<p>Opie, if as you say unions wish for the same things I wish for, I have yet to see it in their rhetoric or their strategy. Never yet. When they protest, they adopt the vocabulary of the state agencies who are maintaining the status quo. The bases of their protests is compliance, or lack of it, with the existing structure. They use the same jargon & serve the same purpose that the regulatory agencies do: in fact they most often argue that regulations are not being enforced! I see them very much as part of the power structure -- ironically, as they position themselves as opposing the power structure ("management," "administration," etc.), but they do not demonstrate opposition to the What and the How of their districts & their State agencies. And by the way, I do not begrudge them their many efforts on behalf of salary increases (even when that's the only issue being raised), merely reinforcing that without a reconfigured system, it appears to the public to be unwarranted, unnecessary, unearned -- for many of the reasons I previously stated. And, most importantly, when the public can't see results (because teacher is too busy playing cook, social worker, & psychiatrist), the public is only halfheartedly interested in supporting such a dysfunctional & bureaucratic-heavy system.</p>
<p>The horse done beaten there, Marite.</p>
<p>Allmusic--and so do I. Thank goodness I no longer have kids in k-12. I would no longer dare offer my services and expertise to teachers. All I have is a measly Ph.D., not an Ed D.</p>
<p>Well I think that was unnecessary & mean-spirited. Just because "expertise" from others is not determined to be on an equal footing does not mean that it's not useful, nor did I ever say that. I merely said that having a Ph.D. in an unrelated field is not sufficient for the purpose of making certain kinds of decisions with respect to certain areas. And btw, there are plenty of Ph.D's teaching in high schools in my region. I do not have an Ed.D. I have 2 M.A.'s & 2 sets of credentials. I'd be happy to complete my Ph.D., & have been urged to do so. I'm just too busy with commitments to my current independent students, & obviously too busy playing social worker & psychiatrist in a system that others believe I should just accept & be happy with & not insist on a better vision & future which truly serves those students & makes for productive teachers.</p>
<p>Disclosure: I get along great with parents; it's one of my greatest strengths. I get along great with them whether they're highly educated or not highly educated.</p>
<p>This discussion began as a collaborative effort, & I can see that the goodwill has disintegrated. I usually have little trouble communicating; obviously I do now, so I'll move on, too. Thanks to Opie for hanging in there & doing your best. And thanks to padad for being such a tender Dad. Sorry for any misunderstandings.</p>
<p>ephif,</p>
<p>take a look at the stuff from their national conventions. Alot of the stuff you've mentioned pops up in there along with things like ending hunger, world peace and such. I happened across it one time and was surprized as some of it was definately tilting windmills for sure. But they still are trying to address it.</p>
<p>Teachers unions have been in survival mode for at least the last 6 years. It's hard to push for many of the things you want when the president and secretary of education are trying to destroy you. The S of ed even went as far as calling american teachers terrorists a while back. So I would venture it's a reasonable assumption to think anything of a compromise and working together for kids is in the works when the administration is out to destroy you. </p>
<p>I'm not trying to win you over to a union pov, but I am trying to point out it takes two sides to resolve an issue. </p>
<p>Theres alot of hidden agendas out there from the folks who want to "help" education from Bill Gates on. Bill supports bookless schools, hmm? I wonder why? What could he possibly have that would benefit from the doing away with text books? hmmm? While I don't necessarily love the teachers unions that much, I get tired of the arguement always being about them. Wouldn't it be nice if all they had to worry about was teaching?</p>
<p>I don't think you can say that any worker only has to worry about his job- most people don't have a day that is only 9 to 5.
Doctors worry about malpractice costs
Lawyers worry about being sued
ditto for other health care practitioner
Police worry about being shot or shooting someone
firefighters worry about being trapped in a collapsing building or not being able to get someone out
and those who don't have jobs that can't be send over seas- worry about that.</p>
<p>Ive never heard Gates talk about bookless schools- I will have to pay attention next week when I go to the conference he is speaking at.
I know that many schools are going to more online classes, as it gives the school more flexibility to address what is appropriate coursework for the varying interests and abilities of their students- rather than "teaching to the middle"</p>
<p>Opie,
If my message was received as implying blame on teachers' unions for the state/stalemate of education, that's entirely possible, although not my intent. It's not really that I think they are working against reform, but only that it's their pattern to support the existing structure and use that structure as a basis to plead for compliance with the stated format when compliance is at issue. I don't think they're the big demons in this, any more than I think that parents are somehow to blame when their conscientious & generous efforts do not succeed in sufficient supplementation on the one hand, or reform on the other. (Parental efforts also do not address the <em>root</em> issues; they are merely supplemental. No one should take it personally that parental help is not the "answer.") Neither unions nor parents can be held responsible as a group for the current situation in education, & they will not be the ones responsible, as single entities, for transformation. Just my view:)</p>
<p>"Doctors worry about malpractice costs
Lawyers worry about being sued"</p>
<p>Both usually have income levels and insurance protection. I understand the malpractice costs, but really who among these professions qualifies for food stamps in their first five years? </p>
<p>And as much as we joke about lawyers, nobody tied to the white house as labeled them terrorists. </p>
<p>While I think BG does alot of good things for schools I also wonder if it is all charitible or just a business plan. Remember when computers began in schools they were apples, now apples make up 10% of the computers used in classrooms. MS began with give aways and discounts and through their charitible business plan went from about zero to 90% of the school market in a few short years. </p>
<p>BG founded a pilot school in CA that has done away with textbooks and basically subjects kids weren't interested in. It was on pbs awhile ago. </p>
<p>While I do apprieciate his efforts to help education especially compared to the Walton family and some others (the Dicks drive in heirs) I also don't run to it without caution. Schools are starting to look at the Gates grants a little closer. The gift horse in the mouth thing.</p>
<p>ephif,</p>
<p>I think I understand you pretty well. I think the problem won't be solved until everyone admits being some part of the problem and is willing to give up something to get the process back on track. </p>
<p>It's much like the flooding we're having right now. With people sandbagging to keep flood waters out of towns. If you only are willing to sandbag your place the flood waters still get into town and it becomes a matter of time before the floodwaters undermine your efforts. If all could meet together and improve the dike with the sandbags, maybe the entire town stays dry. It takes leadership to coordinate something like that and a realization by all that the problem is best solved by working together.</p>
<p>Opie, well said.</p>
<p>True, Opie. But more lasting than sandbags, & far more effective long-term (both functionality wise & salary wise), would be new dams, levees, dikes, arterial waterways, reservoirs, aqueducts -- a veritable Roman building project. That will release pressure on the floodgates. I do agree that a cooperative effort is indicated, but also that for education to improve across the board, quality-wise, sacrifices will have to be made, & choices will have to be made. </p>
<p>I am conceptualizing a National Education Insurance with a federal baseline. I have some broad ideas in that regard but no time today to go into it in depth.</p>
<p>When it comes to "giving up something," let me be the first to volunteer: I immediately surrender pseudo-expertise in non-teaching areas within the classroom. (Importantly, I also surrender responsibility for that pseudo-expertise. That's the part that much of the public has not yet accepted. And they cannot have it both ways.):)</p>
<p>"When it comes to "giving up something," let me be the first to volunteer:"</p>
<p>Great, but isn't that often met with "then I want YOU to do this and this and that."? :) </p>
<p>There is the problem. In this current climate Giving up something to improve the whole is considered losing and the other side pounces.</p>
<p>Opie, the syndrome you describe is not a given, i.m.o. And again, I do not see the current system -- with its somewhat exploitative orientation (doubling, tripling, quadrupling on roles for a single salary, etc.) -- as supporting significant reform. I would also not expect any genuine reform to work within an adversarial atmosphere. ("The other side," etc.) Respectfully, I'm not sure who "the other side" is. Finally, I would not expect that genuine reform would include teachers mostly taking orders (including from non-educators), vs. shaping their professional goals. Professionals in any career are expected to be self-starters & self-managers -- versus mere line workers. So teacher behavior needs to change if a different model will work. Those who behave robotically with respect to their State DOE's will not re-elevate education to a plane which the public can respect.</p>
<p>"Finally, I would not expect that genuine reform would include teachers mostly taking orders (including from non-educators), vs. shaping their professional goals. Professionals in any career are expected to be self-starters & self-managers -- versus mere line workers. "</p>
<p>I agree and have seen it happen sometimes. However, it takes a special person to lead and inspire this type of situation. Not every manager realizes when you have smart motivated people encouragement and a wide berth is the best course of action. Sometimes the best personal stamp they can put on a group is "nothing" if you understand what I mean.</p>
<p>I attended my community's NHS induction last night and was impressed that the principal in his introduction spoke about the teaching profession and how the teaching profession needs the best and the brightest and recommended the career to the inductees. He encouraged the parents to encourage the students to become teachers. He spoke of the challenges and joys of the job and again, how the cream of the crop is indeed needed. Good pr job by a very capable individual.</p>
<p>I think Opie & Dogwood have hit on some important points. As to Opie's, I agree that there is too much mediocrity within leadership positions & motivating positions & supervising positions in education. I think too often the decisions makers themselves behave like line workers (unlike the examples Dogwood just provided), do not recognize the talent available, do not place appropriately the talent available....I'm not sure if Opie meant that when he referenced "a special type of person," or whether he meant leadership from outside the education community. I think radical reform efforts would be most effective coming from teachers themselves -- current and/or former -- but many voices can be heard.</p>
<p>I think the inspiration & communication to which Dogwood referred are critical, too. You have inspired me to accept an invitation this week to a career panel for University students.</p>
<p>"a special type of person"</p>
<p>Someone with the smallest ego in the room. Someone who gives credit rather than takes credit. </p>
<p>In sports it the player that makes everyone else better. He doesn't have to tell people, they can see it for themselves. </p>
<p>A great current example in the sports world (yes, it's a sidebar) is the Kellen Winslows. Kellen senior is considered by many to be the prototype of the modern tight end in professional football. He's a hall of fame player. KW sr. never had to tell anybody this, his teammates, the league and the fans recognized his abilities by his actions on the field. He made the Chargers better. Unfortunately, his son KW jr. holds press conferences announcing he (jr) is the best tight end in football. There's a difference in leadership. </p>
<p>I know this is probably far and away a difficult stretch to my point, but I don't do sports forums and I'm embarrassed for KW sr. as he should talk to his son about self proclaimed greatness vs. others proclaiming it.</p>
<p>Opie,</p>
<p>Totally. What distinguishes true leadership from mere authority-mongers is the sacrifice of ego for the larger good. There are those in education. They are not necessarily those whose names are in the papers & the evening news. They tend to be the apolitical types.</p>
<p>Teaching is a noble profession...for paupers.</p>
<p>I respected my high school teachers, but some of them weren't very bright. "Increasing standards," blah, blah, blah, just sounds like a lot of buzz talk.</p>
<p>Make kids read the textbooks in addition to their teacher's lesson plans, and scores will skyrocket.</p>
<p>Generalizations are the "blah, blah."</p>
<p>Your high school may have employed stupid teachers; others employ brilliant ones (whether having earned one degree or several advanced degrees).</p>
<p>Students are not told to "read lesson plans." Students are told to read textbooks; if you weren't told that, you went to an odd school indeed.</p>
<p>Teaching is a noble profession only for those with superior intellect, commitment, & creativity/ingenuity. Those without those attributes will not teach well, will not be happy, will not distinguish themselves as particularly noble.</p>
<p>"Increasing standards" just means improving the training/qualifications of those teachers. But without native ability, the phrase is meaningless, & that is the only part of your post I agree with.</p>