<p>Tarhunt, my school has relatively open enrollment. Anyone can apply and get in (unless they're failing students). Enrollment is based simply on a lottery. Area students all get accepted as well if they apply, provided they're not failing. However, our school is ranked in the top 30s in the nation according to Newsweek (for schools not based on test score admissions).</p>
<p>from Tarhunt:
[quote]
Metrics are the bear, here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Metrics are the bear, but this bear can be wrestled to the ground with proper controls and careful interpretation. The first requirement is that schools be strongly encouraged to think in terms of value added. If they persist in claiming that poor results are always the result of bad parenting, bad attitudes on the part of students, poverty, etc. then there will be no progress in identifying methods and approaches that actually work--or at least make a dent in the problem.</p>
<p>Also, your objections to longitudinal data analysis don't really apply to your hypothetical private school composed of gifted kids with a history of scoring well on tests, it seems to me. Presumably that population would be pretty stable, so tracking their performance over time would be no problem.</p>
<p>'Value added" also can be addressed by testing at both the beginning and end of each school year. It is a lot of testing, and it costs money, but it is one way to determine the effectiveness of individual teachers. Of course, one year's data would not be reliable since one or two stinkers might cause significant problems.</p>
<p>I could be one of the allegedly naive "silver bullet" proponents you complain about above, since I have a lot of letters to the ed published, and I carry on regular correspondence with school boards and legislators. Most proponents of systemic reform do not believe the problems facing U.S. education are simple, or that they can be easily solved. But it is high time someone suggest something other than More Money for failing systems, and it is also time people establishing ed policy wake up to the fact that many of us take parenting rather seriously, and when the school our kid is assigned to just isn't working right for her/him, then it is our obligation as parents to place them in a school that does work. I was able to do that, but most parents are stuck. </p>
<p>Xiggi, at least Shanker was honest. It is amazing to me how many people think I am being cynical when I suggest that teacher unions are quite good at doing what they are supposed to do, i.e., protecting the financial interests of their members, but then point out that there is no reason to assume that those interests are consistent with the interests of students and parents.</p>
<p>Okay, I guess, no one appreciates the joke...</p>
<p>Tarhunt,
Yes, there was actually a Golden Age (for many of us), but the reason for it was less funding (which was abundant for sites, supplies, extracurricular opportuniites, summer programs, & modest/adequate for teachers) than the level of education/literacy in the average American household in the average public school. A mediocre or unprofessional teacher can fail to inspire, fail to engage, & under-serve a student, resulting in little or no progress. But a student surrounded by illiteracy at home (different from just "being below grade level") is even more severely under-served. </p>
<p>The educated home first, the education-supporting home second, have been found to be the two most critical elements in student success. Students really do spend more time at home than at school. This is not at all about "blaming the parents," either. The students that I serve do not have parents on CC, trust me. They are not speaking English at home (nor have most of them "just arrived"), yet they are expected to produce in English at school. Moses, Jesus, Mother Teresa, & Escalante as a team cannot make inroads in student expectations when the family does not share those expectations or desires. These families live in communities where there is not a burning need to learn the language of the land because they can communicate with people like themselves.</p>
<p>The demographics in my State have wildly & monumentally changed since my childhood. The schools are unrecognizable, as a whole. (My own childhood's has not changed, because those demographics, while changing somewhat, have not changed in the Household Education factor.)</p>
<p>I don't know anyone, no matter how many years' experience, who is making 57K+ as a teacher, either in a public or a private. I have to believe that the statistics reflect <em>something</em>, but they are not reflective of those I know working full-time (or halved that working half-time).</p>
<p>I find it funny that people wish to have a race of super genuises. Yes, teachers do not teach sufficiently at some levels, but a car isn't always designed in the best possible way, an electronic device is not always crafted to last as long as it should. Imperfections are part of life, and its laughable that people think when you eliminate one problem all the rest will disappear. Next when we have our perfect race of genuises, or suicide rate will be that of Japan's or even worse, and then people will start to complain about that, the sad fact of life is nothing is perfect (I find this to be good actually, as it means I can constantly improve), and that if you want something you need to go out there and GRAB it. Students that want to learn will still learn. I have almost a 4.0 GPA, and i don't go to a top 25 public high school, but i did enroll myself in all AP class and honors classes I could, and I score around a 2000 or more on practice SATs, and this is all working myself. Half the time I don't even pay attention to GOOD teachers, because I can teach myself better. A teacher is there to present knowledge, he cannot teach those who don't want to be taught, and not all teachers can cater to the mind of a specific student.</p>
<p>Just want to say that in my state NO teacher makes the huge salaries you are referencing and in the teacher's union to which I belong a principal can fire a teacher or other licensed employee "at will" (which means for any reason) at any time in the first three years of employment. Just happened in fact, to two teachers this past week. After the first three years, there must be "just cause" for dismissal. The top of the salary scale, with an MS and 24 years experience, is $58,000 for a 198 day contract. The contract is an 8 hour day with 30 minutes mandated free time without student duties during each day. (no 'lunch hour'). Meetings and mandatory professional development are additional and unreimbursed.
I'm not defending or slamming, but just giving the facts of one unionized situation.
I happen to work in a school with strong parental support and a non-megolithic size, and I love my work. however we still struggle with class-size (some classes of 30 - 32 in K-5), huge special ed. needs, and multiple languages spoken. And, like an earlier poster, don't even get me started on NCLB....</p>
<p>
[quote]
Half the time I don't even pay attention to GOOD teachers, because I can teach myself better
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've heard this from my daughter as well. Maybe we should replace teachers with computers. Hey, I wonder if Jobs has thought of that?</p>
<p>Ditto for my area, Post #66.<br>
"At will," no lunch break, no grand salaries, absurd expectations for miracle-working with zero home, administrative, (OR teacher union!) support for that. I do not think my Mother Teresa allusion is an exaggeration. It's been observed in my area that to stick with this profession in the current circumstances would be to do so ONLY as a voluntary service, and only if morale is not important to you.</p>
<p>I'm able to retain my morale because I have a variety of roles. In one classroom in which I taught recently the teacher had a complete meltdown, mid-year. She literally left her post with no notice, abandoned her class & school. I was there when it all went down. I watched the kids (1st graders) being told the next day -- kind of like being told that one of your parents has just abandoned you. What shocked me was that the district had no qualms about immediately placing her in a different school in the district, that same week that she abandoned the first class! I don't support what the teacher did -- not at all; it's just that it manifested to me the level of her desperation, a level which was also manifest in her classroom & in the classrooms of other teachers at the same school. And this is one of the <em>good</em> schools in this City.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Next when we have our perfect race of genuises, or suicide rate will be that of Japan's or even worse
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The YOUTH suicide rate in Japan is lower than in the United States. </p>
<p><a href="http://learninfreedom.org/suicide.html%5B/url%5D">http://learninfreedom.org/suicide.html</a> </p>
<p>The aggregate national suicide rate is higher in Japan than in the United States because of a much higher suicide rate among old people (in the generation that lived through the defeat in World War II). Youth suicides are newsworthy in Japan rather than in the United States because they are rarer.</p>
<p>"Students that want to learn will still learn. "</p>
<p>Not entirely,hyakku. I just visited one of my families yesterday. The student, an 8th grader, is very capable at math (and all the other subjects!). He actually asked me this year if I could provide him with some ideas for math challenges (which I did). I asked his mother why he was put in a low 7th grade level curriculum in our program before I became his teacher. (Why he didn't test out higher?) She explained that he was in a site school for 2 years surrounded by students in gangs who harrassed him severely, in & out of the classroom, for his academics, AND that the teacher was poor. But she felt that the intimidating atmosphere in the classroom (where he, though "majority," was the minority) was more influential in holding him back.</p>
<p>Those who are such "minorities" are not staying in site schools. When they don't have money for the privates, they're homeschooling with public charter money.</p>
<p>Given how much people are willing to pay for top colleges who often have poor teachers who have not changed their pedagogical approaches since the stone-age, (yes we have found ways to teach and improve understanding compared to the old lecture style) I find it interesting that folks are so scathing when pointing out public education flaws. As a person who went into teaching after a successful industry career and partly for the professed goal of seeing it from the inside instead of just lobbing spears from the outside and who is not a union member I give these thoughts. First, as a recent poster has pointed out top students need facilitating and they can probably learn on their own which should be the goal anyway. Of course the same goes for college where there are so many poor teachers students have no other option. Second, students who have parents who care about them enough to pay for private schools, or to live in an area with great demographics will always see better results. That has little to do with the teachers. The issue I see is with the kids who do not care and have little home support. That is the problem with a fair number of kids. Even Escalante who was successful at inspiring an </p>
<p>fwiw: STARTING salaries at LA Unified (state's largest district) is $43k with a BS. A master's-lever teacher can make up to $90k depending on experience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my region, I would not be allowed to be a Jaime Escalante, because of various constraints & requirements & priorities. I would be fired quickly if I tried that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One thing I don't get in these endless debates is that on one side parents seem to be saying teachers can't be fired. On the other side teachers seem to be saying if they do anything out of the norm they will be fired. How can they both be right?</p>
<p>Personally, even my kids' worst teachers were well meaning. A few just weren't very smart, a few seemed to be having problems in their private life that was spilling over into their classroom attitudes and a few were just burnt out. Still it would have been nice if they hadn't been there.</p>
<p>I think there are two main problems. The first is that teaching does not attact top students. This leads to and administrators that fall prey to the latest fads.</p>
<p>The second is that our inner cities are broken. I had a friend teaching in the Bronx. Half her kids were homeless. Many were abused. She had 11 year olds in her 3rd grade classroom who still couldn't read on a first grade level. There were no pullouts or one on one help for these kids. She's a smart caring woman who went back and got her teaching credentials late in life. But she felt there were too many kids in her class she just couldn't reach and she felt she couldn't do justice to her students and her family. She is now much less stressed teaching in the suburbs. Escalante was an amazing man, but I don't think we can expect every teacher to accomplish what he did.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I find it interesting that folks are so scathing when pointing out public education flaws.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One of the reasons that the attacks are so "scathing" is that they have to be repeated so often and are almost dismissed. In the meantime, we remain with a system that produces one the very best elementary system and a leading tertiary system. However, sandwiched between them we also have a dismal secondary system that is mostly known for its inefficient use of resources. Despite having one of the most expensive systems of public education, our students perform at a level barely above some third-world countries in almost all categories. It is clear that the answer of throwing more money at the problem has not yielded many positive changes. </p>
<p>Tokenadult has given examples of countries that have endorsed different systems. Others have the the segregation of funding and organizing the education built-in in their constitution. The United States could only dream of educating their students as effciently and cheaply as they do. Of course, as long as more than 50% of our budgets will be swallowed by administrative costs and other excesses, it will hard to dedicate more funds directly to the teachers and students. Open choice and open access might not be the panacea some want us to believe, but it should be given a real chance in our country. </p>
<p>In the end, when looking at the actors involved in the debate of making our schools better, there is hardly a more identifiable political group of vicious and heretic opponents. </p>
<p>Jobs simply said openly what most unbiased people in this country know. Only beneficiaries and indentured servants of this most abject feudal system refuse to acknowledge the negative role of teachers' unions. Actually, you can add interested and hypocritical vendors such as Michael Dell to the group!</p>
<p>In answer to your first question posed, mathmom, the different perceptions you are noticiing could be ascribed to the different states or regions. The bureaucratic constraints & restraints in my area are mind-boggling. You need permission to go to the bathroom, it seems. (The teacher, not the student). There is not teacher autonomy in the most basic areas, often. The priorities are the bureaucratic regulations, not the academics. In the case of the family I just cited, when I was drawing the mother out on the reason for the poor math performance in site school by a math-capable student, she said that the classroom teacher had been spending time teaching the students "how to fill out forms." Guaranteed, those were not math forms. </p>
<p>OTOH, she was probably needing to spend time on the forms because her students are not English-literate, but naturally had to fill them out in English, and she does not speak Spanish, Arabic, Vietnamese, or Korean. (I know this district.) The school should not have suggested spending significant classroom time on this, however. If the forms were even necessary there could have been some other way to get this accomplished at a school meeting or via parents coming by to get that the assistance they needed from administration.</p>
<p>For the record, I am not one of the "stupid" teachers. I was, and am, "a top student." Top 3% from a competitive private high school. Several degrees, and I can match wits with the best of them on CC. I went into teaching, & later education in different roles, BECAUSE of the intellectual stimulation it provides me in the applied theory realm, because of my facility with curriculum, not because I'm stupid or couldn't do other things. (Like some others on this thread, I spent a second career in industry, too, then returned to education.) </p>
<p>Your last paragraph is far more on the money than your previous comments.</p>
<p>Salaries over $100,000 are not uncommon for veteran teachers in the suburbs of New York. And guess what, the public schools there are highly sought after and have excellent track records in the college admissions game. That said, as we all know SAT scores and other standardized test scores are highly influenced by family income levels. So who knows if our teachers are so wonderful or if it's the kids and the families.</p>
<p>Oh I know that not all teachers are stupid. Thank goodness. We've had some wonderful ones. But I don't think the statistics are lying about the average GPA and SAT scores of those who go into teaching. I've heard arguments that teaching was better back when there were fewer choices for smart women. Many who went into teaching 50 years ago, are now lawyers, doctors etc.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I just want to shed some light here by noting (in response to your post 74, I think) the actions/directions that have succeeded in reversing the poor outcomes of underperforming schools. </p>
<p>It is a removal of those site schools from (our, anyway) State system by chartering them. The families & teachers forming that charter (& no charter succeeds without significant parental involvement & at-home accountability) release themselves from the State's priorities. That includes the school day. In order to reverse massive illiteracy & massive non-fluency (which can be true equally for natives as for immigrants, again in my region), a day far longer than 8:15- 2:15 is required. It's usually 7:30 to 4, minimum (often 5 or 6 pm). It's mandatory Saturday school in addition. It's strict behavioral & performance requirements, with consequences for that. (In other words, a virtual privatizing on some level.) It's usually uniforms, too. It's published & announced high expectations.</p>
<p>However, charters are not well funded (because of the political grip on schools in the State's capital, & the unions being complicit in that grip). Teachers are usually not unionized & actually end up with smaller salaries because their days are longer with no compensatory time off or add'l salary. Supplies are spare. There are no "extras" like sports or arts (usually). There are no specialists -- even when appropriate specialists could be used such as needed resource teachers or justifiable Special Ed teachers.</p>
<p>The State's attitude is You're On Your Own: sink or swim. The time frames for meeting the <em>State's</em> (not the school's own) demands are short. If the charter does not perform miracles 4 times what would be expected of a traditional school, the charter gets closed by the State.</p>
<p>From the teacher's point of view, these are not glam jobs or well-paying jobs, & clearly they are not "secure" jobs. They have a higher success rate & higher morale than traditional system-sponsored schools, but often that is not enough for significant success.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Absolutely no teacher I know gets 70K a year. They mainly get around 35K a year (NOT beginning teachers), including at Private pricey elegant schools. They cannot afford to live near these elegant schools. Perhaps, again, my experience is different: all the great teachers I know work for very little pay. (Already!) That's why it's extremely insulting to me that much of the public, and some of you on this thread, have the audacity to insist that the poverty-level wages we earn are too much, & that we should open schools like Oprah, do more after-hours work for free, take on multiple roles, etc. Again, who the hell are you to tell me this when you would undoubtedly never consider it for yourselves unless you are already obscenely wealthy with a generous retirement plan?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually this is very dependant upon school districts. In our area, it is quite common for teachers with a fair amount of seniority to make over $70K and starting salaries are easily in the $35-40K range. If you look only at salaries, this still may not appear to be that much. However, salary is only part of the picture. The medical benefits for teachers are much superior to that which is provided in private industry. In addition, the retirement plan for teachers is far and away better than private industry which for the most part is eliminating any "traditional" retirement plans. Also, medical insurance during retirement is rapidly becoming a thing of the past in private industry but still a staple for teachers - at least in our area.</p>
<p>Given that a typical retirement these days can easily be 30 years, the pay and healthcare advantages that teachers have over those in private industry in retirement make the lifetime compensation for teachers much more equitable with private industry. Factoring in the 180 day work-year and virtual immunity to layoffs or firings makes the career of teaching seem pretty good versus the typical private industry career.</p>
<p>Again, for the record, I was twice offered apprenticeships in law, but turned those down to pursue my First Love, which is education. I also will not work in any environment which requires me to spend a lot of time with educators who are not true intellectual peers. That is not out of ego reasons, but because it affects my own motivation & performance. I want to operate only on a high level, since I'm clearly not in this for the laughable 'salary.'</p>