America has too many teachers?

[Arbo]

Andrew Coulson: America Has Too Many Teachers - WSJ.com

According to this (yes, an opinion piece, so if anyone has data that refutes the hard numbers, feel free to post it and a link to it), since 1970, the increase in teachers has grown 11 times more than student enrollment. And there has been no measurable gain in outcome due to it.

 

[Phys251]

Let me ask you a question: Let's say you are managing a soccer team, and you want some objective criteria with which to judge your players. So you choose the number of goals per game each player scores and rank the players based on that.

Would this be a fair assessment, yes or no?

 

[Arbo]

Considering that there are defensive players in soccer, you can't judge them on goals, as that's not their job.

 

[Phys251]

Considering that there are defensive players in soccer, you can't judge them on goals, as that's not their job.

Exactly. Different positions are different.

The exact same thing goes for assessing teachers based on standardized tests. There is so much more to effective soccer play than just scoring goals, just as there is so much more to effective teaching than test scores.

 

[Arbo]

Exactly. Different positions are different.

The exact same thing goes for assessing teachers based on standardized tests. There is so much more to effective soccer play than just scoring goals, just as there is so much more to effective teaching than test scores.

A soccer game and a classroom are two different things. Completely.

 

[Comfort Food]

I find it hard to believe that enrollment only grew 8.6% considering in 1970 the US population was reported at 203m and in 2010 it was 308m. During this time we also had in influx of illegal immigration. So I'm not exactly sure where he got the stat that enrollment has only "rose by a tepid 8.5%." I haven't looked into the number, but it doesn't pass the sniff test for me at first glance. Also, 1979-1980 is when the Department of Education was formed. This created a federal bureaucracy that was not there before. And things like NCLB put paras and aides in the classrooms at unprecedented levels. If you look at class sizes they have gone up, not down (as would be expected with more teachers). If you have a special ed child in America it is not unlikely to have a para, a child study team member, etc etc.. for that student. All these positions that simply didn't exist back in 1970. The growth is in administration, bureaucracy and special education. It is not in gen ed which has seen a decline in teacher resources while more and more requirements are placed on them from the federal and state level.

 

[Phys251]

A soccer game and a classroom are two different things. Completely.

Teaching and work that can be accurately measured with statistics are two different things. Completely.

 

[Comfort Food]

Teaching and work that can be accurately measured with statistics are two different things. Completely.

You can measure intelligence fairly well.. especially when using a large subject pool. We do it all the time, SAT scores, GREs, IQ tests, ASVAB, etc. It may not show someone's work ethic or inclination to learn. But it can more or less accurately reflect someone's knowledge/intelligence after learning. Statistics are used frequently in public education to track student progress. Student growth can be monitored and compared based on the curriculum/teacher/etc.

If you truly believe you can't accurately measure knowledge with statistics do you not grade your students? Try to think about about what you are saying with some rational thought. You are not making any sense whatsoever. Sure there are socio-economic variables that can come into play, but they can also be accounted for.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not only did we get many more teachers, over time, but they now get far better pay than ever before. This has had a major impact on per pupil spending, as did federal aid to education, by increasing state education spending WITHOUT need for raising state taxes.

Links:

The Future of Children -

http://www.quickanded.com/2010/05/the-condition-of-education-teacherstudent-ratios.html

http://educationnext.org/quantity-over-quality/

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=8237

http://partisan.blogs.hopelesslypartisan.com/item_12282.htm

 

[Helix]

of course Murdoch's WSJ doesn't like teachers.

they could increase class sizes to 100 kids or more, and his grandchildren could still go to private school. for the rest of us? why, we're the leeches, and we can simply slum it.

of course, while we're slumming it under education budget cuts, the WSJ and other "news" outlets will go on and on about how we're failing our kids. all we have to do to solve it is to take collective bargaining rights away, because teachers apparently make too damned much money. however, if we suggest a corporate executive should make a more modest salary, we're told that they wouldn't be able to attract talent. doesn't that also apply to the very people who are training our kids to carry the entire nation in 20 years or less? education is an investment in our future as a nation. cutting funding and forcing privatization is a poor plan. a kid isn't a damned widget.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You can measure intelligence fairly well.. especially when using a large subject pool. We do it all the time, SAT scores, GREs, IQ tests, ASVAB, etc. It may not show someone's work ethic or inclination to learn. But it can more or less accurately reflect someone's knowledge/intelligence after learning. Statistics are used frequently in public education to track student progress. Student growth can be monitored and compared based on the curriculum/teacher/etc.

If you truly believe you can't accurately measure knowledge with statistics do you not grade your students? Try to think about about what you are saying with some rational thought. You are not making any sense whatsoever. Sure there are socio-economic variables that can come into play, but they can also be accounted for.

The left refuses to accept that teachers ALONE are responsible for anything, thus if it is good news the teachers surely did it, if it is bad news, then the teachers were powerless to stop it. This is the new "logic" used for ALL gov't spending programs. If spending more money and adding more staff did not yield any improvement, it was simply not enough spending to keep pace with the problem. This is also the Obama logic for "job creation" and "stimulus" programs; if any economic improvement occurs, then it was due to the gov't spending programs, if not, then the gov't spending programs were simply not big enough; rinse and repeat. Yes he can!

 

[Phys251]

You can measure intelligence fairly well.. especially when using a large subject pool. We do it all the time, SAT scores, GREs, IQ tests, ASVAB, etc. It may not show someone's work ethic or inclination to learn. But it can more or less accurately reflect someone's knowledge/intelligence after learning. Statistics are used frequently in public education to track student progress. Student growth can be monitored and compared based on the curriculum/teacher/etc.

If you truly believe you can't accurately measure knowledge with statistics do you not grade your students? Try to think about about what you are saying with some rational thought. You are not making any sense whatsoever. Sure there are socio-economic variables that can come into play, but they can also be accounted for.

After your repeated blunders on the last thread, you would be well-advised against lecturing me against thinking rationally and making sense. Just saying.

 

[Arbo]

Teaching and work that can be accurately measured with statistics are two different things. Completely.

No, effect of teaching can be measured. Walk into any high school and ask students some basic questions, about their government, about science, about most things. It's quite easy to see that while they say kids are getting certain classes earlier than the generation before them, they are heading out into the world with a lack of knowledge and understanding on a lot of basic stuff.

 

[Fiddytree]

If that were the case, class sizes wouldn't be increasing per teacher ratio in many districts.

 

[Arbo]

of course Murdoch's WSJ doesn't like teachers.

they could increase class sizes to 100 kids or more, and his grandchildren could still go to private school. for the rest of us? why, we're the leeches, and we can simply slum it.

Ah, some good old fashioned hackery.

 

[ttwtt78640]

of course Murdoch's WSJ doesn't like teachers.

they could increase class sizes to 100 kids or more, and his grandchildren could still go to private school. for the rest of us? why, we're the leeches, and we can simply slum it.

of course, while we're slumming it under education budget cuts, the WSJ and other "news" outlets will go on and on about how we're failing our kids. all we have to do to solve it is to take collective bargaining rights away, because teachers apparently make too damned much money. however, if we suggest a corporate executive should make a more modest salary, we're told that they wouldn't be able to attract talent. doesn't that also apply to the very people who are training our kids to carry the entire nation in 20 years or less? education is an investment in our future as a nation. cutting funding and forcing privatization is a poor plan. a kid isn't a damned widget.

What a crock. Show me the relationship (links?) showing increased student SAT scores due to smaller class size. The gov't answer to ALL all problems, is always more gov't money and staff; if that does not work then the answer is STILL more gov't money and staff. Leaving the buzz words and talking points aside, show us the REAL data (links?) to back up the MYTH that spending more per student, or reducing the class size, by adding more teachers, raises the REAL desired result of better educated students. The U.S. is outspending nearly every nation on the planet, yet is FALLING in where its students place in the worldwide rankings. Hmm...

 

[whysoserious]

What a crock. Show me the relationship (links?) showing increased student SAT scores due to smaller class size. The gov't answer to ALL all problems, is always more gov't money and staff; if that does not work then the answer is STILL more gov't money and staff. Leaving the buzz words and talking points aside, show us the REAL data (links?) to back up the MYTH that spending more per student, or reducing the class size, by adding more teachers, raises the REAL desired result of better educated students. The U.S. is outspending nearly every nation on the planet, yet is FALLING in where its students place in the worldwide rankings. Hmm...

Are you ****ing serious? The correlation between class size and student performance has always been plain to see:

Size alone makes small classes better for kids - USATODAY.com

NEW YORK — Breaking up large classes into several smaller ones helps students, but the improvements in many cases come in spite of what teachers do, new research suggests.
New findings from four nations, including the USA, tell a curious story. Small classes work for children, but that's less because of how teachers teach than because of what students feel they can do: Get more face time with their teacher, for instance, or work in small groups with classmates.

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/05_02_08.pdf

Compelling evidence that smaller classes
help, at least in early grades, and that the
benefits derived from these smaller classes
persist leaves open the possibility that
additional or different educational devices
could lead to still further gains.

Shall I go on?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Teaching and work that can be accurately measured with statistics are two different things. Completely.

NONSENSE. One knows whether brick layers have built a proper wall, just as one knows whether teachers have given students a proper education. The U.S. spends more per student, has "better" teacher to student ratios and yet scores lower than MANY nations in the world in its students' REAL educational performance.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

The left refuses to accept that teachers ALONE are responsible for anything, thus if it is good news the teachers surely did it, if it is bad news, then the teachers were powerless to stop it.

First, could you please provide a source for your claim about what "the left" does?

Second, as a member of "the left," I do not fit your (seemingly distorted) characterization of it. I recognize that the education of students is the effect of many causes. Several of those causes are the teacher, the parents, the environment (neighborhood, etc.), district policies, federal policies and a lot more. Consequently, when students are educated well, that positive result is usually the effect of all, most or many of those causes. Similarly, when students are educated poorly, that negative result is usually the effect of all, most or many of those causes. The success or failure of education is rarely, if ever, the effect of single cause whether that cause be teachers, parents, policies or something else.

Third, teachers, ALONE, are responsible for some things. They are responsible for all things which are entirely within their control such as effective use of class time, effective written and verbal communication skills, proper use of resources provided by the school and so on. Unfortunately, a lot of people want to hold teachers accountable for things outside of this scope, which is where I, a member of "the left," begin to take issue with certain arguments about teacher accountability such as the argument that teacher evaluations should be tied to standardized tests.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Are you ****ing serious? The correlation between class size and student performance has always been plain to see:

Size alone makes small classes better for kids - USATODAY.com


http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/05_02_08.pdf
View attachment 67130725


Shall I go on?

Yes. because your apple (class size) is not the same as my orange (teachers per student). There is a HUGE difference between the two. Did the schools in your "study" add/reduce teaching staff, or did they simply reduce class size to "prove" that more teachers are needed? Look at REALITY, the ratio of teachers PER SCHOOL to students PER SCHOOL is getting WAY better, (if the school CHOOSES to reduce class size they may, yet that is not guaranteed, as many hire "specialists" to assist existing teachers or offer "more services" rather than simply reduce class size), teacher pay is getting WAY better and yet SAT scores are NOT improving. Hmm...

 

[ttwtt78640]

First, could you please provide a source for your claim about what "the left" does?

Second, as a member of "the left," I do not fit your (seemingly distorted) characterization of it. I recognize that the education of students is the effect of many causes. Several of those causes are the teacher, the parents, the environment (neighborhood, etc.), district policies, federal policies and a lot more. Consequently, when students are educated well, that positive result is usually the effect of all, most or many of those causes. Similarly, when students are educated poorly, that negative result is usually the effect of all, most or many of those causes. The success or failure of education is rarely, if ever, the effect of single cause whether that cause be teachers, parents, policies or something else.

Third, teachers, ALONE, are responsible for some things. They are responsible for all things which are entirely within their control such as effective use of class time, effective written and verbal communication skills, proper use of resources provided by the school and so on. Unfortunately, a lot of people want to hold teachers accountable for things outside of this scope, which is where I, a member of "the left," begin to take issue with certain arguments about teacher accountability such as the argument that teacher evaluations should be tied to standardized tests.

Teachers, and the schools that they occupy, must make CHOICES. Is it WISER to spend 1/2 of class time to deal with 3 or 4 morons that disrupt class, attend irregularly and do not care to learn or to simply REMOVE them and teach the the rest? Private and charter schools primarily gain their advantage for just this reason, even in DC, they DISCRIMINATE (an evil word to the left) and it works. Is it wiser to fail students that do not master the material of their current grade level or to help their "self esteem" by promoting them with their peers based on age? Is it wise to dedicate ANY class time to teaching basic behavior, socializing with others and not making violent threats/attacks on other students/staff, beyond the 1st grade?

 

[Helix]

Ah, some good old fashioned hackery.

i grew up as the child of two public school teachers, and i saw it from the inside. admittedly, i'm pretty pro-public school. however, accusing me of political hackery is comical when the source OP is yet another Murdoch owned propaganda piece.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Teachers, and the schools that they occupy, must make CHOICES. Is it WISER to spend 1/2 of class time to deal with 3 or 4 morons that disrupt class, attend irregularly and do not care to learn or to simply REMOVE them and teach the the rest? Private and charter schools primarily gain their advantage for just this reason, even in DC, they DISCRIMINATE (an evil word to the left) and it works. Is it wiser to fail students that do not master the material of their current grade level or to help their "self esteem" by promoting them with their peers based on age? Is it wise to dedicate ANY class time to teaching basic behavior, socializing with others and not making violent threats/attacks on other students/staff, beyond the 1st grade?

First, you haven't provided a source for your claim about "the left." I will take that to mean you don't have one and that your claim was an unsubstantiated generalization. You can correct me if I'm wrong by providing a source.

Second, none of what you said actually addressed my counterpoints to your original arguments.

 

[ttwtt78640]

First, could you please provide a source for your claim about what "the left" does?

Second, as a member of "the left," I do not fit your (seemingly distorted) characterization of it. I recognize that the education of students is the effect of many causes. Several of those causes are the teacher, the parents, the environment (neighborhood, etc.), district policies, federal policies and a lot more. Consequently, when students are educated well, that positive result is usually the effect of all, most or many of those causes. Similarly, when students are educated poorly, that negative result is usually the effect of all, most or many of those causes. The success or failure of education is rarely, if ever, the effect of single cause whether that cause be teachers, parents, policies or something else.

Third, teachers, ALONE, are responsible for some things. They are responsible for all things which are entirely within their control such as effective use of class time, effective written and verbal communication skills, proper use of resources provided by the school and so on. Unfortunately, a lot of people want to hold teachers accountable for things outside of this scope, which is where I, a member of "the left," begin to take issue with certain arguments about teacher accountability such as the argument that teacher evaluations should be tied to standardized tests.

The CONSTANT objection to teacher merit pay (based on student test scrores) is my "evidence". There are VERY few professions that pay is NOT tied to job performance, teaching stands at the top of that heap with pay based only on THEIR own educational level and time on the job.

Does Merit Pay For Teachers Have Merit? Pros And Cons Of New Models For Teacher Compensation | CSG Knowledge Center

 

[Arbo]

i grew up as the child of two public school teachers, and i saw it from the inside. admittedly, i'm pretty pro-public school. however, accusing me of political hackery is comical when the source OP is yet another Murdoch owned propaganda piece.

Thanks for doubling up on the hackery.