Education Reform........

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Wht disadvantages do you see with this system out of interest compared to simply having different 'ability strands' in a common age group (which is how its undertaken in Europe - for instance in my high school in the UK the 200 or so students were split up into (approximately) 9 classes for each subject with 3 definite ability groups between them).

Probably the biggest downfall in that regard is that, for many systems, the ability to group by ability has been stripped away from the schools because (in general terms) it allegedly unfairly stigmatizes the student. We're extremely reluctant to say "you aren't cutting it" to anyone these days, no matter how badly they need to hear it.

Now at the HS level (say ages 15-18, US grades 9-12) that takes care of itself to a certain extent because of the different class choices within a subject area (i.e. taking "Consumer Math" vs taking "Adv. Algebra & Beginning Trig") but I confess that your earlier reference to 14 y/o in a class full of 12 y/o had me thinking more along middle school lines. In public schools that I'm familiar with in the US there's a lot less class selection (often none) offered to the students in this age group, there's simply "7th Grade Math" & you're all going to take it.

When you remove the option of grouping by ability levels then you're basically forced to bore the most capable to death or leave the least capable in the dust. At best they have to teach to the middle which screws both ends of the spectrum out of getting what they should be getting.

In other words, what you describe about grouping in the UK system really isn't an option for a lot of US systems any more, and that's one of the greatest mistakes I think we've made in this country in public education over the last 20-30 years.

Ultimately the biggest problem I have with social promotion is that we're teaching -- subtly and not so subtly -- that performance doesn't matter, eventually we'll get tired of you and move you along so don't worry too much about actually becoming competent in the work, or phrased differently "that's okay little Johnny, you don't worry about it, I'm okay & you're okay". Then when Johnny is 19 he discovers that his HS diploma isn't worth a bucket of warm spit if he can't add 5+3 or if he's reading on a 2nd grade level and that potential employers disagree that "we're all okay".

I've watched this close to first hand in recent years, as my niece struggled through math until the final couple of years of HS. Turns out she has a legitimate* learning disability in that no one even considered until she was about 15, meaning that she had been promoted from grade to grade from K through grade 10 in spite of having very little idea what the hell was going on in math. When her grades settled in the low 60s on a regular basis someone finally wised up enough to say "hmm, maybe something is going on here". Her last two years (she'll graduate from HS in May) were in a remedial math program that found an old classmate of mine now teaching that class actually making up a ton of ground with her & a lot of other kids. She'll never be a math whiz but with identification of the issues & a tailored course most of them are now at least capable of functioning on an adult level in math. Of course if she had been grouped with those same kids earlier in her academic life & the same pace and presentation used then we're likely up to speed a lot sooner ... but that wasn't ever an option since the system isn't willing to risk hurting someone's feelings by saying "y'know, you kind of suck at math, maybe we need to do some things differently to see if that'll help".

* Legitimate in this case means that not only was someone willing to label it as such but also that the explanation of the LD and the evidence used to diagnosis it was sufficient to convince even a confirmed skeptic like me

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Based on the publicly available numbers that I found, it looks as though most of the schools in the system are in the highest tier in the state, and not a single school in the system graded out lower than a B in the past several years, which looked to relate to being somewhere around "average" to "a bit better than average". Now as with the case here in Georgia, sometimes being among the best is still akin to damning with faint praise, I'm not as familiar with what the average or median caliber in Florida really is one way or the other.

Can you share that link? I'm interested in reading about Forsyth county.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Can you share that link? I'm interested in reading about Forsyth county.

You mean Forysth Co, GA? (we were talking about Florida up the thread)
If so, Forsyth Co. schools are about 10% better than the state average at the HS level, significantly better (as much as 40%) at the MS level, and a good bit better at the lower grades as well.

The Georgia info (or most of it afaik) should be at
The Governor's Office of Student Achievement

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You mean Forysth Co, GA? (we were talking about Florida up the thread)
If so, Forsyth Co. schools are about 10% better than the state average at the HS level, significantly better (as much as 40%) at the MS level, and a good bit better at the lower grades as well.

The Georgia info (or most of it afaik) should be at
The Governor's Office of Student Achievement

Thanks. Yes, I live in Forsyth county, GA and always thought the PS was pretty good (kids are in elementary but one will be in middleschool next year). Appreciate the link, will dig into it.

[lungs]

Making a case for privatizing state universities

The possibility of low-cost, Internet-based instruction by English-speaking, low-paid professors in, say, India, is real

That ought to improve the quality of education.

[sterlingice]

It worked for the call center industry...

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lungs

Making a case for privatizing state universities



That ought to improve the quality of education.

April Fool's Fail

Posted: Saturday, March 31, 2012 6:15 am

[tarcone]

Jon you are wrong about schools ability to group. That is called tracking and it happens in the U.S.
At our middle school the kids are placed in one of 3 math classes. The kids take a test in 5th grade and are placed based on that, as well as, a couple other factors. This tracks those kids.
Special Ed kids are routinely placed in lower level classes. Again, tracking.

School districts offer a program called "Parents as Teachers". Districts send professionals into homes of parents that sign up. The professional checks the development of the child and give tips to parents on how to prepare their child.

As for social promotion, it has to happen. When parents do not put any importance on education, their child follows suit. You have heard the saying 'You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink". This applies. So in this instance, do you want that 15 year old boy in class with 10 year olds? Does that help the 10 year olds or the 15 year old? And if the child doesnt care about school and neither do the parent(s), how is this the schools fault?
In our district, social promotion happens after a child spends 2 years in the same grade.
As for your niece, low 60s is passing. And, unfortunately, many parents game the system. And so many kids have IEPs, that a kid will slip through the cracks because educators are tired of handing out the "Golden Ticket" that an IEP is. And where were her parents? Why didnt they request to have her tested for a disability? Why just blame the schools? To me that is the parents fault. If their child was struggling in Math, why werent they getting help or getting her tested? Again. not the schools fault.

You are so willing to blame the system, that you dont even look to where the problem begins. As a parent, you know how much learning occurs in the 1st 3 years of a childs life. That is at home with the parents. Too many parents dont care or dont have the ability to raise a child and the child suffers.

This goes way deeper then the educational system. And narrow thinking only makes things worse.
Please get your facts straight before stating how poor our educational system is. In fact, I would say it is pretty darn good.


Coltcrazy, Tenure is very important. Tenure does not protect a teacher from being dismissed. It gives a teacher due process. As you know, teachers sign a one year contract every year. And tenure does protect that 25 year vet fromn being dismissed for no reason. Well, the reason would be that the district could hire 2 teachers for that same package. it falls on administration for keeping bad teachers around. No one seems to get that. If a principal does the paper work, the teacher will be gone. But most principals dont want to be seen as a failure because they hired a bad teacher. Most times they pass the trash or just let them teach out their last few years.

How do you determine when a teacher is good or not? Each year a new group of kids enters their classroom. And no two groups are alike. How do you compare one year to the next?
And what about those teachers that teach subjects where there is no state test? What then?
Do you know how much it costs to administer a state test? In Missouri, we have the MAP test. Originally, there was going to be a test for each subject. Guess what? It wasnt financially viable.

I really get tired of people blaming the teachers. When there are so many other factors that are to blame. It starts in the home and ends with the government. 95% it isnt teachers.

[Havok]

i don't blame the teachers, i blame 'the blob', aka, the teachers union. Which cares more about providing f'ing TENURE, which is the biggest scam in all the world, then they do about providing kids with a good education. Ever seen the process a principal has to go through to fire a teacher? It's a dam nightmare and isn't worth the money/headache most of the time. You can thank tenure for that. I wish i had a link to the flow-chart of what was involved in firing a teacher, it made me want to hurt kittens when i saw it.

Good teachers should make MORE money, bad teachers should be fired. It happens in every other industry, except government employee unions. Where it doesn't matter how good you are, it only matters how LONG you've done it.

Just saw a number not to long ago that said something along the lines of --- It costs 17k per student in public schools, and like 6k per student in private schools. (i think this was in D.C.) Guess which one gives a WAY better education?

Education needs to be reformed in the worst way. And for starters, we need to take it out of the hands of the f'ing government, which doesn't run ANYTHING efficiently. It always turns into a bloated, disgusting, slow-moving train-wreck where 3 people do the same job and it takes 5 people to sign off on something rather miniscule.

And yes, i have 3 teachers in my family, one being my brother's mother in law who i like every much. But she is so brainwashed by the union that when you present her with the facts, she simply refuses to believe them. Thankfully, her daughter, which is my sister in law, thinks the whole system is a tragic joke and can tell you stories about pathetic teachers with tenure and massive government bureaucracies that make teaching almost impossible at times.

In closing, teachers are good, teachers unions and government bureaucracies suck.

[tarcone]

Tenure gives teachers due process. It does protect teachers. But teachers are in an industry that is supported by tax dollars, not profit. So a great teacher in their 25th year is protected from not being re-hired because it is cheaper to hire someone just out of college.
If a principal wants to get rid of a tenured teacher it isnt that difficult. Sure there is paperwork. Sure it takes a little time. But all a principal has to do to get rid of a tenured teacher is go into their class, document things, provide proof of incompetency, and bang, the teacher is gone. It could take as little time as 30 days.
Or they can do like the principal of my daughters elementary school did. Put all the knuckleheads in that teachers class, make life miserable, so the quit.
Biut Tenure is very important. This is not a for profit operation. Schools are run at the whim of how much revenue a state takes in. A 25 year teacher is worth as much as 3 1st year teachers. What would a district want to do? Keep one teacher or 3? This is not the business world.

And how do you define a way better education? School is what you make of it. If a child is motivated and wants to be educated, and has support at home they will be educated where ever they go. And they will get a good education.

It is hard to compare public education with private education. Public education systems get ALL children. The child that get sexually molested every night, or their mom is prostituting herself for drugs in front of the child or the dad is in prison and mom is a drug addict and the child has to care for her 3 other siblings. You dont get that type of child in many private institutions.

Public schools are not as bad as you guys make them out to be. Remember it all starts at home. If there is support and stability, a child has a way better chance to succeed. As shown by the a lot of the private schools.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Tenure gives teachers due process. It does protect teachers. But teachers are in an industry that is supported by tax dollars, not profit. So a great teacher in their 25th year is protected from not being re-hired because it is cheaper to hire someone just out of college.
If a principal wants to get rid of a tenured teacher it isnt that difficult. Sure there is paperwork. Sure it takes a little time. But all a principal has to do to get rid of a tenured teacher is go into their class, document things, provide proof of incompetency, and bang, the teacher is gone. It could take as little time as 30 days.
Or they can do like the principal of my daughters elementary school did. Put all the knuckleheads in that teachers class, make life miserable, so the quit.
Biut Tenure is very important. This is not a for profit operation. Schools are run at the whim of how much revenue a state takes in. A 25 year teacher is worth as much as 3 1st year teachers. What would a district want to do? Keep one teacher or 3? This is not the business world.

And how do you define a way better education? School is what you make of it. If a child is motivated and wants to be educated, and has support at home they will be educated where ever they go. And they will get a good education.

It is hard to compare public education with private education. Public education systems get ALL children. The child that get sexually molested every night, or their mom is prostituting herself for drugs in front of the child or the dad is in prison and mom is a drug addict and the child has to care for her 3 other siblings. You dont get that type of child in many private institutions.

Public schools are not as bad as you guys make them out to be. Remember it all starts at home. If there is support and stability, a child has a way better chance to succeed. As shown by the a lot of the private schools.

Great post.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Havok

Good teachers should make MORE money, bad teachers should be fired.

I Just saw a number not to long ago that said something along the lines of --- It costs 17k per student in public schools, and like 6k per student in private schools. (i think this was in D.C.) Guess which one gives a WAY better education?

How would you define a good teacher in a bad school?

[molson]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Sure there is paperwork. Sure it takes a little time. But all a principal has to do to get rid of a tenured teacher is go into their class, document things, provide proof of incompetency, and bang, the teacher is gone. It could take as little time as 30 days.

You're leaving out (at least) the appeal to the administrative agency, and the appeal of that decision to the state appellate courts. Even when you win at the end, the expense makes the original decision arguably cost-prohibitive, which I think is the point. (and if you lose.....) There are entire divisions at state AG's offices dedicated to defending these firing (for both teachers and other classified/non-at will employees), and they can be pretty risk-averse (can't blame 'em for being cautious, as usually they're at-will themselves themselves) when it comes to advising whether it's OK to fire or not.

Tenure probably protects good teachers, but not let's not pretend it never protects any bad teachers. I'm sure whether the good outweighs the bad varies from state to state and county to county, and individual case to individual case.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Havok

Just saw a number not to long ago that said something along the lines of --- It costs 17k per student in public schools, and like 6k per student in private schools. (i think this was in D.C.) Guess which one gives a WAY better education?

I'm sorry, but citing Cato Institute studies isn't a good way to make your point. There's just a wee bit of bias there.

As for the rest of your post, it's a pretty ill-informed rant. Maybe your brother's MIL isn't "brainwashed". It's far more likely she knows a shitload more than you do.

You simply can't wave your hand and treat this like a profit-making opportunity and think everything will go away. Teachers give up a lot of potential income to teach kids and, as such, they probably deserve a lot more job security. As for tenure, thank goodness there's a due process for removing a teacher. When my wife was teaching a class of kids, all of whom were of a different race, if she hadn't had those protections, the parents would have gotten her fired simply because she wasn't the right color.

Education is provided to all children, regardless of location or ability. We've seen in numerous industries that private enterprise does an absolute shit job when it has to perform similar services. That's why utilities are only quasi-private enterprises - because if they weren't, only the rich/convenient homes would have phones or power. Privatization doesn't work well for this business model on a wide scale. Sure, if you can cherry-pick your kids, not provide any transportation since everyone is local, have your building donated from a neighboring religious institution, your costs are going to be lower. When you're busing in kids from a 40 mile radius and have to pay for the land/building, things are going to get a LOT more expensive.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by molson

You're leaving out (at least) the appeal to the administrative agency, and the appeal of that decision to the state appellate courts. Even when you win at the end, the expense makes the original decision arguably cost-prohibitive, which I think is the point. (and if you lose.....) There are entire divisions at state AG's offices dedicated to defending these firing (for both teachers and other classified/non-at will employees), and they can be pretty risk-averse (can't blame 'em for being cautious, as usually they're at-will themselves themselves) when it comes to advising whether it's OK to fire or not.

Tenure probably protects good teachers, but not let's not pretend it never protects any bad teachers. I'm sure whether the good outweighs the bad varies from state to state and county to county, and individual case to individual case.

This is stuff Im not sure about.
But like I said, principals can make bad teachers go away.

I would blame administrators more for bad teachers sticking around then tenure. Principals dont want to admit they made a bad hire, or they dont want to get rid of that teacher who is only a few years away from retirement. Or they just pass the buck. Maybe they suggest to the teacher they should look for another district and they will get a good reference. I see this more then tenure protecting bad teachers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

things are going to get a LOT more expensive.

Which doesn't seem to matter much since they can just rape the taxpayer and do a shit job with their money.

Happily, the taxpayers seem to be getting a little bit tired of that constant screwing.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by tarcone

This is stuff Im not sure about.
But like I said, principals can make bad teachers go away.

I would blame administrators more for bad teachers sticking around then tenure. Principals dont want to admit they made a bad hire, or they dont want to get rid of that teacher who is only a few years away from retirement. Or they just pass the buck. Maybe they suggest to the teacher they should look for another district and they will get a good reference. I see this more then tenure protecting bad teachers.

First, great initial post.

Second, I think your second point is an important one. As far as I know, teachers do not automatically receive tenure upon hiring--they usually receive it when their contracts get renewed after a certain number of years. So the problem is not tenure protecting all [i]bad[/] teachers, but rather: 1.) bad teachers who receive tenure despite their lack of skill; and 2.) and teachers that merely give up after receiving tenure. Tenure has nothing to do with the first category--which I suspect makes up the bulk of bad teachers--that's a failure of administrators to rid themselves of the teacher when they had the chance to.

Third, it's not clear why firing teachers is a prerequisite to hiring a new one. If schools really think a teacher has given up after receiving tenure, can't they take them out of the classroom and hire a replacement? Yes, this might create an incentive for teachers to goof off and lose classroom duties, but I suspect the number of teachers that would take advantage of that loophole is not that large. People often focus on the horrors of the New York "rubber room", where tenured teachers schools want to get rid of get paid for doing nothing, yet the vast majority of teachers in the NYC school system haven't simply abdicated their duties to get out of doing work.

Fourth, standard economic theory would suggest that unless we increase teacher pay to offset the loss in tenure protection, we will actually wind up with a much lower pool of qualified teachers than we already have. Merit pay is often proposed, but it's unclear: 1.) that would make up for the loss in tenure; and 2.) that we have any effective way of evaluating teachers.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I'm sorry, but citing Cato Institute studies isn't a good way to make your point. There's just a wee bit of bias there.

I'd also imagine those studies are highly susceptible to selection bias. The students going to private schools are more likely to have parents invested in their educations--after all, they took the step of sending them to private school. It's unrealistic to think that schools are going to do all the work--parents matter a lot, too. So, it shouldn't be surprising that schools with a population of students going home to dedicated parents are going to have better results than schools that don't.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Which doesn't seem to matter much since they can just rape the taxpayer and do a shit job with their money.

Happily, the taxpayers seem to be getting a little bit tired of that constant screwing.

I dont want to go back through the whole thread, so I will ask here. What do you want? What would you like to see in education?

[Barkeep49]

Something important:

There are far far more teachers than doctors or lawyers or other professionals that we train highly and who command great societal prestige and great pay. The sheer number of teachers means to a certain extent we're always going to have quite a few bad teachers in the mix, simply because we need so many teachers. Technology might be the answer here to a certain extent, but even with better training and better pay I just think there aren't enough talented people to fill all the classrooms out there.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I dont want to go back through the whole thread, so I will ask here. What do you want? What would you like to see in education?

Certainly not more sex education... look how appropriately he used the word "rape"

[JPhillips]

I've been on the lead abatement train for a few years now,

The paper finds that elevated levels of blood lead in early childhood adversely impact standardized test performance, even when controlling for community and school characteristics. The results imply that public health policy that reduced childhood lead levels in the 1990s was responsible for modest but statistically significant improvements in test performance in the 2000s, lowering the share of children scoring unsatisfactory on standardized tests by 1 to 2 percentage points.

It's the quickest and easiest thing we can do to improve education in the inner cities. It would also put a bunch of people to work. Too bad our political system will keep it from happening.

[Galaxy]

Private school vs. public school: Only bad people send their kids to private school. - Slate Magazine

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Private school vs. public school: Only bad people send their kids to private school. - Slate Magazine

Am I right in presuming thats a news parody site like the Onion?

[Passacaglia]

No, it's real.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Am I right in presuming thats a news parody site like the Onion?

The Slate Pitch Twitter Meme

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've been on the lead abatement train for a few years now,

It's the quickest and easiest thing we can do to improve education in the inner cities. It would also put a bunch of people to work. Too bad our political system will keep it from happening.

Sounds like a science based solution. We can't have that.