Steve Jobs Blames Education Problems on Teacher Unions

<p>LOL, Xiggi. They should have put those books in a safe. Guaranteed there would have been a break-in. ("Surprise!")</p>

<p>I know what you mean, though: A local urban charter school hands out iBooks to each student. They do their work mostly on those, & access links provided by teachers, obviously. But they're never allowed to take them home in the evening! Let's hear it for motivation. I think the school is concerned about nonacademic uses of it. But it would probably be possible to configure a computer so that off-site use was managed or restricted somehow. I'm not a tekkie; I'm sure some tech genius knows.</p>

<p>I think, though, that one distinction is getting lost in one of the arguments that keeps resurfacing. Motivation and opportunity are not synonymous with results. A school and a teacher should be expected to motivate, inspire, encourage, & provide intelligent & modern resources. However, there will probably be a core element in each classroom (that is not suburban & wealthy) that will not respond as expected to excellent teaching & excellent resources. That is why parental educational level & parental encouragement & involvement can be critical. When those 2 aspects are present, combined with state-of-the-art engaging educational opportunity, the advancement multiplies. Teachers, and posters on CC, have to be realistic about achievable results, vouchers or no vouchers, unions or no unions. We're not talking Westchester here, so please lose the inappropriate expectations & comparisons.</p>

<p>When your family is blue-collar, non-English speaking, non-educated, & not terribly interested in changing those 3 factors, do not blame schooling results on "slacker" teachers or cushy benefit packages.</p>

<p>The reason that performance-driven teacher salaring (or bonuses) will not work as envisioned is because of my post #101. It will <em>discourage</em> even great teachers from teaching in neighborhoods where parents are unmotivated & disconnected with the whole field of education, because these families can be. (Hint: Very great teachers tend to be highly intelligent; they've figured this whole thing out.) Teachers in such a system will not choose to work in neighborhoods populated by blue-collar immigrants who are ESL & wish to remain ESL their entire lives in the U.S. Teachers know they could never meet the <em>outcome</em> expectations in such a pay system.</p>

<p>There are immigrant groups by contrast who are very interested in upward educational mobility: that would include East Asians and Indians. It would include some Middle Eastern families. But these groups are NOT the primary public school populations in the areas I mention.</p>

<p>The dominant groups in the underperforming publics I'm talking about are immigrants who are not primarily interested in the kind of upward mobility for which education & English fluency is essential, plus African-Americans from very poor backgrounds with socially dysfunctional or economically dysfunctional environments. A few of the latter will do quite well with a top teacher, because they will defy the odds.</p>

<p>Food for thought: I think the problem of education in our country is huge and enormous and there is no one easy answer or solution. There are so many iterations of teachers, students, school districts that you can't boil it down to one all encompassing statement. Sure it is important to get rid of "bad apple teachers" as Steve Jobs discusses. But it's awfully hard to figure out what that means. </p>

<p>My pet peeve is the writing instruction in my district. I've met some very well intentioned, dedicated teachers who ended up being ineffective because of a lack of leadership from the department or district. Some of these teachers were loved by their students and parents. But their eleventh graders didn't know how to use a block quotation or how to integrate quotations into an analytical piece of essay writing. I know why this is, as my older son attends a private school which though not perfect has done an excellent job of teaching him how to write analytically. This is not a union issue but a function of leadership.</p>

<p>I am a parent of children who have been in both public and private school, a daughter of an adjunct professor at a community college, a sister of a teacher in an elementary school who works with impoverished refugees (including the Somali Bantu children referred to earlier in this thread), and a college student myself at a state university. </p>

<p>Teachers:
My fifth grader is struggling with a narrow minded teacher (retiring next year) who is locked into one narrow path in how he works with my son and me from which he will not deviate. My twelfth grader's private school English teacher knows Latin and Greek and can quote sections of Dante's Inferno to the class from heart (and the kids are impressed and love it). I recently visited my local public H.S. and observed a number of the various English teachers. Some were fabulous, others flat out mediocre. </p>

<p>Salaries: In my affluent school district, teachers can make $90 or $100K with seniority. My 7th grade English teacher is still on the job 30+ years later and makes over $100K. My sister on the other hand has a PhD and makes 60K after 20 years. But she lives in a much cheaper state. She gets to work before 8am and is usually on the job until 5pm so the myth of the short work hours is exactly that- a myth.</p>

<p>Unions: I used to work in an industry where going non-union would save a lot of money for the employer and it was extremely tempting to do so. And why was that? Because when we worked non-union, we didn't pay health insurance or retirement benefits for our workers! Of course we loved it- we made a better profit. On the other hand, the unions often had ridiculous work rules that were inflexible. The problem is power sharing between employer and union and finding a reasonable balance. You can't just say unions are bad, get rid of unions. Who here would like to work for Walmart? (And for those who begrudge teachers decent health insurance I would add that shouldn't every American have adequate health insurance?)</p>

<p>Students: There's no generalizing here. We have the superstars, kids who are achieving far more than I ever would have dreamed of back in my day. Kids winning awards, doing research, running charitable endeavors, excelling in athletics. And then we have the plugged in generation who can barely turn from their TV show or video game to read a book, kids who lack curiosity and drive, kids who lack respect for themselves and others. These characteristics cut across race, class and gender lines though obviously affluence plays a major part in providing resources, stimulation and help to students. </p>

<p>Change and improvement will only come from considering situations individually from every angle and working creatively to find answers and solutions. </p>

<p>But it all starts with a dialogue and a consideration of different viewpoints and perspectives, so I appreciate the shared opinions of posters on this thread...</p>

<p>From several pages back: Tarhunt asked,
[quote]
You said they didn't want to work so hard. Where's the disconnect?

[/quote]
Working hard during class time means actually walking around talking to students, taking data, implementing interventions moment-to-moment, etc.</p>

<p>"You can't just say unions are bad, get rid of unions. Who here would like to work for Walmart? (And for those who begrudge teachers decent health insurance I would add that shouldn't every American have adequate health insurance?)"</p>

<p>There can be other sources of benefits than unions, methinks. Government workers get benefits; they're not unionized.</p>

<p>The most successful school districts in North America are one's that allow autonomy and control by the principal (Ie. Seattle)</p>

<p>Ahahaha :D
um ya, that would be why 1/4 of Seattle students attend private schools and why Seattle has a lower percentage of kids than any other major city except for San Francisco.
Principals are still restricted to union rules.
Seniority protects many teachers who are burnt out/not effective.</p>

<p>For example, one principal- was so desperate to get rid of a teacher, that after a couple years of moving her around from special program to special program, where she wouldn't have direct control of a classroom all day, she put her back in the classroom, even though she had to have known ,that the task would be too much for her.
The teacher then quit, after a month in the classroom and a month on leave, but the students paid the price by then having substitutes for the remainder of the year.</p>

<p>This costs a lot of money. When students have subs- neither they or the teachers are really invested in the classroom and it can be wasted time.
The next year, the teacher has a lot to catch them up on, and if 1/2 the class had subs, and the rest didn't , those kids may be carried along, and never really get the info they needed.</p>

<p>This same principal, was stuck writing a budget- with Seattles site based management, but wasn't really given guidance to do so. I was on the team that wrote the budget- but as a non voting member & I was appalled that money that came from federal to apply toward IEPs for special ed students for example, was put in the general fund- assuming that the SPED students would benefit from a general program.- however that was illegal-but they did it anyway.
( also why Seattle couldn't apply for safety net SPED funds from state- because they could not track what they were spending their money on)</p>

<p>[url=<a href="http://saveseattleschools.blogspot.com/%5DSaveseattleschools%5B/url"&gt;http://saveseattleschools.blogspot.com/]Saveseattleschools[/url&lt;/a&gt;]
if you are interested in Seattle schools- you might be interested in this blog set up by a Pathfinder parent and others who are pretty happy with their schools- but are looking to bring more equity into the district</p>

<p>The one area, more than firing poor teachers that needs to be addressed is pay for performance:</p>

<p>UF study: Teacher merit pay boosts student standardized test scores
<a href="http://news.ufl.edu/2007/01/04/teacher-merit-pay/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://news.ufl.edu/2007/01/04/teacher-merit-pay/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Pay incentives for teachers had more positive effects on student test scores than such school improvement methods as smaller class sizes or stricter requirements for classroom attendance, said David Figlio, a UF economics professor. The study, by Figlio and UF economics professor Lawrence Kenny, has been accepted for publication in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Public Economics.</p>

<p>“This research provides the first systematic evidence of a relationship between individual teacher performance incentives and student achievement in the United States,” Figlio said. “We demonstrate that students learn more when teachers are given financial incentives to do a better job.”</p>

<p>Students at schools with teacher pay-for-performance programs scored an average of one to two percentage points higher on standardized tests than their peers at schools where no bonuses were offered, Figlio said.
“While many explanations have been offered for the disappointing performance of primary and secondary schools, one untested hypothesis lays the blame on there being little or no incentive for teachers to do a good job,” he said. “Good teachers make no more than uninspired, mediocre teachers.”</p>

<p>The UF study found the effects of these pay incentives were strongest in schools with students from the poorest families, perhaps because those schools have the most to gain from the incentive plan, Figlio said.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not long ago I attended a meeting of superintendents at the Council of Great City Schools. Data on the effects of various interventions on improving student performance and closing the minority, majority gap were presented. It was clear. The most effective practice was removing teachers who were not successful and replacing them with teachers who were. This often took added incentives to get teachers to move, often involving substantial bonuses, and paying for outcomes. Kids not improving, improved with a different teacher. One district was quite successful in closing the gap. I believe they had more minority AP participants than any other school district in the country, and one of the nations top ranked IB programs. I don't recall the name, I seem to remember it was in North Carolina.</p>

<p>Even though techers are primarily responsible for education, parents need to put more time with their own kids need including behavior, dicipline, food and needs for love. If a teachers is dealing with non educational issues, how in the world he/she would have time to teach to remaning students.</p>

<p>Parents hsould not suume that by paying they transfer their problems to techers. Teachers job is to mold good kids into thinkers. But if kid has a problem at home front. Is a techer responsible for soliving those issues when a parent has abdicated the responsibilty?</p>

<p>On other hand techers union are really bad as they protect bad techers who have no intention of helping kids too. But majority of techers are caring and are wonderful people who prepare our kids with love, insight and what is rightful.</p>

<p>Did any ever stop to think about MR. Jobs and Mr. Gates solution to the education problem? Why, more computers and software will solve everything!:)</p>

<p>Know your messenger. Know their motives. </p>

<p>I come into this debate late and after reading every lousy post all I can say is some people truly believe WMD existed and there was a tie in to 9/11. No amount of reason is going to change their minds. </p>

<p>When those anti unionists can prove without doubt or question that those in charge will always work for the betterment of children and be fair and HONEST people, the need for a union will melt away..... Till then they'll be around. </p>

<p>I always find it funny that the outrage addressed to side (unions) completely ignores similar behavor from the other (good?) side. It's just a part of our life in America anymore. All democrats are bad and all republicans are good and visa versa. We all do the same crap, but want to point out the other guy to draw attiention away from ourselves. Cause "we" never screwed around a day in our lives......as we post away......:)</p>

<p>I was at the education forum with Gates and Chris Gregoire the Wa governor & I really think that their motivation is that the tech companies in WA are having to go far afield for workers, not only out of state, but to India and the UK.
Bill- he doesn't dress as snazzy as Steve</p>

<p>IT would be so much better if students here had higher math and science standards- ( the state only requires 2 years of math and science for graduation & the math level isn't specified)
but then teh schools of education would have to make that a priority for training teachers- including training elementary teachers- so my daughter wouldn't have a 5th grade teacher who for instance told the class " We won't be doing much math this year- but we * will* be doing a lot of writing" (unfortunately that was one of the infamous teachers who just kept extending her personal leave- so my daughter not only didn't do math- but didn't have much writing either- as she had rotating subs all year)</p>

<p>Both Steve and Bill are college drop outs, what do they know...?</p>

<p>ahaha idad
I think Jobs was at Reed for a semester & so they count anyone who ever attended as alumni- just so they can claim him-</p>

<p>Gates and Jobs, have different K-12 backgrounds though- Lakeside is quite a rigorous private school, and I am sure that Bill received a strong education there- not sure how long he stayed at Harvard.- his parents must have been thrilled! :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Idad:</p>

<p>If I were ever to meet Steve and Bill, I just want to know what ticks them, how they were motivated, why they think in such smart ways. Above all, I admire Bill and Melinda Gates to donate all their money to make better life and trying to make USA more educationally competitive.</p>

<p>This American tradition of donating large some of money is one thing that keeps America better equipped than say rest of the world. Many Asians are still learning from this American generosity and this is the right thing.</p>

<p>Nothing is better then to tech a person how to fish then to just give her a fish.</p>

<p>Thank you, newparent, for that sweet post 108.</p>

<p>Your second sentence of that post is why pay-for-performance has limited application. It does not work in situations with Extreme circumstances. The fact that immediate circumstances indeed overtowered, was evident in the case I cited much earlier, regarding the content of the class' essays. In those cases, it barely matters how adept, competent, intelligent & dynamic the teacher is. That teacher will reach students who have a way of skirting their Extreme circumstances, but most such students have already left these schools by the time I arrive there. </p>

<p>On a separate topic, for those with money, there is already choice. They have:
--left that school, or
--left that district,
and
--are attending a private, or
--are finding a way to afford a tiny residence near a better-funded school/district, or
--are borrowing money or on Fin. Aid at a private, or
--are homeschooling, often for free with public money. The latter is NOT free, however, to the parent. The parent, if he/she is employable, is sacrificing earning power to stay at home with the child to teach that child, because no credentialed teacher is coming in on anything close to a daily basis. (Anywhere from every 20 days to every 50 days, depending on the charter agreement)</p>

<p>For those without money, and/or without fluency in English, public homeschooling is not an option, & the above moves are not options.</p>

<p>
[quote]
When those anti unionists can prove without doubt or question that those in charge will always work for the betterment of children and be fair and HONEST people, the need for a union will melt away..... Till then they'll be around.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This comes from the perspective that the union is the only thing that maintains a sense of fairness for the teachers. This is obviously wrong when good teachers have to be let go because the union prevents the dead wood from being touched. Just how grateful to the union will the teacher be who has busted his/her butt and produced results when he/she is told to pound the street while their co-workers who have no inclination to even try to educate the kids stay employed?</p>

<p>Opie,
Why should protection be confined to labor unions? Answer: It needn't be.</p>

<p>A professional teachers' association not connected with organized labor could be set up to provide competency-based hiring & firing, an evaluation process, a grievance process, a hearing process, etc.</p>

<p>I'm not nearly as appalled by the comments about labor unions as I am by the public's lack of understanding of the REALITIES of <em>urban</em> public education in heavily immigrant areas where there is little motivation to assimilate & enculturate.</p>

<p>I'm all for the privatization of public education, btw. But in that regard, I believe that not only families should have choice, but schools should have choice. Choice whether to accept a Psych case who is not being treated or not able yet to cope, self-manage in the standard classroom. Choice whether to segment based on ability, competency of the student (particularly with regard to literacy & fluency). Choice when it comes to curriculum. (Absurd that it's state-driven.) Choice when it comes to entrance exams & matriculation exams, year to year. THEN, competency based pay makes some sense, because the schools & teachers have SOME control over the product.</p>

<p>As it is, as I think Xiggi pointed out, the teachers are in a lose/lose position, in my view.</p>

<p>If the teacher who is good has the opportunity to start up a competing school down the street, he can stick it to the man without any help from the union.</p>

<p>"This comes from the perspective that the union is the only thing that maintains a sense of fairness for the teachers. This is obviously wrong when good teachers have to be let go because the union prevents the dead wood from being touched. Just how grateful to the union will the teacher be who has busted his/her butt and produced results when he/she is told to pound the street while their co-workers who have no inclination to even try to educate the kids stay employed?"</p>

<p>FF, the union did not decide to lay off your wife, the administration did. And could it possibly be your view is slightly jaded? All the others with more time teaching are deadwood? Your spouse is probably a great teacher. Alot of great teachers move around because of lack of funding. The funding problems aren't because of the union, and you really have absolutely no garantee your spouse would be held on without a union in place. Unless of course you're the prinicpal. ;)</p>

<p>I am sorry for the stress in your situation. These days nobody can afford to be out of work. Just remember the same people you're bashing now, might someday be the only people behind your spouse later. Unless of course only guilty people get accussed 100% of the time in the real world. You might find down the road that the organization you bash now, might be your spouse's only support (besides you) in a bad situation.</p>

<p>"A professional teachers' association not connected with organized labor could be set up to provide competency-based hiring & firing, an evaluation process, a grievance process, a hearing process, etc"</p>

<p>In other words a union? Or is it uncomfortable to be lumped in with truck drivers? ;) </p>

<p>As I said when the world works honestly and fairly, they'll be no need. Till then, I would venture there's a need. It's a very simple concept, everyone treated fairly and with honesty. Of course it will never happen, cause we're human.</p>

<p>"If the teacher who is good has the opportunity to start up a competing school down the street, he can stick it to the man without any help from the union."</p>

<p>Ever move a classroom? </p>

<p>So what if a talented teacher doesn't want to move to another school? She likes her classroom, kids and does a wonderful job, she has to move? </p>

<p>There tends to be this funny assumption that the people whom decide who is or isn't a good teacher are always qualified to do so. What happens if they aren't? What happens if they drive good people away from a district? </p>

<p>What happens if they have less than stellar motives? Having watched the educational process work for more than 30 years, I would be more worried about those who administer than those in the classrooms. There's always this assumption that those who make the rules are somehow smarter than those who have to follow. Taint always the case my droogilly's. :)</p>