faggot white boy" by half the class when you assign homework you know they will refuse to do (which no one does, by the way).

I had to fail almost all the students, because not one of them would:

1. Do homework.
2. Take notes.
3. Study.


This continued in college too. Blaming a teacher for lazy stupid kids is like blaming your professor for you failing nursing school, which has a low graduation rate. Are they bad teachers because most don't pass? If anything, that means they are doing their job. Do you blame the professor because 70% of the math course fails when the students just aren't capable? That would be asinine.


You don't want a teacher. YOu want a miracle social worker who can wave a magic wand and cure all ill and teach the uneducable.


Edit: And if you dare to fail the kids , the parents come in and pitch a hissy fit and sick the principal on you, who limits the amount of grades of a certain variety you can hand out. Some teachers had to change grades to satisfy the admins, who were bombared with ghetto parents' complaints. You try teaching in that environment. Glad I got out of there, because it was a waste of time.


Edit: The only accurate way to measure performance is intradistrict, measuring teachers who have the same types of kids (similiar IQ, S.ES) etc. Then it's perfectly okay. If most teachers are able to teach the same kids,then something is obviously wrong.


Edit: Moreover, if you are unhapppy with such large numbers of "bad" teachers, then perhaps you should voice concern with the much-vauned college system that seemingly cannot produce good teachers. I'd be willing to bet many bad teachers did well on their own asessments. So obviously, something is wrong there. Perhaps they are not actually preparing teachers. From experience, a lot of education is too theoretical, and very short on useful practical instruction.
 
Last edited:
You cannot motivate or teach a kid who doesn't want to learn, and stupid people cannot be made smart. I actually am a teacher, an I taught in an urban district as a student teacher. The classes were completely unmanageable. They refused to do anything, and then threatened the teachers whenever a demand was made of them. It's rather easy for non-teachers to blather on about "no excuses," when you aren't the one there being called a "faggot white boy" by half the class when you assign homework you know they will refuse to do (which no one does, by the way).

I had to fail almost all the students, because not one of them would:

1. Do homework.
2. Take notes.
3. Study.


This continued in college too. Blaming a teacher for lazy stupid kids is like blaming your professor for you failing nursing school, which has a low graduation rate. Are they bad teachers because most don't pass? If anything, that means they are doing their job. Do you blame the professor because 70% of the math course fails when the students just aren't capable? That would be asinine.


You don't want a teacher. YOu want a miracle social worker who can wave a magic wand and cure all ill and teach the uneducable.


Edit: And if you dare to fail the kids , the parents come in and pitch a hissy fit and sick the principal on you, who limits the amount of grades of a certain variety you can hand out. Some teachers had to change grades to satisfy the admins, who were bombared with ghetto parents' complaints. You try teaching in that environment. Glad I got out of there, because it was a waste of time.


Edit: The only accurate way to measure performance is intradistrict, measuring teachers who have the same types of kids (similiar IQ, S.ES) etc. Then it's perfectly okay. If most teachers are able to teach the same kids,then something is obviously wrong.


Edit: Moreover, if you are unhapppy with such large numbers of "bad" teachers, then perhaps you should voice concern with the much-vauned college system that seemingly cannot produce good teachers. I'd be willing to bet many bad teachers did well on their own asessments. So obviously, something is wrong there. Perhaps they are not actually preparing teachers. From experience, a lot of education is too theoretical, and very short on useful practical instruction.

I am a teacher too, and taught in Richmond, California... it was the murder capital of California at one point. Gangs, etc. I just want to drop off every person that bitches about teachers and education into that environment for a day. Hell, I want to see your normal, average white complaining ignoramous just drive into the parking lot at that school and walk to the main office. They would **** their pants. I was often the only white person in that part of town, from what I could tell.

I was successful, to a degree, because I got out there with the kids and played basketball. Took elbows. It was my in.

Even in good schools, if the parent or the admin is not behind student behaviour, student achievement will suffer dramatically.
 
This is a good move forward. It doesn't seem like the entire evaluation is based on test score and it does look like they are trying to help those poor teachers. However, I don't think every school system can do this as there probably is not the human resources for all local education boards to fire this many teachers a year and have the appropriate number of teachers to replace them all. I would also like to see the result of this over time. If this is the first year, they will need to revisit this in four years or so to see if test scores are raising. That is if the union doesn't kill it first in collective bargaining.

DC schools are in a mess. They have to do something. My initial reaction (before watching the video) was negative. Firing teacher's based on test scores is not fair. But after viewing the video, I understand that the process is far more complex than simply looking at test scores. I'd work for that lady. I like what she had to say (and yeah, I"m a teacher.)

I'll say this: In our school, we have very hard working teachers, very competent, and smart. Our test results don't always show this but we do show improvements. It must be kept in mind that once a kid leaves the building, we have no control. And even when they are there, you can't force some kids to do the work. And where we see parental involvement in the education process, we see those kids excell. There are many factors. Still, I like what I see Michell Rhee doing in DC. She's not making excuses, she's taking action. And in addition to the firings, she has plans in place to help improve the skills of those educators who show promise but need more training.

The union has to protest this of course.
 
DC schools are in a mess. They have to do something. My initial reaction (before watching the video) was negative. Firing teacher's based on test scores is not fair. But after viewing the video, I understand that the process is far more complex than simply looking at test scores. I'd work for that lady. I like what she had to say (and yeah, I"m a teacher.)

I'll say this: In our school, we have very hard working teachers, very competent, and smart. Our test results don't always show this but we do show improvements. It must be kept in mind that once a kid leaves the building, we have no control. And even when they are there, you can't force some kids to do the work. And where we see parental involvement in the education process, we see those kids excell. There are many factors. Still, I like what I see Michell Rhee doing in DC. She's not making excuses, she's taking action. And in addition to the firings, she has plans in place to help improve the skills of those educators who show promise but need more training.



let's imagine a fifth grade being taught in three classrooms by three teachers
in the first classroom would be the top third students, ability tracked
the second classroom would contain the average one-third of the fifth grade
the third class would be comprised of the slowest third of the fifth graders, based on prior performance

as a teacher yourself, can you envision the possibility that the teacher of the first classroom might be found to be a good performer, based on the class end of grade scores, despite actually being a weak teacher
while the teacher of the third class, even tho an above average teacher, would be found lacking, based on that class' EOGs?

The union has to protest this of course.
the union has a fiduciary obligation to assure the methodology used to assess teacher performance is a valid one
 
let's imagine a fifth grade being taught in three classrooms by three teachers
in the first classroom would be the top third students, ability tracked
the second classroom would contain the average one-third of the fifth grade
the third class would be comprised of the slowest third of the fifth graders, based on prior performance

as a teacher yourself, can you envision the possibility that the teacher of the first classroom might be found to be a good performer, based on the class end of grade scores, despite actually being a weak teacher
while the teacher of the third class, even tho an above average teacher, would be found lacking, based on that class' EOGs?


the union has a fiduciary obligation to assure the methodology used to assess teacher performance is a valid one

I get your point. A couple of thoughts. The group would be assessed pre and post. So in the beginning you'd know that the teacher being assessed had a lower functioning class to start with, and you wouldn't expect great strides. Likewise, the teacher with the smartest class, you'd expect great growth there. I think it would show if the teacher were ineffective.

That said, the reality is much different. Normally those three classes are divided up equally. At least that's my experience.

I don't think there is an exact science in determining effective vs non-effective teachers. In my 20 plus years, I've seen teachers who clearly shouldn't be teaching (and they are no longer working in our district). But these are the exception and not the rule.

While I have taught in a regular classroom for 10 years (kindergarten and a 2/3 combination) my last 12 years has been in the field of visual arts (elementary level). I wouldn't want to go back into the regular classroom unless I absolutely had to do it. It's a tough job and the planning is time consuming. Those that plan well, do well. And unfortunately we are only given 45 mins a day to plan. I go in early, stay late, and work a little on nights and weekends. My classroom colleagues go in earlier (than I) stay later, and work an hour or more most nights and weekends too.

In addition to my regular duties, I teach guitar after school each day (for free in my classroom) and have a chess club that meets regularly throughout the year. I think every teacher (most) is involved in committees, trainings, etc after school. The point I'm making is that most educators I know work hard and long. They are dedicated to doing the best for kids. Even so, our scores aren't the best. It's not for lack of effort or lack of skilled teachers. There are many factors. However, we do show improvement in some areas and we always work to improve our instruction where necessary.
 
Maybe the policy is different in Maryland, but here, teachers are fired based on experience not quality, so if I were you, I wouldn't say the teachers who were fired were bad teachers unless you know from personal experience.

I have no doubt that it was based on seniority and tenure. In NY that's what happened, and a taacher started an organization to stop this.

Educators 4 Excellence
 
The teachers that are crap got canned. Of course the Teacher Union is complaining :roll:

I think what they did is AWESOME! And should be comended! If you arent doing your job or arent doing it at least to par.... Buh Bye.

VIDEO: msnbc.com Video Player

I hope other states follow suit. Lousy teachers and school officials should be fired.There should be no such thing tenure. A hospital wouldn't continue to employ crappy doctor, a delivery company wouldn't continue to employ a lousy delivery men. They are employees of the tax payers

I think it is amusing they say you shouldn't link test scores test scores to performance especially since it wasn't subject to collective bargaining. What the **** are they thinking.If they are doing a lousy job teaching then little Timmy and Suzy are going to get lousy test scores and what the hell does collective bargaining have anything to do with this?

You didnt watch the video... DID you???

Anyone can find out after watching 20 seconds that it is about crappy teachers being fired. Not experienced teachers being cut to save money.
 
Great, they got rid of weak teachers, now how do we fire bad parents and lazy administrators who don't support the good teachers, and how do we expel bratty kids who refuse to do their assignments...?
What do we do about kids who drop out for whatever reason?
Do we just stand back and let a new generation of welfare recipients develop?
 
I hope other states follow suit. Lousy teachers and school officials should be fired.There should be no such thing tenure. A hospital wouldn't continue to employ crappy doctor, a delivery company wouldn't continue to employ a lousy delivery men. They are employees of the tax payers

I think it is amusing they say you shouldn't link test scores test scores to performance especially since it wasn't subject to collective bargaining. What the **** are they thinking.If they are doing a lousy job teaching then little Timmy and Suzy are going to get lousy test scores and what the hell does collective bargaining have anything to do with this?
collective bargaining, what does it have to do with this firing of teachers because of student test scores you ask
collectively, the union has enough political clout to determine whether the test scores were legitimately used to assess whether a teacher was a poor performer
for instance, if a fifth grade teacher was given a class of students to teach who ended the fourth grade with tests scores no better than second grade proficiency and the teacher was fired because they did not end the fifth grade at fifth grade proficiency ... a three grade improvement in one school year, would that be the indicator of a bad teacher
let's dwell a bit further. if it was found that all of the class was at least fouth grade proficient and half of the class was fifth grade proficient on the EOG scores, would that increasing all students by two grade levels and half by three grade levels in a single year not actually indicate a very good teacher?
yet, if the arbitrary basis to terminate a teacher was that no more than half the class reached its fifth grade proficiency on the EOGs, then that good teacher would be fired because the arbitrary definition was not met
that kind of inquiry into the performance measures is exactly why a teachers union is good for our education system

Anyone can find out after watching 20 seconds that it is about crappy teachers being fired. Not experienced teachers being cut to save money.
ok, after having watched 20 seconds, tell us if the teachers were evaluated based on the progress of each student above where that student began the school year, or whether that student's achievement at the beginning of the year was not a factor in the teacher's year end performance assessment
 
collective bargaining, what does it have to do with this firing of teachers because of student test scores you ask
collectively, the union has enough political clout to determine whether the test scores were legitimately used to assess whether a teacher was a poor performer
for instance, if a fifth grade teacher was given a class of students to teach who ended the fourth grade with tests scores no better than second grade proficiency and the teacher was fired because they did not end the fifth grade at fifth grade proficiency ... a three grade improvement in one school year, would that be the indicator of a bad teacher
let's dwell a bit further. if it was found that all of the class was at least fouth grade proficient and half of the class was fifth grade proficient on the EOG scores, would that increasing all students by two grade levels and half by three grade levels in a single year not actually indicate a very good teacher?
yet, if the arbitrary basis to terminate a teacher was that no more than half the class reached its fifth grade proficiency on the EOGs, then that good teacher would be fired because the arbitrary definition was not met
that kind of inquiry into the performance measures is exactly why a teachers union is good for our education system


ok, after having watched 20 seconds, tell us if the teachers were evaluated based on the progress of each student above where that student began the school year, or whether that student's achievement at the beginning of the year was not a factor in the teacher's year end performance assessment

Collective bargaining is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether or not the teachers are doing a lousy job.A significant portion of a teacher's students failing grade level tests would indicate that the teacher is doing a lousy job. The Oh you shouldn't judge by test scores or there needs to be collective bargaining is just a load of crap.Lousy teachers should be fired period, tenure and unions should have nothing to do with whether or not lousy teachers are fired.
 
Collective bargaining is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether or not the teachers are doing a lousy job.A significant portion of a teacher's students failing grade level tests would indicate that the teacher is doing a lousy job. The Oh you shouldn't judge by test scores or there needs to be collective bargaining is just a load of crap.Lousy teachers should be fired period, tenure and unions should have nothing to do with whether or not lousy teachers are fired.

Would would a significant portion of a teachers' students failing indicate that the teacher is doing a lousy job? Why couldn't it instead mean that the kids are just stupid, lazy, or get no help or support at home?

Why is it always automatically the teachers' fault?

Does the high failure rating at nursing school suddenly mean all the nursing teachers are lousy? Or does it mean that most of the people just aren't very good at the material?

You can have many teachers that know, and apply, the latest research-based teaching methods and have excellent credentials...yet the students still perform poorly for whatever reason. It doesn't mean the teacher is bad. In fact, many teachers inherit kids who are already far behind, so the teachers can't get to what they need to teach because the other teachers couldn't get through to the dunces for the last material, either.

Then you need to factor in that teachers pass students who shouldn't because of political pressures from parents and the administration. Parents pitch a hissy fit if their kids don't get the grades they "know" they deserve, even if the kids are lazy and dumb.

A recent student has indicated that the pilot for "merit pay" for "good teachers" hasn't worked. Over a three year period, there has been no appreciable benefit from linking pay to performance. This goes back to my original point: not matter how much you pay a teacher, you cannot fix lazy, stupid. The amount of money or rewards cannot fix these types of problems, because the assumption behind it is that it's always the teachers' fault. Paying teachers bonuses or threatening to fire them won't make kids do their homework, have respect, study, or get smarter, etc
 
Last edited:
Collective bargaining is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether or not the teachers are doing a lousy job.
clearly, we disagree
i see the union as being a collective representative which could prevent an arbitrary and capricious use of EOG scores to cause good teachers to be terminated

A significant portion of a teacher's students failing grade level tests would indicate that the teacher is doing a lousy job.
why would a high school teacher be found weak when assigned to teach a class which is without the capacity to read at the beginning of the year?
would you reasonably expect a 12th grade teacher to teach the class of illiterates such that they scored proficient at the 12th grade level on EOGs?
how reasonable an expectation - a teaching standard - would that be?

The Oh you shouldn't judge by test scores or there needs to be collective bargaining is just a load of crap.
i did not say the test scores should not be used to judge a teacher's performance
those test scores should be used in a meaningful way
that 12th grade teacher above with the entry level class of illiterates would be found a fabulous teacher if the class scored at the ninth grade level at year end, having begun at a second grade level
but if the standard was that more that half must pass the 12th grade proficiency level on the EOGs, then that very good teacher would instead be fired
and having a union to contest that inappropriate firing - to retain an excellent teacher - is a good thing for our education system

Lousy teachers should be fired period, ...
we agree. now, please point out which of our forum members have posted that lousy teachers should be able to keep their teaching positions

tenure and unions should have nothing to do with whether or not lousy teachers are fired.
i can agree with that ... i do not see the purpose of tenure when the teacher has a union

tenure and unions should have nothing to do with whether or not lousy teachers are fired.
unions have no incentive to defend indefensible teachers - beyond making sure that the negotiated process used to terminate those weak teachers is followed
union representatives are co-workers
as an employee, do you like having to pull the extra weight which results when weak employees are kept on board instead of terminated? neither do those co-worker union representatives. if the weak teacher has no case, then the union rep will make sure the process negotiated to be followed when the termination of a teacher is proposed, is in fact followed as prescribed
the problem is, the administration is so often incompetent/lazy. if the administration fails to do its job to document the poor performance so that the termination process can be followed to its appropriate conclusion. the union cannot allow the process to be short circuited even when the weak teacher is saved by the administration's failure to do its job and document why the teacher no longer deserves to teach our kids
that short circuit, if tolerated by the union, would then be relied on as a 'past practice' which would allow good teachers - but those the administration does not like - to also be terminated. not because they were bad teachers but because they were not ass kissers
thus, the union has to make sure the process is always followed
unfortunately, that requires effort ... and administration tends to be weak in that area
 
Would would a significant portion of a teachers' students failing indicate that the teacher is doing a lousy job? Why couldn't it instead mean that the kids are just stupid, lazy, or get no help or support at home?
'

There are stupid lazy kids whose parents do not give a **** all across the country so you do not have a point.

Why is it always automatically the teachers' fault?

A teacher's job is to teach.Which is why its automatically the teacher's fault. WOuld you continue to hire a maid who did a lousy job? When there is a significant portion of students failing it most likely the teachers and school administrators, not the kids.

Does the high failure rating at nursing school suddenly mean all the nursing teachers are lousy? Or does it mean that most of the people just aren't very good at the material?
It probably does mean it is the teacher's fault.


You can have many teachers that know, and apply, the latest research-based teaching methods and have excellent credentials...yet the students still perform poorly for whatever reason. It doesn't mean the teacher is bad. In fact, many teachers inherit kids who are already far behind, so the teachers can't get to what they need to teach because the other teachers couldn't get through to the dunces for the last material, either.

If you continue to use the same lousy teachers then new teaching methods are not going to mean squat. Throwing money at problem does not fix it.

Then you need to factor in that teachers pass students who shouldn't because of political pressures from parents and the administration. Parents pitch a hissy fit if their kids don't get the grades they "know" they deserve, even if the kids are lazy and dumb.

Teachers should not be passing unqualified students.

A recent student has indicated that the pilot for "merit pay" for "good teachers" hasn't worked. Over a three year period, there has been no appreciable benefit from linking pay to performance. This goes back to my original point: not matter how much you pay a teacher, you cannot fix lazy, stupid. The amount of money or rewards cannot fix these types of problems, because the assumption behind it is that it's always the teachers' fault. Paying teachers bonuses or threatening to fire them won't make kids do their homework, have respect, study, or get smarter, etc

You can't fix lousy incompetent teachers with more money. You get rid of them and hire new teachers. Throwing money at lousy teachers makes as much sense as giving a dumb blond a speak and spell. It won't make them better.
 
'



A teacher's job is to teach.Which is why its automatically the teacher's fault. WOuld you continue to hire a maid who did a lousy job? When there is a significant portion of students failing it most likely the teachers and school administrators, not the kids.


It probably does mean it is the teacher's fault.




If you continue to use the same lousy teachers then new teaching methods are not going to mean squat. Throwing money at problem does not fix it.



Teachers should not be passing unqualified students.



You can't fix lousy incompetent teachers with more money. You get rid of them and hire new teachers. Throwing money at lousy teachers makes as much sense as giving a dumb blond a speak and spell. It won't make them better.
If it is just the teachers, explain how I and one sister got good grades and are now financially well off, while 2 other siblings did poorly in school and live on the edge of poverty now. Same schools, same teachers, same all but attitude.
I'll give you a clue. Our parents didn't care and made little effort to motivate us. Older sister and I were SELF motivated, the other 2 just didn't want to learn....
 
:roll:

'

There are stupid lazy kids whose parents do not give a **** all across the country so you do not have a point.

Sure I do. Doesn't matter where they are in the country. The point remains the same: you need to be careful in blaming the teachers all the time, because often, those kids, parents, and environments are a huge part of the problem. World class chef cannot make a turd sandwich into a gourmet feast.



A teacher's job is to teach.Which is why its automatically the teacher's fault.

Yes, there is a job is to teach. You want magicians who can wave a magic wand and peform Jesus miracles on bad kids, from bad homes, who probably aren't that smart, or are far behind. Yea, because when I get kids who can barely read, I am supposed to teach them at a 12th grade history level. You need to put down the water bong or something. If they are that far behind when I get them, short of God riding down on a beam of light and changing their skill level, I will make very little headway, and so will any other teacher.


WOuld you continue to hire a maid who did a lousy job?

LOL. What an hilariously false analogy. A maid can force clothes into a drier. She can do the dishes without them refusing to be be washed. The dust can't say no. They don't think. You have nearly absolute control over the work you're dealing with. A teacher cannot make lazy, bad, or stupid kids work or smarter, no matter how hard they try.

Teachers inherently have very little control and power over the object of their profession.


When there is a significant portion of students failing it most likely the teachers and school administrators, not the kids.

That's an assumption, but not a fact. The best chef cannot make a First Rate meal out of cow sh*t. Doesn't matter how many Chefs you cycle through. If you start with bad ingredients, the best Chef will fail.

Upward of 70% of kids fail in many hard science programmes. That's hardly the professor's fault for their inability to learn. When students perform poorly, the problem may indeed rest with the students. You've clearly never been in a real classroom of any sort, where the kids refuse to do anything, don't care, and tell you "shut up white boy fag." I have. I have been there. I have taught in it. You are sorely misinformed. When you have to waste upward of 40% of the class time fighting with or coaxing ghetto kids to even try to read a single passage in a textbook, you cannot possibly get anywhere. Try discipline? It doesn't work, because the kids are not afaid of it, and the parents don't care.

I tired everything. I tried reasoning with the little zoo animals. I tried detentions. I tried contacting the office. I tried to convince them to work. Nothing worked. They outright REFUSED to do things from day one. They had zero interest in learning, they did not want to be there, so it was ultimately pointless. You cannot make COLLEGE age kids do their work or study (which I have also seen first hand), so expecting a teachers to make teens do it is asinine wishful thinking.

NO one wants toteach these people, because when they inevitably fail, the teacher will get blamed, regardless. That's why you have a shortage of teachers to teach the worst areas. No one wants to play that game.

Teachers should not be passing unqualified students.

Parents want to get what they want. It's people like you who believe it's always the teachers' fault and that little johnny can do no wrong. Hence the birth of grade inflation. Teachers get tired of being harassed by whiney parents who demand better grade for kids who just aren't good.

You can't fix lousy incompetent teachers with more money. You get rid of them and hire new teachers. Throwing money at lousy teachers makes as much sense as giving a dumb blond a speak and spell. It won't make them better.

And many of the "new" teachers have the same problem, because the same false assumption is that all the teachers are bad. You can replace a good teacher with another good teacher, but if the same kids are stupid and bad, you're just going to play musical chairs.

While there certainly are some bad teachers, and theys hould not teach, the problem is vastly exaggerated, because no one wants to face the hard truth: a lot of people are just stupid, bad students, and no parent wants to take personal resonsibility. THey are in denial. Again, the best chef in the world cannot turn a sh*t sandwich into filet mignon. I have been there. I have seen what the problem is. Even good teachers have large numbers of kids that do not perform well, because the kids lack the skills, the intelligent, and the motivation to learn. A teacher is not going to fix that, unless the problem isn't that servere in the first place.

There were many teachers in my field observations who did everything by the book, and yet...the kids failed.
 
Last edited:
Would would a significant portion of a teachers' students failing indicate that the teacher is doing a lousy job? Why couldn't it instead mean that the kids are just stupid, lazy, or get no help or support at home?

Why is it always automatically the teachers' fault?

Does the high failure rating at nursing school suddenly mean all the nursing teachers are lousy? Or does it mean that most of the people just aren't very good at the material?

You can have many teachers that know, and apply, the latest research-based teaching methods and have excellent credentials...yet the students still perform poorly for whatever reason. It doesn't mean the teacher is bad. In fact, many teachers inherit kids who are already far behind, so the teachers can't get to what they need to teach because the other teachers couldn't get through to the dunces for the last material, either.

Then you need to factor in that teachers pass students who shouldn't because of political pressures from parents and the administration.

Parents pitch a hissy fit if their kids don't get the grades they "know" they deserve, even if the kids are lazy and dumb.

A recent student has indicated that the pilot for "merit pay" for "good teachers" hasn't worked. Over a three year period, there has been no appreciable benefit from linking pay to performance. This goes back to my original point: not matter how much you pay a teacher, you cannot fix lazy, stupid. The amount of money or rewards cannot fix these types of problems, because the assumption behind it is that it's always the teachers' fault. Paying teachers bonuses or threatening to fire them won't make kids do their homework, have respect, study, or get smarter, etc

Great points.

Most importantly... students are passed to the next grade even though they have not passed nor understood the material. Im secondary school, I routinely get students that have been passed on that barely, and I literally mean barely, understand how to do 7x16 and absolutely can't do 13x18 (carrying the numbers and dropping the 0, etc), can't do long division and that are being passed on and put into algebra or geometry. I had a kid this year that did not know that the Earth revolved around the sun. Another thought that Germany was next to Texas. Some others thought that the movie Gladiator was a documentary... meaning a documentary filmed in Ancient Rome that survived to this day. Some others thought that color didn't exist in the world since old films were in black and white. I'm not making any of this up. The stupidity of many students is beyond comprehension. Then you have jackasses out there telling us that we are crappy teachers because many of these retarded idiot kids can't pass a test?! What a joke.

Of course there are great students. The majority try. The majority succeed at varying levels.

But more and more we are seeing less and less motivated kids with apathetic parents...

...but hey, it's the teachers fault all right!
 
There are stupid lazy kids whose parents do not give a **** all across the country so you do not have a point.

The point is absolutely valid...

A teacher's job is to teach.Which is why its automatically the teacher's fault. WOuld you continue to hire a maid who did a lousy job? When there is a significant portion of students failing it most likely the teachers and school administrators, not the kids.

Teh end result of a maid cleaning is a clean bedroom or toilette... the end result of many jobs is black and white and easily discernable. A car. A balanced budget. A house. An advertisment. A plane safely landed. I live patient. I case won or lost. I am not sure what job is even remotely comparable to teacher. A teacher doesn't really produce something... a teacher giudes. Our job is not to force or make... we can't. Teachers help students gain skills. What makes it even more complicated is that not all students are in the same place emotionally or physically. Stages of development, etc. I find that the biggest teachers bashers are also the most ignorant of the realities of the teaching profession.

Teachers should not be passing unqualified students.

Teachers don't... the administration does. I put down: Failed. The admin gives them summer school that is much too easy and the kid passes and moves on. Blaming me for some kid that has been passed on is stupid. Seriously stupid. Now, if every kid I taught, or most failed... then there is an isue of course, but the numbers are just high enough to make teachers look bad unless a person really looks at the problem.

You can't fix lousy incompetent teachers with more money. You get rid of them and hire new teachers. Throwing money at lousy teachers makes as much sense as giving a dumb blond a speak and spell. It won't make them better

Lousy teachers should be fired. No doubt. Hell, we have an HOD here that is a A-Hole, just shouts at kids, inappropriately touched a female teacher, made racial remarks about the intelligence of another female teacher (one who has a PhD, btw) and the admin is looking the other way. He is friends with a crappy teacher and we are loosing the PhD and the other very good teacher since they are moving to other schools. Tehre are a million of these scenarios that effect education, but nobody either knows, or when told they don't care and continue to justify their villification of teachers. It is pathetic.

Fire crappy teachers... but most are pretty damn good from what I have seen, teaching over ten years, in two states and in multiple countries...
 
If it is just the teachers, explain how I and one sister got good grades and are now financially well off, while 2 other siblings did poorly in school and live on the edge of poverty now. Same schools, same teachers, same all but attitude.

Did you and your siblings have the same teachers? How many kids flunked? There will always be kids who are uninterested in school. However if a school seems to have a high number of failures then it is not the kids.Most kids if they had it their way would not be in school.They would be playing outside, roaming the neighborhood, or hanging out with friends playing. Going to school is the last thing most children want to do.
 
clearly, we disagree
i see the union as being a collective representative which could prevent an arbitrary and capricious use of EOG scores to cause good teachers to be terminated


why would a high school teacher be found weak when assigned to teach a class which is without the capacity to read at the beginning of the year?
would you reasonably expect a 12th grade teacher to teach the class of illiterates such that they scored proficient at the 12th grade level on EOGs?
how reasonable an expectation - a teaching standard - would that be?


i did not say the test scores should not be used to judge a teacher's performance
those test scores should be used in a meaningful way
that 12th grade teacher above with the entry level class of illiterates would be found a fabulous teacher if the class scored at the ninth grade level at year end, having begun at a second grade level
but if the standard was that more that half must pass the 12th grade proficiency level on the EOGs, then that very good teacher would instead be fired
and having a union to contest that inappropriate firing - to retain an excellent teacher - is a good thing for our education system


we agree. now, please point out which of our forum members have posted that lousy teachers should be able to keep their teaching positions


i can agree with that ... i do not see the purpose of tenure when the teacher has a union


unions have no incentive to defend indefensible teachers - beyond making sure that the negotiated process used to terminate those weak teachers is followed
union representatives are co-workers
as an employee, do you like having to pull the extra weight which results when weak employees are kept on board instead of terminated? neither do those co-worker union representatives. if the weak teacher has no case, then the union rep will make sure the process negotiated to be followed when the termination of a teacher is proposed, is in fact followed as prescribed
the problem is, the administration is so often incompetent/lazy. if the administration fails to do its job to document the poor performance so that the termination process can be followed to its appropriate conclusion. the union cannot allow the process to be short circuited even when the weak teacher is saved by the administration's failure to do its job and document why the teacher no longer deserves to teach our kids
that short circuit, if tolerated by the union, would then be relied on as a 'past practice' which would allow good teachers - but those the administration does not like - to also be terminated. not because they were bad teachers but because they were not ass kissers
thus, the union has to make sure the process is always followed
unfortunately, that requires effort ... and administration tends to be weak in that area
Seems to me the its not just the teachers that need to be fired. I know that when I was growing up in the 80s to mid 90s the schools had learning disability classes for the slow kids, had emotionally disturbed classes for the kids with emotional problems and or criminal records and advanced classes for the nerds and the regular kids went to regular classes.The teachers who taught these these various groups of kids were specialized in what ever group of kids they taught. Surely larger cities in states with a larger population that that of Oklahoma would have something like this but a lot better and more efficient.
 
Did you and your siblings have the same teachers? How many kids flunked? There will always be kids who are uninterested in school. However if a school seems to have a high number of failures then it is not the kids.Most kids if they had it their way would not be in school.They would be playing outside, roaming the neighborhood, or hanging out with friends playing. Going to school is the last thing most children want to do.
James, read my post you quoted, I said SAME TEACHERS. My late MIL was a teacher, 4th grade, a long time ago. Rarely did she have to flunk a child for anything other than just needing to repeat 4th grade. That was a long time ago, when kids were better behaved and teachers had the support of parents.
Fast forward to the last 20 years or so, up til NOW.
My wife is a retired 8th grade language arts teacher, our son teaches 8th grade science. They taught in good schools where most kids do OK. SOME kids need extra help, as they are slow to learn. But SOME OTHER kids need a parent to blister their butts. And SOME parents need their kids taken away from them.
If you want to oversimplify the situation and blame it all on teachers, here is a challenge. Get a teaching degree, and go show all those ignorant people how to do it right.....
 
Last edited:
He says that it must be the teachers if a school has a high number of failures. That's not necessarily true. You need to look at the population from which the students are drawn. If most of the people who do poorly come from bad areas, poor families, you'd expect the school to have those results.

Academic achievement is closely linked with socioeconomic status of the home. I guess that's a coincidence, huh? If the population of students that attends the school has problems, they will carry those problems over to school and lower performance.

No one wants to teach in these schools, because they know they will get the blame. That's problematic, as it acts like a feedback loop and worsens the problem.

Teaching already has a very high turn over rate because it's not very rewarding, and it's incredibly stressful. You have a lot of responsibility, but not a lot of control over the product. That's a crap job.

During student teaching, I taught U.S. I. Did a three week stint on the American Revolution, and my students were so far behind, they could barely take notes from a board when I was reading them word for word for them. They also couldn't figure out who won the Revolution or that Thomas JEfferson isn't a right listed in the bill of rights.

That's not my fault. They just don't care enough to study or even think rationally and guess intelligently on questions.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom