Steve Jobs Blames Education Problems on Teacher Unions

Parents Forum
361

<p>Post 357 is way off the mark. I never even implied, let alone stated, that history should not be taught. History (and all its controversies) is my second favorite subject to teach, after literature & writing. Your example has nothing to do with the earlier references that loveto-camp cited, and to which (specifically) I responded. Never once did I say that the history curriculum, and the discussion of political decisions made in their historical context, should not be aired, discussed, etc. In fact, one of my posts specifically mentioned the appropriateness of encouraging <em>students</em> (not teachers) to understand the forming of opinions, and encouraging <em>students</em> to draw conclusions (including moral conclusions) about issues past and present -- without the teacher manipulating the results of such inquiry. Exposing historical facts & encouraging discussion of the resultant controversies & deciisons is obviously the teacher's job.</p>

<p>Announcing to your class that "We're going to a political rally today" (and one rally, not two opposing political rallies) is a compromise of the teacher's role. Or assigning an opinion paper to students but then grading down for a disapproved-of opinion (not for research, not for reasoning) is also a compromise of the role.</p>

362

<p>I guess I don't understand. To me idealism is the belief in ideas and politics is the pursuit and execution of specific ideas. Democracy depends on an informed, involved populace and thus political education should be, in my book, part of everyone's education, right along with history, math, literature, the sciences and foreign languages. </p>

<p>And let me just say, that most teachers would LOVE THE LUXURY of only concerning themselves with academics and not "student needs" (as you put it.) But the sad reality is - they can't. (Nice idealistic idea, though ;))</p>

363

<p>Public schools do a miserable job of teaching reading and math. The students I've known who do the best get extra help from parents, tutoring outside of class, and work very hard on their own. Some private schools teach the basics very well, but it depends on the school and class size, and how equipped the teachers are. The very nature of the reading process means it is best taught one-on-one.</p>

364

<p>"The very nature of the reading process means it is best taught one-on-one"</p>

<p>Which is why SOME public schools do a 'miserable job' of it. Their teacher-student ratio is about 28-to-one. </p>

<p>But of course, that's the union's fault.</p>

365

<p>
[quote]
Because it's not important for kids to know for example that Woodrow Wilson's condemnation of Germany for the sinking of the Lusitania completely ignored the fact that the British were using men, women, and children as human shields for the transporation of munitions as we learned in my A.P. class yesterday.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>FYI, here's an excerpt from the Second U.S. Protest by President Woodrow Wilson</p>

<p>
[quote]
Whatever may be the contentions of the Imperial German Government regarding the carriage of contraband of war on board the Lusitania or regarding the explosion of that material by the torpedo, it need only be said that in the view of this Government these contentions are irrelevant to the question of the legality of the methods used by the German naval authorities in sinking the vessel.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is writing a direct rebuttal --even if based on incomplete information-- a way to "completely" ignore a fact? Woodrow Wilson did not ignore the allegations of the Imperial German Government; he dismissed the allegation as irrelevant to the atrocity committed by the Germans. </p>

<p>However, one fact that is hard to ignore is yet another proof of a program that is a mile wide, an inch deep, and riddled with inconsistencies that escape most of the people who "teach" it.</p>

366

<p>Their teacher-student ratio is about 28-to-one.
The union does negotiate the contract
(In fact in our city- the union decided to increase the class size of the highest need kids- from 6:1 to 8:1- in order to raise teacher pay for all the teachers in the district- who are already making more an hour than most workers in the city.- which incidentally was more than what the district had budgeted- so big cuts have to be made elsewhere, including closing schools)
Our city has passed special levies to lower class size- but guess what?
That money can also be used for * teacher training- salaries* which is where it usually goes- very rarely have I seen it used to lower class size</p>

367

<p>emerald, interesting. And depressing! I'll have to look into how that works in Colorado. This is a weak-union state so the teachers union may not have that much influence. Still, food for thought, thanks.</p>

368

<p>As for my first question, and your answer to it. I could not disagree more. First, the best possible help for any student (for his/her lifetime) is to learn basic skills that will enable him/her to survive. </p>

<p>To get a job, competency in (at least) the basics (reading, writing, math), is a must. "Read" the application. "Write" (fill-out) the application, including short answer or essay questions about school and/or job hisotry. How many jobs (especially retail for first jobs) require basic to moderate "math" skills (balance cash register, discounts on prices, sub-totals for customer inquiries, inventores, order quantities, count out change, etc.). </p>

<p>In day to day life: buying groceries and clothes ("reading" price tags and "reading" product documentation, "computing" total expenditures, "reading" the Electric/Gas/Telephone Bills and doing appropriate "calculations" (math) for month-to-month account balances. </p>

<p>What do you think those students do, who graduate with no reading, writing, or math skills? Just because they want or need a job does not make those skills suddenly appear in their psyche. Just because they want/need to buy something, does not mean that they suddenty have learned the math to calculate the totals, and compare to their checkbook balance. </p>

<p>We are doing a diservice to our kids, and to all students, by not insuring that they are competent in each of the basic skills. </p>

<p>As for your plight in the car - I absolutely feel for you. But teaching the kids an understanding of that tragedy is not going to help those kids "function" from day to day. Teaching kids about global warming, old growth redwoods, alternative fuel sources, evils of war, alternative life syles, etc. - is not going to get them a job, or put food on the table.</p>

<p>In the same way that all kids deep down want/need boundaries (and discipline) even though they will tell you otheriwise; they also have empty brains waiting and needing to suck up the basic skills. </p>

<p>If you are a teacher, then i don't have to explain to you the excitment that comes over a child, when he/she grows from the point of having stories read to him/her, to the point of being able to read a story for themself. What is lacking for many, is that teachers and parents don't have, or take, the time to find the right book for each child. If we sat 30 adults (or kids) down in a large room and forced them all to watch the 'same' TV show, some would be bored within 5 minutes. (it could be a 2.5 hour baseball game, a 2-hour comedy movie, a 2 hour National Geographic special on Anthropology, a 2 hour animated movie, a 1 hour cooking show, a 1 hour home improvement show, or a 30 minute cartoon). It would be very difficult to find one show/movie that kept everyone's interest. Yet, in school, we give all students the SAME 200-500 page novel, and we wonder why some of them don't read it, or why some of the papers are lifeless. If we agree that it is important that EVERY child learn to read, then there must be a way to change the system, change the process. Find a way to find a book for every child that will interest them. Is that so impossible. (I digress into the details). </p>

<p>In MY opinion, schools should be totally transformed. Throw out the existing model (at least at the early grades). Focus ONLY on reading, writing, and math. No more movies for kids in classrooms - as a supposed means of study. No more field trips. No more art, sports, music, etc. It seems drastic, and it is. But year after year, we complain about the lack of competence at older ages. It must start at earlier ages. It must start with Reading, Writing, and Math. Get those basics down (for EVERY student), and then you can move onto art, sports, music, science, history, etc.</p>

369

<p>lovetocamp.
"No more art, sports, music, etc. " You call this school? </p>

<p>FWIW, worldwide, among the most competent -- indeed accomplished --- students are the Japanese. Guess what they specialize in during elementary school? Writing & reading, yes. But heavily -HEAVILY - into art music and 'citizenship' - which entails kids cleaning their own bathrooms, hallways, classrooms. </p>

<p>There are many different ways to produce competent students. Though this is the first time I've heard that elimination of art, music & sports as one of them.</p>

370

<p>"But teaching the kids an understanding of that tragedy is not going to help those kids "</p>

<p>Actually I was trying to teach you, but as I read more of your post, it just became too sad. What a 1984 world you wish to live in. pity.</p>

371

<p>children are not little sponges or containers that we just stick a funnel in their head and pour * knowledge* in</p>

<p>Context is key.
Field trips can make classwork more relevant and easier to understand and retain for some kids.
Sports engages our whole body- which is critical for neurological development.
Art can give every student a way to associate the schoolroom and success, because in art- there is no right or wrong answer.</p>

<p>Music is something we all can respond to. Whatever language we speak, whatever our academic or economic background. It can provide continuity between people and connection, something we need more of in this world not less.</p>

<p>My own daughter- was struggling with classwork in 6th grade. She had had, several teachers in a row, who were less than optimum, not just for her, but the whole class. We had paid for tutors, which was a hardship, but one hour or two a week, wasn't going to make up for the school day, especially when her dyslexia interfered with traditional learning style ( and we couldn't afford a tutor who specialized in different ways of teaching)</p>

<p>In 6th grade, her school had a winter sport program. I wasn't going to sign her up, it meant that she would be gone from the classroom 6 days out of a three month period. We didn't have the money for lessons or equipment, and I am not the sort of person to ask the parent group to fund her.</p>

<p>Her teacher however, either funded her, herself, or made arrangements. The result was, my daughter took snowboard lessons with many of her classmates, for 6 fridays that winter.
This is what happend.
My daughter, who had friends at school, but which was very awkward because these kids usually did quite well in school,and would have to "help" her. When you know that you are behind your friends, that is a huge stress, especially when you work as hard, but don't see the same result.</p>

<p>I was worried, because these kids also had been taking lessons for a couple years. So my daughter would either be put into a different group, or have to push herself to keep up.</p>

<p>She learned to snowboard and by the end of the season was going down black diamond runs. because no one expected her to be an expert, she gave herself permission to make mistakes. And you can't learn, unless you are able to make mistakes.</p>

<p>She continued to take snow board lessons for the remainder of her time at the school.
The amazing thing is, that I could not have predicted, was that the increase in confidence that she gained on the mountain, translated into more confidence and success in the classroom.</p>

<p>No longer was she the girl, that always struggled in everything she did. Sure, she still had difficulties in classwork, a lot of them. BUt she saw herself differently, because of her success in learning snowboarding. Her peers saw her differently because of her accomplishments on the slopes.
Those 6 days, made more difference than any other six months, but they wouldn't have happened if the school hadn't had the emphasis on outdoor education, and if the teacher wasn't wise enough to know that much of what is retained is learned outside a classroom.</p>

372

<p>It is not a "luxury," katlia, to focus on ideals. Ideals are what motivate every good teacher; the day that the ideals die, the teaching dies. </p>

<p>I focus on needs every bit as much as you do. (Wink, wink.) All great teachers I've had did not concern themselves with whether I had breakfast. However, if it was obvious that I had a personal problem (physical or emotional hunger), they reacted humanely & responsibly & got the appropriate intervention, and/or supplied what additional support they could for me OUTSIDE of class. </p>

<p>Most urban public school K-8 classrooms in my area have become laboratories for assorted non-academic deficiencies in the American family. But no classroom teacher moves on from there (to academics). And why? Because the social ills are so severe & the students are not receiving either professional treatment or parenting. It is not teaching. If you think that's teaching, I'm not sure which teaching program you completed. And the reverse is also true. No doctor would concern himself or herself for any length of time with non-medical issues when engaging a patient. If those issues were interfering with wellness or with treatment, the appropriate ancillary support would be suggested, and also offered (for example, many hospitals have social workers on staff). The doctor would not be expected to provide that support himself or herself, nor would he accept responsibility for doing so. </p>

<p>The larger point is that teachers are not equipped to satisfy the non-academic needs, regardless of how they may flatter themselves that they are "doing good," or "seeing to the students' daily needs," or the district {the board, the state, fill in the blank} insists that I do it. Or "the parents won't do it," so teachers "have" to. Both the academics and the social needs are ill-served in such a scheme.</p>

373

<p>Katlia - You JUST DONT GET what i am trying to say, do you ?</p>

<p>You seem ONLY able to hear what you want to pick at. </p>

<p>I did not mean it as literally as you take it. Good grief. Hello?</p>

<p>What do we hear, year after year after year after year after year after year? That students are graduating from HIGH SCHOOL without the basic skills. I am not talking middle school. I said HIGH SCHOOL, without the basics. </p>

<p>Do you hear that? Does that mean anything to you?</p>

<p>This is not rocket science. This should not be so complicated. </p>

<p>All I am saying, is start off at the youngest ages, and teach the basics. </p>

<p>If someone is learning golf, do you think that the instructor teaches the student about drawing the ball on their drive, or about backspin with a wedge, when the person can not hit the ball off the tee, or if the person slices every drive. They start with the basics, and they do not proceed further until the basics have been established. </p>

<p>If someone is learning baseball, do we teach them how to throw a curve ball or sinker, if they can not even throw a ball straight to first base. If someone is in a tennis class, do you teach them how to lob or slam, if they do not even have competence in their backswing. </p>

<p>see the forest for the trees. ("An expression used of someone who is too involved in the details of a problem to look at the situation as a whole").</p>

<p>The situation as a whole is that EVERY student should be taught to read, to write, and to do math, all with competence.</p>

<p>My son is at a "very competitive" college. I am well aware of the additional subject matter (art, music, history, sciences, literature, leadership, mentoring, culture, etc.) that must be taught for our children to become highly successful. </p>

<p>I am not (literally) suggesting throwing away art, music, history, science, etc. However, HOW DARE WE allow even one student to not learn the basics. </p>

<p>At the local middle school, the letters come home, the automated phone messages arrive, the fliers come home with our sons/daughters expressing this fundraiser or that fundraiser attempting to "Save Our Sports". Yet, in the same school, you see no letters, fliers, phone messages about academic excellence. HELLO? Can you NOT see the problem in that?</p>

<p>My kids are doing just fine, and have always been in the top percentiles, so I am not complaining selfishly for the sake of my kids. Yet, I am just sick to death of the focus on the wrong things. My posts earlier about social issues was one example of wrong priorities. My post this time, that includes the reference to Save Our Sports, is yet another example of wrong priorities. </p>

<p>Yet, next week, next year, the same complaints will be heard about our failing schools. Many of those complaining, will be those who whine about not enough time and money for sports or music or dance. Until the schools can master the concept of teaching the basics, they have no right to put time and money on the extras. </p>

<p>I would love to see a teacher (at ANY grade) throw out their lesson plan. Week 1, she goes around the class, and sees who can read and who can not. You take a simple book, hand it to each student, and see how well he/she can read. Surely, 60% or more will do fine. OK, so for a week or two, the entire class stops everything else and works with the 40% who has trouble reading (yes, even the students help out as teachers/tutors. what a shocking suggestion?). How many HOURS are they in class each day. Multiply that by the number of days in a week, and a month. With that many TOTAL hours, with intense focus at the individual level, I predict that you would see changes. So, Week 2, or even Month 2, you work on Math. Go around, one student to the next. See who gets it and who doesn't. Get everyone involved with each other, tutoring/helping, until the weakest ones are brought up a bit. (I am NOT literally suggesting that all schools, all classes, all teachers, change to this format. I am simply trying to get people to think outside the bubble. I suggest it as "food for thought". Do you know what that means?</p>

<p>see the forest for the trees. ("An expression used of someone who is too involved in the details of a problem to look at the situation as a whole").</p>

374

<p>I am teaching for 16 years, and not once have I heard of a teacher using sick time or school's time for political rallies, etc. This sounds like the talking points I hear on right wing radio.</p>

<p>Teachers' unions guarantee a relatively good pay and benefits, and to be protected from unreasonable demands from, say, a parent whose child did not pass or graduate. And to claim that teachers make huge salaries is ridiculous for most of the country. I have a Masters degree and 16 years experience, yet if I were a single parent, my salary would be $1500 over the income that gets free lunch. I am hearing a LOT of propaganda like I hear coming from those who want to destroy unions so the middle class has very few options and must work for peanuts at the local big box retailer - with no health insurance, of course.</p>

375

<p>adigal,
Using class time for political events is a fairly common occurrence in my region. (Not "right wing political propagada") Using disproportionate amounts of class time to address social issues (replacing the daily curriculum) is also pretty standard.</p>

<p>The irony is, how I would love to replace much of the daily approved curriculum with much better (more challenging, more exciting) curriculum. Could I do that? Nah. But I could I dumb down the curriculum? You betcha. Could I replace curriculum with "political action"? Yep.</p>

<p>And teachers obviously have a right to attend political rallies on their own time. If they run into students & students' parents at those rallies, tough. This is America. </p>

<p>I don't have a problem, either, with including unions as groups to promote & support justifiable <em>professional</em> salary increases. (I do not consider salaries in my area overall to be on a professional level.) I just deplore the substitution of core educational issues with salary concerns. When the root, core educational issues are addressed effectively, the public will get behind teacher unions much more enthusiastically than they do now. (And again, this may be on a region by region basis. I notice that some posters on CC represent regions where parents are happier with their schools (and thus, probably) more supportive of unions.</p>

376

<p>"Using class time for political events is a fairly common occurrence in my region. (Not "right wing political propagada") Using disproportionate amounts of class time to address social issues (replacing the daily curriculum) is also pretty standard"
Same here in NYC. The chancellor is touring the school system right now and either the teachers' union and/or members of the working families party (including from other states) have been disrupting many of his public meetings. Very disheartening.</p>

377

<p>The real reason, in my view, that students don't learn to think and miss out on the basics in many years is that with NCLB, many teachers MUST teach to the test or their schools are put on an endangered list, and can be taken over by the state, or lose their funding. This is not a way to foster any learning, especially thinking skills, in my humble view.</p>

378

<p>"The real reason, in my view, that students don't learn to think and miss out on the basics in many years is that with NCLB, many teachers MUST teach to the test"</p>

<p>Ever wondered why there was a need to create NCLB in the first place? Interested parties do not expect miracles from a law that has so many deficiencies. However, the blatant weaknesses of the law should present a huge opportunity for the sacrosanct unions to present a BETTER plan. After all it should not be too hard to redirect the vast resources wasted on political activism and poll a constituency of millions of eager teachers. Why didn't the unions present a better plan in the decades before NCLB? </p>

<p>Of course, creating better schools for the STUDENTS is hardly on the radar screen at the maligned organization that suffer so much from the negative propaganda of horrible parents. It is good to remember that it was one of your unions leaders who stated that he'd start caring about the students the day they'll pay dues! And while we are at it, it should also be good to remember that schools do NOT belong to the unions, but to a society composed of PARENTS, STUDENTS, and TEACHERS. </p>

<p>Unions do have a right to exist, but it is hypocritical to pretend that their raison d'etre has not become something very different from what they purport to be. It is this abject political machine filled with obstructionists such as Weaver and Weingarten that is being attacked. Unfortunately the biggest victims are the overwhelming majority of good, very good teachers who are prisoners of a feudal system of indentured servitude.</p>

379

<p>Again, there may be some regional differences here. In my region, poor performance has been chronic, & significantly preceded NCLB. In addition to all the other ill-conceived priorities & substitutions I mentioned, the most severe problem in my region is non-English-speaking students/families as the majority school population in all but the wealthier districts. There is an obstinate refusal of the State and the districts to confront this issue. Quite unprofessional. It is a crisis, in fact. The fluent students in the minority generally do not have the funds to seek a private schooling solution, so their only option is to publicly homeschool.</p>

<p>The language situation needs to be addressed, pronto, but the political forces refuse to acknowledge it. Bilingual education was outlawed several yrs. ago. (Another ill-conceived program which did not focus on fluency, but focused on parallelism with poor language results.) I met a parent last night at our Open House, whose young student (not ELL) is attending a <em>private</em> bilingual <em>immersion</em> school which is new but extremely successful. I'm quite sure that their teachers are ESL trained, and at least obviously bilingual.</p>

<p>Right now in my region, for there to be any success whatsoever in Language Arts K-12, there would have to be team teaching in every classroom, with side-by-side ESL and non-ESL teaching occurring virtually simutaneously, or some other parallel equity established so that the fluent, native speakers are not cheated major in their education. (Currently, they are. All the teaching is focused on the non-English students, with ESCLB -- English Speaking Children Left Behind) And since the classroom teachers are <em>not</em> bilingual (overall), and certainly not ESL teachers, neither fluent nor non-fluent students are learning anything of significance. I remind you: 6 months on Native Americans in 5th grade history, since September. Still no learning. There will not be learning when there is not the mastery of English vocabulary.</p>

380

<p>adigal:</p>

<p>every state has its own 'bars' for NCLB, but this year's federal law only requires 26% proficiency for math -- ONLY 26% to pass NCLB. Looked at another way, 74% of students can be non-proficient and the school still passes the NCLB standard. While I do think kids are over-tested, particularly the college-bound kids, its kinda hard to argue that student learning is 'hindered' by NCLB. With 74% not proficient in basic math, learning by definition is hindered - the test just points it out.</p>