Which of these things would improve education in the United States?

Kandahar · Feb 7, 2011

Layla_Z said:
That is not true of any job. At most jobs a boss has to document issues and give the employee time to "fix" the problem. There is a human resources department that oversees the whole thing. That is not true for a non-tenured teacher.

Treating teachers fairly is in the best interest of the students because it keeps good teachers in the classroom.

I agree that we should treat teachers fairly. But "fairly" is a far cry from the current union-dominated system that exists today. As Joel Klein, the former chancellor of the New York City school system, recently noted, it's often easier to execute a convicted murderer than it is to fire an incompetent teacher. That might be a bit of a hyperbole...but Klein knows what he's talking about. In NYC, it's practically impossible to fire a bad teacher for ANY reason, including gross sexual misconduct with a student. And it's not for lack of trying, as Klein was a prominent education reformer. The problem is so bad that New York City has "rubber rooms," where they send incompetent teachers and pay them to do nothing all day.

I know that those problems probably aren't as bad in some parts of the country, but sadly the union's deathgrip on public schools is far too common in many big cities, especially in the north.

Kandahar · Feb 7, 2011

ashurbanipal said:
Actually, there is a pretty good reason for that. The idea is that someone who wants to be a teacher is dedicated to the subject they teach. Given the amount of training required and relatively low salaries that accompany most teaching posts, there's still good reason to think that's the case. Teachers are supposed to be dedicated to truth, and as new truths arise in their field of study, or old ones become politically uncomfortable, they're supposed to teach those anyway, because education is about the truth.

Administrators, on the other hand, don't conform to those conditions. They can be prone to act according to the dictates of politics. So, for instance, when a high school biology teacher in the 1920s starts teaching evolution rather than creation, tenure is supposed to prevent him getting fired. Or when a school board wants to eliminate the Illiad from the curriculum because it's too violent, or the Epic of Gilgamesh because it's too erotic, or the Grapes of Wrath because it's too gritty, the teachers are supposed to be able to tell them to kiss off. When they want to stop teaching multiplication tables because there are calculators now and it's a waste of time and money, the teachers are (again) supposed to be able to tell them no without fear of retribution.

I'll be the first to admit that, in practice, in our public schools, this works less well than it should. But that's the theory, and if you do away with tenure, education ends up in the hands of politicians.

But surely we can make a distinction between teaching controversial subjects, and not teaching anything at all. There are plenty of teachers who fall into the latter category who deserve to be fired.

haymarket · Feb 7, 2011

Kandahar said:
I agree that we should treat teachers fairly. But "fairly" is a far cry from the current union-dominated system that exists today. As Joel Klein, the former chancellor of the New York City school system, recently noted, it's often easier to execute a convicted murderer than it is to fire an incompetent teacher. That might be a bit of a hyperbole...but Klein knows what he's talking about. In NYC, it's practically impossible to fire a bad teacher for ANY reason, including gross sexual misconduct with a student. And it's not for lack of trying, as Klein was a prominent education reformer. The problem is so bad that New York City has "rubber rooms," where they send incompetent teachers and pay them to do nothing all day.

I know that those problems probably aren't as bad in some parts of the country, but sadly the union's deathgrip on public schools is far too common in many big cities, especially in the north.

New York City does not have a contract which spells out in detail how to get rid of incompetent teachers? I find that impossible to believe.

Kandahar · Feb 7, 2011

haymarket said:
New York City does not have a contract which spells out in detail how to get rid of incompetent teachers? I find that impossible to believe.

They do, but it's a bureaucratic nightmare. There are many rounds of appeals and documentation before a contract can be terminated, and the union can drag the case out for years if they want to. Surely there is some middle ground between arbitrarily firing a teacher without any notice for teaching some controversial book, and "rubber rooms" created because unions make it virtually impossible to fire a teacher for ANY reason including gross incompetence or sexual misconduct.

haymarket · Feb 7, 2011

Kandahar said:
They do, but it's a bureaucratic nightmare. There are many rounds of appeals and documentation before a contract can be terminated, and the union can drag the case out for years if they want to. Surely there is some middle ground between arbitrarily firing a teacher without any notice for teaching some controversial book, and "rubber rooms" created because unions make it virtually impossible to fire a teacher for ANY reason including gross incompetence or sexual misconduct.

We can only conclude that the contract between the NYFT and the Board of Education was mutually negotiated and signed of their own free will by both parties. But for some reason, you find the teachers unions at fault. Why is that?

Dittohead not! · Feb 7, 2011

haymarket said:
New York City does not have a contract which spells out in detail how to get rid of incompetent teachers? I find that impossible to believe.

Of course it does. Moreover, most of the incompetent teachers get weeded out long before they get tenure. About half of the teachers quit in the first five years of their own volition, after having invested thousands of dollars in a credential.

Kandahar · Feb 7, 2011

haymarket said:
We can only conclude that the contract between the NYFT and the Board of Education was mutually negotiated and signed of their own free will by both parties. But for some reason, you find the teachers unions at fault. Why is that?

Oh don't get me wrong, the public officials absolutely bear some responsibility for not being better advocates for the students, and for allowing the teachers' unions to walk all over them. I just think that the main responsibility lies with the actual perpetrators, rather than the accomplices.

Layla_Z · Feb 7, 2011

Kandahar said:
I agree that we should treat teachers fairly. But "fairly" is a far cry from the current union-dominated system that exists today. As Joel Klein, the former chancellor of the New York City school system, recently noted, it's often easier to execute a convicted murderer than it is to fire an incompetent teacher. That might be a bit of a hyperbole...but Klein knows what he's talking about. In NYC, it's practically impossible to fire a bad teacher for ANY reason, including gross sexual misconduct with a student. And it's not for lack of trying, as Klein was a prominent education reformer. The problem is so bad that New York City has "rubber rooms," where they send incompetent teachers and pay them to do nothing all day.

I know that those problems probably aren't as bad in some parts of the country, but sadly the union's deathgrip on public schools is far too common in many big cities, especially in the north.

As has been pointed out earlier, things are not the same everywhere. What Klein describes has not been my experience. I'm certainly not saying I know more than he does but my point is that unions are not as strong as some people think. I have never been a union member nor have I taught at a school or know of a school where the unions are strong. A good administrator who is willing to document issues can get rid of a bad teacher. I've seen too many good teachers fired because they didn't play politics within the district. I've also seen young teachers with potential burn out because they didn't get any help or supervision from the principal. Teaching is one of the few professions where a beginner is expected to do the same work as someone who is experienced. In fact, beginning teachers often get the worst classes because the older teacher calls seniority and takes the easier classes.

earthworm · Feb 7, 2011

Albert Di Salvo said:
Public schools are very successful in their primary objective which is to provide secure and well paying jobs for adults. Hooray for the adults.

Public schools have failed huge numbers of students by graduating them without basic survival skills. Not to mention the dropouts. Too bad for the kids.

Thankfully, I did not read the word "all".
But, in many cases this is true.
It would be good if all the contributions could be rolled into several compressed pages.

earthworm · Feb 8, 2011

Layla_Z said:
As has been pointed out earlier, things are not the same everywhere. What Klein describes has not been my experience. I'm certainly not saying I know more than he does but my point is that unions are not as strong as some people think. I have never been a union member nor have I taught at a school or know of a school where the unions are strong. A good administrator who is willing to document issues can get rid of a bad teacher. I've seen too many good teachers fired because they didn't play politics within the district. I've also seen young teachers with potential burn out because they didn't get any help or supervision from the principal. Teaching is one of the few professions where a beginner is expected to do the same work as someone who is experienced. In fact, beginning teachers often get the worst classes because the older teacher calls seniority and takes the easier classes. These are difficult problems to solve, the unions, if "on the ball" can help here.

Funny how this works - those who admit that they know little really end up knowing more than the so-called experts..
Safe to say, our education needs reform, more liberals, less conservatives...
It must be all to easy to "play politics".....we need better administrators (apolitical, areligious, secular)....

earthworm · Feb 8, 2011

SheWolf said:
I can't believe you'd call them at work all the time... :lamo

I think you might have a good idea, but I don't think all the poor students are on welfare. I went to school with kids who really struggled in certain areas, but they weren't on welfare.

But I was having a discussion about something similar with my sister... because where we live, kids from the inner city schools are given scholarships to go to the college here. The catch is, they have to move out of their neighborhood and come to our little suburb town, which doesn't have gangs or violence. What's happening are these kids are just finding trouble to cause here... they are always in jail. One girl is covered in gang tattoos and she was arrested for beating up two cops!!

This is not working out very well for us... so I started thinking, what if, instead of giving the parents money from the government for no reason, what if their benefits were tied to their choice to send the children to better schools, not the inner city but something like a boarding school on a scholarship. I think that would be better for the kids, than growing up in violent schools and with all the influence of gangs and drugs.

We have to break the cycle of poverty and drugs somehow. I don't like seeing kids raised in bad neighborhoods and around bad situations.

There are probably hundreds of solutions people could come up, if they really tried... but nothing is being done. Politicians don't consider fixing the education system as a priority. Reform/reform/reform !!! Repair the system so that those who do nothing are booted out!

I do not think that this is the best possible solution, but it is a good solution.
This is why states must follow their own ideas but, most importantly, share the data /methods/info....

Dittohead not! · Feb 8, 2011

Layla_Z said:
As has been pointed out earlier, things are not the same everywhere. What Klein describes has not been my experience. I'm certainly not saying I know more than he does but my point is that unions are not as strong as some people think. I have never been a union member nor have I taught at a school or know of a school where the unions are strong.

That's too bad. Unions can protect teachers, and most of them need protection in today's society.

Layla_Z said:
I've seen too many good teachers fired because they didn't play politics within the district.

Just one way in which unions can protect teachers. There are many.

Layla_Z said:
I've also seen young teachers with potential burn out because they didn't get any help or supervision from the principal.

Me too, over and over, and it's just wrong.

Layla_Z said:
Teaching is one of the few professions where a beginner is expected to do the same work as someone who is experienced. In fact, beginning teachers often get the worst classes because the older teacher calls seniority and takes the easier classes.

Yes. If we really want to "reform" education, one way to do it effectively would be to assign new teachers an experienced mentor who would visit the classroom frequently and consult with the beginner to get him/her off on the right foot. Instead, we throw the newbies to the wolves and expect them to sink or swim. All too many just sink. Meanwhile, kids have to cope with a chaotic and poorly taught class where the main thing they learn is how best to manipulate adults.

Layla_Z · Feb 8, 2011

Dittohead not! said:
That's too bad. Unions can protect teachers, and most of them need protection in today's society.

Just one way in which unions can protect teachers. There are many.

Me too, over and over, and it's just wrong.

Yes. If we really want to "reform" education, one way to do it effectively would be to assign new teachers an experienced mentor who would visit the classroom frequently and consult with the beginner to get him/her off on the right foot. Instead, we throw the newbies to the wolves and expect them to sink or swim. All too many just sink. Meanwhile, kids have to cope with a chaotic and poorly taught class where the main thing they learn is how best to manipulate adults.

I'm not a union member but we do have a professional organization that provides support when needed. MSTA does not do collective bargaining but the do advocate for and support teachers. They are also very involved with state politics.
Here we do assign mentors to beginning teachers but there is not always the time for them to be in the classroom together for the mentor to demonstrate and/or observe.

Dittohead not! · Feb 9, 2011

Layla_Z said:
I'm not a union member but we do have a professional organization that provides support when needed. MSTA does not do collective bargaining but the do advocate for and support teachers. They are also very involved with state politics.
Here we do assign mentors to beginning teachers but there is not always the time for them to be in the classroom together for the mentor to demonstrate and/or observe.

If the association will go to bat for a teacher so that they're not fired for refusing to play politics, then that is a good first step. Maybe when they do start collective bargaining, release time for mentors to do their jobs might be a good thing to put on the table.

Aviron · Feb 9, 2011

One of the reforms that is often suggested is moving kids through the education system based on their scholastic abilities as opposed to their age (this is a general statement as some children are held back). This suggestion has many benefits, the first being that all people mature at different rates, and need more or less time than others to complete their tasks, etc., but there are issues with this concept. Using an educational model such as this would make assessment of student ability a much more difficult thing to gauge, students would likely be ostracized by their peers, it would worsen the already common phenomena of parents holding their children back to improve their chances of being dominant athletes, and the list goes on. On top of this is the fact that such a reform would have enormous financial requirements.

Another common suggestion is that teachers be paid based on their students' academic abilities, but this is a very poor concept as it will dramatically worsen the education received by students attending inner-city public schools and the like.

These sorts of problems arise time and time again when discussing education reform. I would like to add that I do not believe that the current system of education is adequate, or even appropriate for todays children, but I do believe that a few of the largest stumbling blocks are:
1. Limited funding
2. The fact that any major reform would likely be a pioneering effort which could result in a poorer quality of education
3. Public fears of any reforms resulting in the possibility suggested in number 2

The Mark · Feb 9, 2011

Interesting discussion been going on here....

In general, it would appear that there are multiple areas in which public schooling can be improved, varying from area to area and from school to school.

----------------------

The disconnect between the form of knowledge/learning that tests demand and the form of knowledge/learning that supports further learning was an interesting take.

I would think one thing that might help would be to eliminate multiple choice and true/false tests completely, transitioning to tests that demanded you think about and solve a problem if you wished to pass.

Granted, that would require far more investment in grading those tests, as it could not be done by computer, except perhaps in the various math’s, and even there, examining the method used to reach the answer is very useful in judging a student’s skill.

Further, it would require that students actually learn (Why in the hell does Microsoft Word want me to change “learn” to “teach”?!? :thinking) the subject to be capable of passing, and as a result, would require that teachers teach the subject so that the students could learn, especially if funding is at least in part based on the number of students who pass.

----------------------

Another area that seems to be an issue is school leadership.

If the principle and/or other officials are not capable, the school will suffer, to an extent mitigated by quality of teachers and parents in the area, among other factors.

A school in an affluent area might do better despite poor leadership than a school in a poor area, but…

And that’s another issue I see.

Area-based public school funding (property taxes in PA fund schools) seems designed to give students who live in a rich area a leg up on those who live in poor areas. It’s pure, unadulterated bull****.

:rantoff:

--------------------------

I could go on, but this post is too long already, and I don’t feel like typing more anyways…

FilmFestGuy · Feb 9, 2011

haymarket said:
You missed the most important two IF you want to catch up with other nations on international standardized test scores:

1- a national educational curriculum where the entire USA learns the same things from the same books and materials and takes the same tests which measure what is actually learned in ever classroom in America. Until you do that, you are NOT measuring what is actually taught in classrooms or learned in classrooms since we have thousands upon thousands of different school systems devoid of uniformity in curriculum which many other nations have notably Japan.

2- American education is a factory system where each raw material progresses down an assembly line at the same pace. That must be done away with. Teach everyone the concept of one plus one is two. Those that master it move on. Those who do not go to another teacher for another approach until they do master it before moving on. Do that with everything you teach and some kids will graduate in eight year, some in twelve years, and some in even longer periods of time. It will cost Xdollars to educate some, 1.5Xdollars to educate others and 3X dollars to educate some.

It reminds me of my high school experience.

At our school, the lowest A- was a 95%. The school down the highway, the lowest A- was a 90%. A 69% was an F. At the other school an F was 59%.

Now, it's not a big deal, really - except that when applying for college, if I'd gone to school down the road, I'd have a 4.0 GPA. At my school, I had a 3.86.

I got into the college I wanted to get into, but - how is it fair that the same work can result in different GPAs? Could it have change scholarships?

Not to mention that my school didn't have AP courses, so I met a friend with an almost identical GPA and SAT score on my floor as a freshman. I had no credits; he was a sophomore already. But I wasn't given that option. (Note: My niece goes to my old school, and they've adjusted GPA to match surrounding schools and have AP courses. She has a 3.87 and already has 16 college credits; so they obviously got better).

earthworm · Feb 10, 2011

The Mark said:
Interesting discussion been going on here....

In general, it would appear that there are multiple areas in which public schooling can be improved, varying from area to area and from school to school.

----------------------

The disconnect between the form of knowledge/learning that tests demand and the form of knowledge/learning that supports further learning was an interesting take.

I would think one thing that might help would be to eliminate multiple choice and true/false tests completely, transitioning to tests that demanded you think about and solve a problem if you wished to pass.

Granted, that would require far more investment in grading those tests, as it could not be done by computer, except perhaps in the various math’s, and even there, examining the method used to reach the answer is very useful in judging a student’s skill.

Further, it would require that students actually learn (Why in the hell does Microsoft Word want me to change “learn” to “teach”?!? :thinking) the subject to be capable of passing, and as a result, would require that teachers teach the subject so that the students could learn, especially if funding is at least in part based on the number of students who pass.

----------------------

Another area that seems to be an issue is school leadership.

If the principle and/or other officials are not capable, the school will suffer, to an extent mitigated by quality of teachers and parents in the area, among other factors.

A school in an affluent area might do better despite poor leadership than a school in a poor area, but…

And that’s another issue I see.

Area-based public school funding (property taxes in PA fund schools) seems designed to give students who live in a rich area a leg up on those who live in poor areas. It’s pure, unadulterated bull****.

:rantoff:

--------------------------

I could go on, but this post is too long already, and I don’t feel like typing more anyways…

Many good points, Mark.
A mistake is made in trying to economize the learning process. And this has always been a problem.
Right now, I'd favor higher state taxes and lower property, better yet, no property taxes. Also, no more local schools, but state control...
On the Microsoft word "word usage"...Its a problem of having illiterates do this work..English, and at much higher level should be the rule.
And I like your "rant on and off" switch, seems as if mine is stuck on "on"....lol....

Turin · Feb 11, 2011

One suggestion I have is to separate sports and education. I would agree that health, physical fitness should be included.

There is far too much of the education $ going for sports and taking away from the academic day. Coaches who have no interest in teaching are making up a good part of the staff so they can "coach".

I appreciate the rigors of competitive sports yet it overtakes the social, academic and teaching standards.

Sports could be part of community centers or private.

Requiring higher standards for teachers with peer review and oversight would be an improvement as well.

CompSciGuy · Feb 14, 2011

Man... so many issues.

There's so many ridiculous money issues. I generally support the idea of public schools and unions, but looking at things locally, public school management has horribly mis-used the money they had. I don't want to give them more money unless they can show some fiscal intelligence. As for the teacher's unions, they just seem so out of touch with what's going on in the real world.

drz-400 · Feb 15, 2011

FilmFestGuy said:
It reminds me of my high school experience.

At our school, the lowest A- was a 95%. The school down the highway, the lowest A- was a 90%. A 69% was an F. At the other school an F was 59%.

Now, it's not a big deal, really - except that when applying for college, if I'd gone to school down the road, I'd have a 4.0 GPA. At my school, I had a 3.86.

I got into the college I wanted to get into, but - how is it fair that the same work can result in different GPAs? Could it have change scholarships?

Not to mention that my school didn't have AP courses, so I met a friend with an almost identical GPA and SAT score on my floor as a freshman. I had no credits; he was a sophomore already. But I wasn't given that option. (Note: My niece goes to my old school, and they've adjusted GPA to match surrounding schools and have AP courses. She has a 3.87 and already has 16 college credits; so they obviously got better).

AP courses would make a huge difference. Where I went to high school AP courses were weighted so that you could get over a 4.0 if you got an A in an AP class. Definitely does make a difference in apply to college if you were borderline, but colleges still do put quite a bit of weight into standardized ACT and SAT Tests. For example, my friend had a superior GPA than me in high school, I think his was a 4.0 or maybe above because of his AP credits, mine was around 3.6 or 3.7. However, my friend scored 19 on his ACT while I got a 28. I qualified for a large academic scholarship at the same college he went to, he didn't get anything. Just my experience though.

Also, AP credits help out a ton, and you were definitely at a disadvantage if those were not offered. I took AP Calc, aced the test did not even have to take the math placement exam for college, also got to start at Calc 2. Huge advantage if you want to be an engineer. Kids that did not have this option had to go to school for a year just to be eligible to enter the engineering college, then they had to still take Calc 1. Your a year and a half behind without the AP option right there.

drz-400 · Feb 15, 2011

Dion said:
One suggestion I have is to separate sports and education. I would agree that health, physical fitness should be included.

There is far too much of the education $ going for sports and taking away from the academic day. Coaches who have no interest in teaching are making up a good part of the staff so they can "coach".

I appreciate the rigors of competitive sports yet it overtakes the social, academic and teaching standards.

Sports could be part of community centers or private.

Requiring higher standards for teachers with peer review and oversight would be an improvement as well.

Health is good for middle/high school aged kids. They need to learn about their bodies, how to take care of it, etc. Also good for people who want to go into the medical areas. I would say PE would be good for elementary/middle school aged kids, mostly because that aged group will tend to go crazy cooked up in a building all day, they generally cannot focus as long as their older counter parts. When you get into high school though, I think sports classes should be dropped and absorbed into the after school clubs. Require kids take a few more credits of real classes instead of getting their final credits to graduate doing net sports and playing dodge ball or weight lifting their senior year. Just my opinion, as I had seen it happen all the time when I was in high school. And yes I agree, not that I have anything against these people as I was usually their friend, but it is usually the football or wrestling coaches that end up "teaching" the PE/Weights type classes in high school. They are probably the most qualified, but I really don't think that should count towards your graduation.

Dittohead not! · Feb 15, 2011

Boys take longer to mature than girls do, both physically and intellectually. One thing that would help would be a later start for boys, perhaps requiring them to be six months older than girls to start kindergarten.

That would cost nothing and would improve boys' performance in elementary school at least. Of course, it isn't PC, so it won't happen anyway.

Boo Radley · Feb 15, 2011

Dittohead not! said:
Boys take longer to mature than girls do, both physically and intellectually. One thing that would help would be a later start for boys, perhaps requiring them to be six months older than girls to start kindergarten.

That would cost nothing and would improve boys' performance in elementary school at least. Of course, it isn't PC, so it won't happen anyway.

I think you're right and would agree.

Which of these things would improve education in the United States?

Which of these things would improve education in the US?

Longer school days

Longer school years

Better pay for teachers

More charter schools

More public vouchers for private schools

Weakening teachers' unions

More funding

Reallocation of funding (e.g. on a state level instead of on a district level)

Firing teachers who fail to perform to the standards the school board expects

More online education, replacing some brick-and-mortar schools

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

master political analyst

Enemy Combatant

master political analyst

master political analyst

Aviron

Sporadic insanity normal.

Member

master political analyst

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency