Education Reform........

[Barkeep49]

If teachers are going to go to 12 months of teaching I think schools should go year round. I don't think there's enough legitimate work to be done in the summer absent of students. However, if you switch to a year round schedule, which would give students the same number of days off, I think it could be entirely appropriate to do much of what you're talking about then. Simply because the planning you do would be implemented sooner.

I have no problem with the idea of teachers teaching 12 months a year, though I'm sure most would, but I think you need to re-examine the school calendar if you're going to do it.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Dola:

I would imagine that many of the teachers that would have a problem with this are the ones that take the job not cause they're good at it or that it is rewarding, but because they get 3 months off.

I don't think that's true. I know of several teachers I consider excellent who would have no problem going to 12 month years assuming compensation rose accordingly. I do agree, however, that the majority of teachers who would out right refuse this idea, even if compensation were to rise, are mediocre or worse.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I don't think that's true. I know of several teachers I consider excellent who would have no problem going to 12 month years assuming compensation rose accordingly. I do agree, however, that the majority of teachers who would out right refuse this idea, even if compensation were to rise, are mediocre or worse.

That's what I'm trying to say. It was my assumption that compensation would increase if hours increased.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by wade moore

That's what I'm trying to say. It was my assumption that compensation would increase if hours increased.

Ok. I'm not sure that's what JW was saying, however.

[AZSpeechCoach]

I strongly agree with points 1 and 2 of JW's post. If students and the surrounding communities were more supportive of education and held accountable for their work and behavior (or lack thereof), then much of the stress of being a teacher would be lessened.

[JW]

A couple of points.

Yes, pay teachers more, a lot more, to work 12 months.

Second, I wasn't assuming year-round school, and I do think there is a enough work to keep teachers occupied. Most teachers by necessity really spend very little time doing detailed planning. In many Asian and European systems, otoh, one hour planning for each hour in the classroom is considered necessary to good planning. So departmental planning and individual lesson planning would be very beneficial and could take a lot of time if done right.

There is also a great deal more bureaucracy in schools due to such things as No Child Left Behind. Writing annual school improvement plans for NCLB would be a good task for a group of teachers to undertake. Those plans would be much more meaningful if done with the full attention and input of teachers. In many cases they are done now by one or two people, often with little input from the faculty.

Back to year-round school, most plans I've seen don't really add many more days in school for a student. Instead they spread the days out during the year. And summer is now used by many teachers to get additional degrees or to complete certifications, because in many areas night classes are not easily available. But I would have no real problem with year-round school.

[wade moore]

From what I know with JW, I agree.

At the same time I agree with Barkeep.

(in reference to amount of work)

I think that based on what teachers do right now, there may not be enough work to fill a summer.

However, I think that (out of necessity) teachers skip on a lot of things they should be doing. I know that my fiance spent the month between summer school and the regular school year doing GOOD lesson plans for the first couple of months of school and it paid MAJOR dividends. Now because of the many other things on her plate, the rest of the months are back to the rushed lesson plans and she says she can feel the difference.

That's not to mention many other things that they either just don't do or have to do half-assed because there just isn't enough time.

[Barkeep49]

JW my argument is that only so much planning is realistic during summer. If you plan too much you become like the teachers who have done the same thing for 30 years. I would argue that effective planning involves knowing your students and so I find myself veering into completely different directions based on the class I have this year verses last year. However turning teaching into an office job for 3 straight months a year is NOT something which I think will lead to attracting better teachers, whatever the pay. That's why I suggested spreading out those months through-out the year. The idea was not to get more instruction time for students, but instead to spread out the bureaucratic work. I don't disagree with your idea, I just think doing it for 3 months straight (or really 2 and a half as you've laid it out) during the summer is a bad idea.

I hear what you're saying about night classes, and I would argue that online classes can take the place to a certain extent. Also, a great deal of continuing education currently, at least in Illinois, is done through week long workshops, or even shorter, so having 3 weeks spread out throughout the year for this sort of teacher improvement would not hinder teachers taking focused classes for recertification purposes. If the change became widespread enough colleges would even learn to offer 3 week intensive courses for more academic work.

However, I frankly think the 12 month teacher is less likely than the idea of changing how teachers are educated and that is but a dream.

[JW]

I understand your point, but it isn't really three months. With increased school years, school starts in the middle of August in Louisiana. My first official day of work this year was Aug. 10. I know that isn't true for all areas, but I think most districts are really already having 9.5-month school years already. So you're really only talking adding a couple of months work if you give teachers a two-week holiday. There is also summer school. You need teachers for that. And tutoring for high-stakes test retakes in the summer, and administering those tests. And a lot of other things. Teachers could also do some administrative tasks in the summer that are currently done by central officer personnel. So there are things to keep teachers occupied. As for the 12-month school year you're talking about, I like the idea. A lot of people don't, including a lot of parents.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

However, I frankly think the 12 month teacher is less likely than the idea of changing how teachers are educated and that is but a dream.

I agree 12 month teacher is less likely. I would think most teachers do NOT want to teach 12 months and most parents like the summer off for their kids (I know I do). I reiterate, the 1-3 months off (however you want to calculate it) is a vastly undervalued perk of the teaching profession.

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Our society equates a lot of prestige with money. So while there are some tangible benefits that you mention I think the lack of prestige is as big of hindrance to attracting the kind of teacher we want as anything. It amazed me when I was in college the negative reactions I would get from people when I told them I was studying education. I was told time and time again "You're too smart to be a teacher". That sort of attitude needs to change and if it's not through raising teacher salaries we need to figure out some other way to make it as prestigious to be a teacher as a doctor or lawyer.

I think teaching will never be equivalent to the medical profession, just won't happen (nor should it).

However, I believe teaching has far more prestige than you would think. As a computer consultant, I do make more than the average teacher (see above calculations), however I am *positive* that in 10 years time, there will be more kids remembering their teachers (some for the rest of their lives) than my business clients remembering me.

Although not prestige = $, this is, nevertheless, prestige most common professions would love to have (ex. accountants, secretaries, computer programmers etc.).

[Barkeep49]

This is not prestige you describe Edward. It's impact. I think that the average teacher does have more impact than most people in other professions. That still does not make teaching prestigious.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think teaching will never be equivalent to the medical profession, just won't happen (nor should it).

Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

This is not prestige you describe Edward. It's impact. I think that the average teacher does have more impact than most people in other professions. That still does not make teaching prestigious.

Agreed. Edward seems to simultaneously do two things. He overstates how much "prestige" there is with teaching - let's face it, there is very little prestige in the communities.. you hear a ton more "teachers suck, what the hell are teachers doing these days, etc" than anything else.

I also think he overestimates the 3 months off and how much of a decision factor it is. Is it nice? Yes. Do tons of people choose the profession because of that? No.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Please elaborate.

I think my statement is self explanatory and obvious. Can you detail your thoughts on why teaching should be as pretigious as a medical doctor profession? Maybe I am missing a nuance here?

Originally Posted by wade moore

Agreed. Edward seems to simultaneously do two things. He overstates how much "prestige" there is with teaching - let's face it, there is very little prestige in the communities.. you hear a ton more "teachers suck, what the hell are teachers doing these days, etc" than anything else.

I also think he overestimates the 3 months off and how much of a decision factor it is. Is it nice? Yes. Do tons of people choose the profession because of that? No.

Lets not talk about the 3 months off (unless we really want to go over that again). That's been covered in numerous threads above, we agree to disagree ... and as a concession to the earlier threads, my quote was "1-3 months off (however you want to calculate it)".

I don't think I've overstating the "prestige". There is far more impact/prestige/self-gratification in teaching AND outward appreciation (to teachers) than there are in most typical jobs.

My hypothesis is that teaching actually has MORE "prestige" than a typical job ... just not when compared to the elite jobs.

[Barkeep49]

Edward, even if we agree, for the sake of argument, that it has more prestige than a typical job, is that good enough? I would argue no. If we want elite people than it needs to be as prestigous as an elite job.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think my statement is self explanatory and obvious. Can you detail your thoughts on why teaching should be as pretigious as a medical doctor profession? Maybe I am missing a nuance here?

Yes, you are missing a nuance. Teaching should be as prestigious, or at least VERY close to teaching. And should pay close to as well to. Teachers impact more of our society on a daily basis than doctors do and the better they are the more of a positive impact they can have.

Lets not talk about the 3 months off (unless we really want to go over that again). That's been covered in numerous threads above, we agree to disagree ... and as a concession to the earlier threads, my quote was "1-3 months off (however you want to calculate it)".

I don't think I've overstating the "prestige". There is far more impact/prestige/self-gratification in teaching AND outward appreciation (to teachers) than there are in most typical jobs.

My hypothesis is that teaching actually has MORE "prestige" than a typical job ... just not when compared to the elite jobs.

Your continued conversation in this thread continues to tell me that you are, to be blunt, totally clueless on the teaching profession, how it works, what it is like, and how it is perceived in society.

I would argue that teaching is LESS presitigious than your typical job fwiw. I think it's viewed as a job for women and those that can't do "real jobs". There is the say, "those who can't do, teach" for a reason - because people look down on the teaching profession.

Disclaimer: I clearly do not feel this way, but much of society does.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Yes, you are missing a nuance. Teaching should be as prestigious, or at least VERY close to teaching. And should pay close to as well to. Teachers impact more of our society on a daily basis than doctors do and the better they are the more of a positive impact they can have.

Your continued conversation in this thread continues to tell me that you are, to be blunt, totally clueless on the teaching profession, how it works, what it is like, and how it is perceived in society.

I would argue that teaching is LESS presitigious than your typical job fwiw. I think it's viewed as a job for women and those that can't do "real jobs". There is the say, "those who can't do, teach" for a reason - because people look down on the teaching profession.

Disclaimer: I clearly do not feel this way, but much of society does.

Clueless is a little harsh. Like I said, teaching is already considered prestigious. Just not as prestigious.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/new...4_v3_iss01.pdf

Maybe its your specific situation? Or do you have studies to offer that show otherwise?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Clueless is a little harsh. Like I said, teaching is already considered prestigious. Just not as prestigious.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/new...4_v3_iss01.pdf

Maybe its your specific situation? Or do you have studies to offer that show otherwise?

I'd love to see more details on this study, like the wordings of the question and otherwise..

I'm not going on any studies, i'm going on my real life experience... In my real-life experience, Teachers are generally underappreciated and looked down upon as taking "the easy job" as you have done in this thread continuously.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I'd love to see more details on this study, like the wordings of the question and otherwise..

I'm not going on any studies, i'm going on my real life experience... In my real-life experience, Teachers are generally underappreciated and looked down upon as taking "the easy job" as you have done in this thread continuously.

Sorry, I don't know any additional details of the study. Unless someone can point out other studies showing otherwise, lets just accept it for what it is ... a specific, semi-valid, data point in our discussion that the teaching profession is viewed 'externally' as prestigious, more so than many common jobs but not as much as a medical doctor.

I do object to your mis-characterization of me. Throughout this thread, there are 2 things I wanted to point out

(1) Teachers are paid average wages, and when factoring in other benefits (ex. 1-3 months off), their 'total compensation and benefits' are 'extra' ordinary.

(2) The teaching profession is viewed by many with respect already.

EDIT. I will take your response as a begruding acceptance that I do have something new/worthwhile to contribute to this thread.

[Edward64]

http://www.cumminghome.com/news30041...he-state.shtml

FWIW, regardless of what people think of no child left behind, standardized testing etc. just thought I would give kudos to my children's teachers.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

I have been an educator of high school students for 11 years, and have coached varsity level in two different sports since 1991 (not both at the same time, only crossed over for 2 years). My question to you is, what would you do to improve the American Public Education system.

(Most of these come from disparate differences between the UK and US education system - I'm biased towards liking what I grew up with and I apologise in advance for that, but in my defense its fairly natural imho)

No Child Left Behind?
For the Florida state (no idea if this is a country wide thing) I'd remove the "No Child Left Behind" system.

In my area the amount of kids who have been 'left behind' by this system is downright scarey - but more so than the fact that education is failing these kids and allowing them to drift behind their age range in some cases by 3 years is the pyschological harm you're giving them.

Kids who are 15 should NOT be expected to socialise with 12 years olds, their attention span and interests differ wildly and so you're basically asking for trouble by putting them in a situation where they won't have many friends and are more likely to cause trouble.

On top of this once they reach puberty they're going to be having 'other interests' which their classmates shouldn't be having until much much later, they won't be able to share these feelings and confusions with their friends because of the age gap and so again this seems to me to be asking for problems (either by leaving the child isolated or introducing his younger peer group to such issues at an age where they aren't ready for such things).

Compulsory PE
I was shocked to discover that my daughter won't be given compulsory Physical Education at High School - kids worldwide are struggling against a growing problem with obesity and not encouraging exercise seems very foolish to me (I was even more amazed that my kids current school doesn't have an indoor gym for them to use during the heat of the day, but thats a seperate issue).

[Barkeep49]

Marc, I'd be interested in hearing more about aspects of the British school system that you think America would benefit from.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If you would, can you share your view on what a teacher should be paid? Not to further this discussion but to put closure to it.

As someone who wanted to be a teacher when he was younger but failed to obtain the grades to do so, I think that teachers salaries are far too low on pretty much a 'global' level (ie. in all the countries I've experience of - parts of europe, US, UK).

The impact of teaching upon society is huge - not just in the skills of workers, but also their attitudes to each other and their approach to life. As such I sincerely believe they should be recompensed decently for their work.

(on the 'holiday' front in the UK at least teachers spend a fair part of their holiday period preparing plans for the next year coming so while it looks great on paper and is better than most other professions its not like they sit on their todd all the time)

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Marc, I'd be interested in hearing more about aspects of the British school system that you think America would benefit from.

Ok here goes for a few more ...

Introduction of half-term holidays
In England its accepted that kids need a break after a couple of months of schooling, for this reason we have what are called 'half-term holidays'.

These are generally a week long and give the kids a chance to blow off steam and relax before coming back to complete their term. This also shortens the summer holiday slightly meaning kids don't get quite so restless during that period.

This would be largely impractical in America however because of the very restricted holidays which are given to your workers (in England 20-25 days holiday (+ around 14 days public holidays) is standard for all workers, plus if your kids are ill you're protected by law and allowed to have time off to look after them without taking holiday etc.). I can't speak accurately about how things work in America on this front (as I still work for SI/SEGA and retained my old allowances) but I know holiday time is lesser over here.

Smaller Schools
The average school size in England is tiny compared to the ones in America. For purposes of comparison the largest school my kids went to in England had probably around 600 students in total and the largest I ever attended was my high school which had 1000 students.

These smaller size schools allow both students and teachers to build closer relationships and ensure that there is less annonymity.

This helps keep kids on their toes because they know the teachers know who they are and if they're good/bad kids etc., but it also helps teachers because they know the kids and how to motivate them better imho.

Allow a bit of 'risk' for Gods sake
In English schools from a fairly early age (around 10+ when I did it) you handle acids, use bunsen burners, disect animals and do all manner of dubious stuff in the name of science (when I was 15 I fired an air-rifle in class to measure velocity for instance - great fun ).

American schools appear a little molly coddling from this sort of thing which restricts both what can be taught and also how interesting it is to students (particularly boys who love that sort of thing imho).

..
finally
..

Actual Teaching
To be quite frank I've been very impressed with the teachers I've come across so far in America and think they're just as competant and plan their lessons as well as those I've seen anywhere else (within the other constraints I've indicated about class/school size etc.).

[Edward64]

Just thought I would bump this thread. Today's AJC had a pretty disturbing article. EOCT stands for 'end of course test'. The article was on students that got 'A for class, failed EOCT'.

COVER STORY: ARE SCHOOLS INFLATING GRADES? Marks from teachers, test scores vary widely | ajc.com

NOT MATCHING UP

Student grades in core high school classes didn’t track their results on a state standardized test given at the end of that course. Here’s how the area’s largest public school systems did overall on three of the eight subjects the state examined.


…………..Failed………Failed….A for class,

…………..EOCT………..class…..failed EOCT

BIOLOGY

Atlanta ……64.2%……….17.5% ……….24.6%

Clayton ……73.3%……….20.8% ……….32.9%

Cobb……….32.3%……….14.1%…………4.4%

DeKalb……..56.3%……….21.4%…………9.4%

Fulton……..39.8%……….15.9%…………4.1%

Gwinnett……29.4%……….13.9% ………..2.2%


GEOMETRY..

Atlanta ……67.9%……….17.1% ……….20.7%

Clayton ……76.6%……….19.7% ……….30.4%

Cobb ……….9.9%……….10.8%…………1.6%

DeKalb: ……65.6%……….16.9% ……….38.2%

Fulton……..35.6%……….12.1%…………4.4%

Gwinnett……22.7%……….10.3%…………1.9%

ENGLISH

Atlanta ……51.2%……….20.3%……….19.6%

Clayton ……51.8%……….14.6%……….18.6%

Cobb……….23.1%……….14.3% ……….1.5%

DeKalb……..44.6%……….19.3% ……….9.1%

Fulton……..27.7%……….13.8% ……….2.5%

Gwinnett: ….20%…………11.1% ……….1.3%

Source: Governor’s Office of Student Achievement

My county is not listed although I did live in Gwinnett for a while (which did the best). The article suggested grade inflation but didn't give any definitive analysis as to why ... hopefully more analysis will be forthcoming.

Also, currently travelling to NY which is undergoing budget cuts.

Approximately 23,000 jobs could be cut on top of 3,000 cuts Bloomberg announced in November, officials said. In addition, the $400 property tax rebate will be axed but homeowners will not be hit with new property taxes.

The city faces a $4 billion deficit in 2010, falling tax revenues and deep cuts in city and state funding.

About 15,000 of the possible job cuts belong to school employees; mostly teachers, according to city officials.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

My county is not listed although I did live in Gwinnett for a while (which did the best). The article suggested grade inflation but didn't give any definitive analysis as to why ... hopefully more analysis will be forthcoming.

Well, if your paper is anything like the News & Observer, they are basically a mouthpiece for the local BoE, and will take anything they say as gospel without investigating the facts or questioning them. It's up to the parents to do the research and digging and point out how insane they are being.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Well, if your paper is anything like the News & Observer, they are basically a mouthpiece for the local BoE, and will take anything they say as gospel without investigating the facts or questioning them.

Not quite the opposite here but this wasn't a p.r. piece by any means. It's one of several recent articles in the past couple of weeks really highlighting how screwed up things are here, taking shots at systems that appear to be too lax in grading (too many sets of A's and failing EoCT's) and even a few that appear to be possibly too stringent (too many F's and hardly any failing EoCT's).

[AZSpeechCoach]

At my school, we are under intense pressure to eliminate D and F grades. It doesn't matter how low the student's achievement is; we are pushed to find ways to give them at least a C, we are warned that we will be "held accountable" for grades, and told that we shouldn't consider attendence when calculating a grade. "Good teachers only count the work they turn in, not what they don't turn in."

[Edward64]

From another thread
Health Care Reform - Universal Healthcare - Front Office Football Central

there is a discussion on whether our socialized PS education system works. My take is it works okay and for me, factoring where I live etc., its works pretty good as evidenced with test scores and such.

Revrew, on the other hand, believes "it is clearly flawed to the point of being a failed system". I invited him to this thread (so we don't sidetrack the healthcare debate) to start a healthy debate and give him an opportunity to present his POV.

However, I am interested in hearing from the educators on this board on the topic. Your thoughts?

Quote:

Hey, I accept your "blended" and "nuanced" apology. Thanks.

Once again, to be absolutely clear, I am not saying socialism as a government works well. I am saying that the US PS eduction is doing okay (and we are certainly better for it). Lets move this over to the other thread if you care to prove your point or offer any other plausible alternatives.

[gstelmack]

Yup. Too many discipline problems allowed in the classroom that take time away from the kids who want to learn, too much of a focus on "life skills" instead of actual important subject matter, too much of a focus on standardized testing that leads to "teaching to the test", too much of a focus on diversity (actually they're hiding test scores but that's not the publically voiced reason) that has the local school system busing kids all over the county and going through huge reassignments every year, not nearly enough support for gifted kids as they focus on the middle-of-the-road, too much of a focus on administration that leads to teachers being let go in budget crunches instead of administrators and overhead, money spent on administration instead of basic teaching supplies, too many parents that blame the teachers instead of the kids when issues arise and won't help control the discipline problems.

It is possible to come through having learned a lot, but the school system sure isn't helping. I am lucky to be able to afford private school for my two (barely), but we're still paying attention to the next local school board elections to get some people in place who want to actually educate the kids instead of shuffling kids around to hide failing test scores from the feds.

[gstelmack]

I'll give a specific concrete example: Blazing Saddles is an excellent movie to show in an American History class to discuss stereotypes, diversity, and how far our country has come in all these areas. I got to watch it as part of a History class in high school back in '85 along with some great open discussion on the topic. What do you think would happen today if a teacher tried to use that in the classroom?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by rowech

3. Traditional mandatory schooling ends in 10th grade. After that, if you stay in high school it is a true college prep curriculum...no watering down...if you stay you will bust your butt to keep up because the level of work skyrockets.

My father was a vocational education teacher (he actually just retired this year). He started out teaching drafting / woodworking, has most recently taught auto shop, and has also taught CAD, computer classes, some basic math, and the like. He is a big fan of having a vocational track to replace the typical college-prep high school. By the time you reach high school you should already know enough math/reading and other skills for basic economic survival (how to make change, those sorts of things), and now you're working on your trade. That may be vocational, it may be college prep, but keeping kids learning advanced math when they could be learning a useful trade is not the best idea. But we have a one-size-fits-all mentality in education that prevents us from properly educating those that don't go right down the middle, and that's the same mentality that blocks proper gifted programs as well as vocational education.

[Edward64]

Hey, I don't disagree with alot of points you are making and I've made similar points (see my post #94 and below).

I tend to believe the American Public Education system is fine. Of course there is room for improvement but overall its good. With that said, I would ...

1) Continue the certification of teachers and require continuing education of teachers.
2) Implement an incentive program for top performing teachers. Not just raw test scores but improvement delta of test scores, additionally feedback from students/parents etc.
3) Implement some sort of breakfast/lunch/dinner school food program for especially the underprivilege.
4) Implement some sort of 'stay at school while parents are at work program' for especially the underprivilege.
5) Allow the termination/reassignment of poor performing teachers.
6) Allow the termination of habitual 'bad' (I'm sure this can be defined somehow) students. Some kids are just cancer to the rest of the classroom. Get rid of them to (someplace else).
7) Accept that some students will never graduate HS as they don't have the support structure/intelligence/aptitude/attitude/maturity and create an apprenticeship program (or like) for them. Of course, allow them to resume HS at a later date if appropriate.
8) Accept that the government's role is to provide opportunities and avenues for education and can only do so much. There will always be 20% that is left behind.

I just disagree that our socialized PS education is "it is clearly flawed to the point of being a failed system".

• Our PS school system produced HS graduates that went to college, who then eventually fueled the booms (and the damn collapses) of the past 2 decades.
• It is unfair to blame our PS education when alot of the current failures can be placed on the parents.
• Some states compare very well with the rest of the world. Some others not well at all. Brainstorm: USA vs. the World - Chronicle.com.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'll give a specific concrete example: Blazing Saddles is an excellent movie to show in an American History class to discuss stereotypes, diversity, and how far our country has come in all these areas. I got to watch it as part of a History class in high school back in '85 along with some great open discussion on the topic. What do you think would happen today if a teacher tried to use that in the classroom?

I do think you have to go with the times. IMO, Blazing Saddles is not the best movie to show in American History now. I would want something a little more neutral.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

My father was a vocational education teacher (he actually just retired this year). He started out teaching drafting / woodworking, has most recently taught auto shop, and has also taught CAD, computer classes, some basic math, and the like. He is a big fan of having a vocational track to replace the typical college-prep high school. By the time you reach high school you should already know enough math/reading and other skills for basic economic survival (how to make change, those sorts of things), and now you're working on your trade. That may be vocational, it may be college prep, but keeping kids learning advanced math when they could be learning a useful trade is not the best idea. But we have a one-size-fits-all mentality in education that prevents us from properly educating those that don't go right down the middle, and that's the same mentality that blocks proper gifted programs as well as vocational education.

I am all in favor for the vocational trade school route (see my #7). Some kids are not meant to go to college (or at least not yet) and they should learn a trade vs getting frustrated and dropping out of HS or College.

[Edward64]

Just wondering. Where and if your HS rank in the Newsweek survey?

My kids aren't in HS yet, but if they were, they would be at #337.
America's Top Public High Schools | Newsweek Best High Schools | Newsweek.com

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Just wondering. Where and if your HS rank in the Newsweek survey?

My kids aren't in HS yet, but if they were, they would be at #337.
America's Top Public High Schools | Newsweek Best High Schools | Newsweek.com

My old school is at 151. They used to be ranked much higher when I was there I believe. Was real big and sent somewhere around 95%+ of the graduating class to college.

[Barkeep49]

There's such an interesting dichotomy that I see in this thread at the moment:

1. Kids are entitled to an education, so let's kick the kids who disrupt this out.

2. Kids shouldn't be entitled to an education past 10th grade.

I understand that this isn't exactly what is being said and that the two things aren't mutually exclusive, but still...

I don't think the vocational trades are able to employ as many as they once did. I think we need to be getting more kids through college not less so that we can maintain our edge in the global economy. I think #1 could help to make kids more college ready, but I think #2 hinders that.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by AZSpeechCoach

At my school, we are under intense pressure to eliminate D and F grades. It doesn't matter how low the student's achievement is; we are pushed to find ways to give them at least a C, we are warned that we will be "held accountable" for grades, and told that we shouldn't consider attendence when calculating a grade. "Good teachers only count the work they turn in, not what they don't turn in."

I have experienced this to a degree in higher ed as well. The university has become a place where money needs to be made rather than a place where students are to be educated. That invariably means that professors must focus on making sure students finish the courses they start so that the university can collect maximum tuition. As a result, only those who don't do the work fail, especially in the humanities and social sciences.

Universities have also put increasingly more weight onto student evaluations of professors as well when it comes to evaluating a professor's value as a teacher. Some institutions use student evaluations as the sole measure of a professor's teaching ability. This causes the smart professor to inflate grades. Duke statistician, Valen Johnson has concluded that professors can double their chances of getting a favorable student evaluation by giving more A's instead of B's and C's. If a professor is on the way to getting tenure and student evaluations are important in the university's evaluation of that professor, it only makes sense that courses will be dumbed down and grades will be inflated. This is what has happened over the last two and a half decades or so. Apparently, the average GPA in US universities in 1985 was 2.6. In 2008, it was almost a 3.0. Maybe students are getting smarter, but somehow I don't think this is the case.

There's no room for what amounts to a Simon Cowell approach to grading anymore. Professors are forced to be Paula Abduls to make sure students make it through courses, to make sure the university gets its money and to make sure they keep their jobs.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Apparently, the average GPA in US universities in 1985 was 2.6. In 2008, it was almost a 3.0. Maybe students are getting smarter, but somehow I don't think this is the case.

There's no room for what amounts to a Simon Cowell approach to grading anymore. Professors are forced to be Paula Abduls to make sure students make it through courses, to make sure the university gets its money and to make sure they keep their jobs.

I think it all depends. At some schools, the students probably have gotten smarter and more motivated. At the top universities in the US, it is much more difficult to gain admission than even 15 years ago, and students who do get in are much more competitive (since they are used to the grind that got many of them accepted in the first place). I don't necessarily like the fact that so many kids are trained to work like machines now, but I guess it is what it is.

As for the grading issue, it can be a tough one. So, you have a class of Ivy-caliber students. The grading is based on something on the qualitative side, such as a final paper. Everybody hands in work that would be considered an A in the 50s or 60s, a time when these schools were full of students who viewed this as finishing school and were content to receive their "Gentleman's C's". Do you give them all A's, since everybody hands in excellent work? Or do you still try to impose a distribution curve?

I think the issue at a lot of these schools isn't necessarily grade inflation, but grade compression. Since tighter admissions have already weeded out many of the former C or D students even before they set foot on campus, almost everybody left is an A or B. The question is whether you need to redefine grading standards accordingly.

[rowech]

Grades are clearly watered down. In teaching math, I am all but required to give credit every day for homework. It is simply not possible for me to grade homework every day for all of my classes but I have to give credit for things the kids do...so it's the dreaded completion grade.

The dilemma? Flat out don't give homework expecting the kids to do some work ont heir own or do homework for completion grades. With high school kids, it has to be completion. I grade about an assignment right/wrong once a week, a quiz once a week, and a test about every three. If I drop out completion points, the average grade loss is about 5% at the end of the quarter. A half a letter grade strictly from getting rid of compleition stuff.

Other classes are like this too. Binder checks, note checks, journals, etc....it never ends. It used to be that kids would do the assignments because they understood it would make them better at the work, help them perform better on quizzes and tests, and so on. Now it's just about doing some slop to get some points.

The natural solution? No homework points at all and grade based on graded assignments, quizzes, and tests. (more like college) In the end? Good luck getting that through administrators and parents.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Just wondering. Where and if your HS rank in the Newsweek survey?

My kids aren't in HS yet, but if they were, they would be at #337.
America's Top Public High Schools | Newsweek Best High Schools | Newsweek.com

In case anyone is curious, this survey is completely flawed. Here's their entire methodology:

We take the total number of Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate or Cambridge tests given at a school in May, and divide by the number of seniors graduating in May or June. All public schools that NEWSWEEK researchers Amy Novak and Dan Brillman and I found that achieved a ratio of at least 1.000, meaning they had as many tests in 2008 as they had graduates, are put on the list on the NEWSWEEK Web site, Newsweek.com.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

In case anyone is curious, this survey is completely flawed. Here's their entire methodology:

Is there another ranking system that you can point to? I would be interested in it.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I just disagree that our socialized PS education is "it is clearly flawed to the point of being a failed system".

The problem is how many of those kids who make it through are actually "educated"? Remember the issues in Florida a decade or so back with kids who could not read graduating high school? You have entire school systems flat-out cheating on the NCLB tests. States are allowed to set their own standards (and NC has pretty low standards and is struggling to meet them).

The only reason our system looks like a "success" is it is still possible to educate yourself, and you can learn enough basics to survive off of it. Kids get educated in spite of the system, not because of it.

As for fueling the recent booms and busts, you need to study how many of the key players were public-school educated and how many were private-school educated.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

As for fueling the recent booms and busts, you need to study how many of the key players were public-school educated and how many were private-school educated.

I am not able to find that specific statistic. If you can please share.

I would hypothesize ... for the Financial/Insurance mess, I think that there are more private educated students running the show in the Financial institutions. However, I actually think the IT folks were more normal public school students.

[ShaqFu]

The teacher salary thing is interesting, something I fell many people misunderstand. A high school might start at 8 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. That is a 7 hour work day. Throw in a 30 minute lunch period and (depending on the school) a 10 minute brunch, you end up with about a 6+ hour day. However, that is just student contact time. Districts typically require teachers to be on campus 15 minutes before the first bell and to remain on campus until 15 minutes after the final bell. That is 30 minutes tacked on. We're back to a 7 hour day.

I knew very few teachers that fall within the parameters of the 15 minutes before and after school. Teachers often will stick around 30-60 minutes are more in either direction. This is purely prep time, time to connect with parents, hold detention, and so on. So, at the very least, it's reasonable for a teacher to be on campus for a full eight hour day.

That eight hours does include prep time, when a teacher gets a free period. This free period is not a break from work and not always a break from student contact. Teachers typically use prep time for IEP/SST meetings, meetings within their departments (common preps are becoming more and more popular), meetings with admins, parent meetings, and of course prep time (copying, grading, etc.).

A teacher's day does not end when they leave campus for the day. Many teachers still have plenty of work to do at home, in order to fully prepare for the next day. There are papers to go over, lessons to plan, materials to prepare. This is the work that was not finished during the prep time and before/after school while on campus. You need to include these hours.

As for how many months a teacher works, this is changing. One of the latest trends in education is the adoption of what is called a modified traditional schedule. School would start around the last week of July/first week of August. There would be a single quarter, followed by a two week break. There would be a standard Thanksgiving holiday (Thursday/Friday off only). The second quarter ends at Christmas, followed by a two week break (as always). Third quarter takes you to Spring Break (now two weeks instead of one). School ends around the second week of June. That means there are only six weeks off in the Summer, which really is not six weeks. Why?

The six weeks off really could be reduced to no more than a month. Teachers typically need a few days after school lets out to clean up/tear down. Teachers get a few weeks off to unwind, but sometime in that summer they will have to begin planning. This is especially true if there is a new curriculum or if a teacher has an assignment change (teaching a different grade level). Even though school begins for students, teachers typically arrive on campus 2-3 days before. In some districts, they are there even sooner. Teachers need to set their room back up. Some teachers participate in another new trend - Round-up. This is when students arrive about a week before school starts to finalize registration (fill out all that paperwork that used to be sent home on day one), get schedules, get books, take pictures (for ID and yearbook), and so on. Have you ever seen a teacher in Staples or Wal-Mart during BTS time. They need supplies too, much of it at their own expense.

Teachers do get the extra three weeks off during the year (two weeks at Christmas, one at Easter has always been there). In any job you automatically get two weeks of paid vacation. In any professional job you always get to bank those vacations and could potentially have a whole month off, maybe more, if you choose. The breaks cover that for teachers, so it really becomes a wash. Even so, during those breaks, teachers usually are resetting things for the next quarter. FWIW, the typical deal is one week off, one week for school stuff. Right away you can snap three weeks off.

Which leads me to this. A teacher works 10 hours a day. We will give this teacher a month of none-work time (bearing in mind that two weeks of this is the standard two weeks paid vacation). We will keep that $56K average. I will only factor this as work time (48 weeks).

$56,000/48 weeks = $1,166.66 per week/50 hour week (conservative) = $23.33/hour. That for a professional job, requiring a minimum of a BA and Credential (which are actually becoming more and more difficult to obtain). A MA typically will earn you no more than $1,000/year extra. Some districts will not even pay you for this until you have X number of years in.

Now, for a starting teacher, the salaries seem to be high 30s, no more than $40K. I'll say $39K. Hourly wage = $16.25.

Does that seem right to you? Now, a good teacher is not in it for the money. Teachers teach for the joy and gratification of it, to respond to what is nothing less than a true calling. Still, when I hear that teachers are overpaid, I cringe. I am not necessarily saying they are underpaid, but they certainly are not overpaid.

I do not want to answer the reform question in total, but I have a few ideas:

-- Smaller Learning Communities, breaking up schools into thematic groups, with very low Teacher:Student ratios. The ability to form relationships is vital.
-- No NCLB
-- More local control, with teachers as leaders.

Have a few more, but now I'm spent thinking about it. I'll come back later. What about Charter Schools?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ShaqFu

Have a few more, but now I'm spent thinking about it. I'll come back later. What about Charter Schools?

Sunday editorial I read today on Charter schools. I would have thought Charter schools would perform better than PS schools but maybe not ... can anyone with more knowledge comment on the validity of the study?
Report casts doubt on charter schools 071209 - The Columbia County News-Times

An analysis of test data by the U.S. Education Department during the administration of George W. Bush showed that charter school students generally did not perform as well as those in regular public schools. The federal study said charter students scored significantly lower than regular public school students in math, while in reading there was no statistically significant difference.

"It must be acknowledged that charter schools have a very mixed record," said Tim Callahan of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, one of the state's largest education groups. "Some do better than public schools, some do worse. Most do about the same. This is hardly a transformational change."

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I would hypothesize ... for the Financial/Insurance mess, I think that there are more private educated students running the show in the Financial institutions. However, I actually think the IT folks were more normal public school students.

And I'll bet you that most of the IT folks learned what they learned at home messing around or in college. Again, they succeeded DESPITE public education, not BECAUSE of it. Sure, I know more about history and subjects like that because I went to school, but most of my working knowledge came from messing around with a computer at home and from the university (and even that was maybe 25% useful, classes like physics and calculus).

The most I got out of my public education was when they let me work ahead; I spent my fourth grade english year in a fifth grade classrom, and did 7th and 8th grade math plus some 9th grade algebra while in 7th grade. Letting you work ahead is a dying technique; around here there are plenty of complaints from parents I know about kids getting bored in class and either being told to sit there quietly or help the kids around them rather than moving on to the more advanced subjects they can handle and being challenged.

The best thing I got out of my high school years was the one semester I spent taking a COBOL class at my local junior college in the evenings. That even helped me land my first co-op job.

But as we push kids more and more to the center, there is less and less opportunity to branch out and work ahead of the norm or to take side classes to help advance your education.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

In case anyone is curious, this survey is completely flawed. Here's their entire methodology:

Yeah, I saw that one mentioned locally recently after a couple of schools in the area made the list. And then I dismissed it after comparing their supposed ranking with their AYP results. 1/3rd of the school can't even pass the laughably easy tests administered by the state but a handful of students on the upper end take a lot of AP tests each and somehow this makes it an upper echelon school.

Considering these schools are in the only county I've ever heard of that has a poverty rate so low that they aren't even eligible to participate in the federal Title IX programs (that's the free lunch one, right? Can't always keep the numbers straight), I'd think they ought to have enough raw material to avoid having essentially the same results as schools in considerably worse circumstances.

[molson]

I think most teachers are overpaid, though if it were easy to fire teachers to bring in more talented ones, I'd be all for raising their salaries.

With higher salaries must come more competition, more accountability, and greater requirements to get those jobs. And of course, a 12-month work year. It should be a highly competitive job - people falling over each other to get into the best education programs, and stressing over class ranks, knowing that if they don't crack the top 25-50% or whatever, they're looking at longshot job prospects. From my total anecdotal experience knowing a lot of teachers - it's really not that hard to become a teacher. I mean, it's hard in the sense that there's a lot of work involved, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of people who set out to be a teacher and don't accomplish it. I'd love to see education be a more rigorous discipline in that way, and higher salaries is the only way to do it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by rowech

As always, I must correct something here. Teachers are not paid for 12-months. Our salaries, just like anybody else, are for the time we work. Do we receive a paycheck year-round? Yes...however, that is not money we are earning for sitting around. It is money we have already earned for doing the work we are contracted to do.

I know. I'm just saying that I'm all for increased salaries, and for teaching to become a more prestigious, competitive profession. For that, I think a 12-month job isn't unreasonable, considering those positions would be more competitive.

I realize teachers work during the summer, and aside from bell to bell, but that's really no different than any other professional job.

There are a lot of great teachers out there, and a lot of shitty ones. The great ones should be paid far more, and the shitty ones should go away. The only way they can be replaced by better teachers is higher salaries (and a legal way to cut them loose).