Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with most of your post but the idea of standardizing education sounds great, doesn't work. The idea of NCLB is one of the reasons education is not working. Children are not all the same. The idea that every single person in this country regardless of ability or motivation MUST be able to demonstrate mastery of a standard set of knowledge. Education should take all children to their best potential and not set some kids up to fail, some to be bored to tears and the rest somewhere in the middle.
There are lots of children who are best served by taking a trade or vo-tech program where they can excel and learn a useful skill instead of forcing them to take remedial course after remedial course so they can pass the HSPA to get their diploma
Well said.
I don't think I was as clear as I intended when I spoke of standardization. I didn't mean holding all children to a blanket aptitude metric, I meant holding the Education system to metric based accountability.
Let me explain..
I am a Manager in the private sector, on a Quarterly basis I issue performance reviews to my direct reports, and I recieve one from my boss. If one of my associates has a bad quarter, we try to identify what happened, and build a plan around righting the ship. Should the associate run with the opportunity, no harm no foul, should they not, the documentation process begins and that person is performanced out the door. What this gives you is a chance to build a high performing team. I understand that on the ground it's a different dynamic, but the concept is portable.
I 100% agree that Vo-Tech's have a place in the process, and quite frankly there should probably be more of them with higher participation. The Educators should play a large role in identifying need, and making the tough recommendations. Teaching is a tough gig, that's why I feel the position should treated as a professional position and afforded the same respect. But with that we have to recognize that not everyone should be a Teacher.
I don't think I was as clear as I intended when I spoke of standardization. I didn't mean holding all children to a blanket aptitude metric, I meant holding the Education system to metric based accountability.
Let me explain..
I am a Manager in the private sector, on a Quarterly basis I issue performance reviews to my direct reports, and I recieve one from my boss. If one of my associates has a bad quarter, we try to identify what happened, and build a plan around righting the ship. Should the associate run with the opportunity, no harm no foul, should they not, the documentation process begins and that person is performanced out the door. What this gives you is a chance to build a high performing team. I understand that on the ground it's a different dynamic, but the concept is portable.
But the teacher/student relationship is unlike anything comparable in private industry. Its more like coworker than boss and employee. Meaning we, the teachers and students, are working together towards our goal (learning) but to evaluate teachers you can only measure students progress. That would be like judging your performance by measuring your co-workers. Now imagine all your co-workers are teenagers who are not getting paid and are in no danger of being "fired". Would you still find evaluating your abilities based on their performance to be fair or accurate?
Quote:
I 100% agree that Vo-Tech's have a place in the process, and quite frankly there should probably be more of them with higher participation. The Educators should play a large role in identifying need, and making the tough recommendations. Teaching is a tough gig, that's why I feel the position should treated as a professional position and afforded the same respect. But with that we have to recognize that not everyone should be a Teacher.
Teachers are evaluated. In my district the untenured get 5 surprise and the tenured get 3 surprised. So I agree with evaluation. Now while I will readily admit that tenure protects a handful of teachers who are too burnt out to be effective it also protects many, many more good teachers from politics.
In the last district I taught in we had a new Principal. She fired every untenured teacher except me (and the only reason I was saved is my supervisor sent me to the middle school). She gave no reason (since you do not need to) and would have fired most of the tenured teachers if possible. She was expecting blind, unthinking loyalty from teachers who did not know her or share her vision. She proceeded to use the intercom system to spy on teachers during class time and on their own prep periods. To make it simple, she was nuts. She to was let go at the end of her single year contact but not before she decimated many departments and lost the district the single best physics teacher I have ever seen.
Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if it wasnt for tenure?
Another situation I have been in personally, is to have school board members children in my classes. Three times I have been in this situation, once the member tried to push me to give his child an A when a C had barely been earned. If I hadnt had tenure I likely would have caved in and changed the grade so I could keep my job.
But the teacher/student relationship is unlike anything comparable in private industry.
Not referring to the Teacher/Student relationship, I'm referring to the relationship between a Teacher and their upline supervisor (not knowing your specific hierarchy).
You made an important point in your statement, tenure protects people that are too burnt out to be effective. There is too much at stake with our children's education to allow ineffective people to guide them. I've been lucky so far with my daughter's teachers for the most part. Out of the 6 she's had 1 was outstanding, 2 were good, 2 were adequate, and 1 clearly had chosen the wrong career path. Should this person be protected by tenure?
I think Teachers should be protected from Politics, ESPECIALLY local Politics. That's why I said that you guys deserve the respect that a professional position should grant you. There is no way a member of the local Board of Ed should be leaning on anyone for special treatment, do you know what happens if I "sweetheart deal" a local in my line of work? I go to jail!
I want to be your advocate, I admire your profession. But there is TONS of room for improvement in your industry and how it's managed.
Not referring to the Teacher/Student relationship, I'm referring to the relationship between a Teacher and their upline supervisor (not knowing your specific hierarchy).
You made an important point in your statement, tenure protects people that are too burnt out to be effective. There is too much at stake with our children's education to allow ineffective people to guide them. I've been lucky so far with my daughter's teachers for the most part. Out of the 6 she's had 1 was outstanding, 2 were good, 2 were adequate, and 1 clearly had chosen the wrong career path. Should this person be protected by tenure?
I think Teachers should be protected from Politics, ESPECIALLY local Politics. That's why I said that you guys deserve the respect that a professional position should grant you. There is now way a member of the local Board of Ed should be leaning on anyone for special treatment, do you know what happens if I "sweetheart deal" a local in my line of work? I go to jail!
I want to be your advocate, I admire your profession. But there is TONS of room for improvement in your industry and how it's managed.
There is always room for improvement. So my next question is how will you protect teachers from politics?
There is always room for improvement. So my next question is how will you protect teachers from politics?
In the "at-will employment" world of the non organized labor force, there are things called labor laws that protect the basic rights of workers. In your situation it's difficult because theres a Union in between yourself and the so-called decision makers. Making you contract based, thus playing by a different set of rules.
If I walked into an organization and conducted myself like the person you mentioned previously, walking in and firing everyone possible, labor law would override it. I would get fired myself, my company would be sued, and the terminated employess would be reinstated with a nice wrongful termination settlement. This change has to come from the very top (govt) or the very bottom (rank and file workers), because there is no way your Union and the local goverments are going to agree to do the right things.
So, just out of curiosity, would you answer my question about the teacher in my other post?
In the "at-will employment" world of the non organized labor force, there are things called labor laws that protect the basic rights of workers. In your situation it's difficult because theres a Union in between yourself and the so-called decision makers. Making you contract based, thus playing by a different set of rules.
If I walked into an organization and conducted myself like the person you mentioned previously, walking in and firing everyone possible, labor law would override it. I would get fired myself, my company would be sued, and the terminated employess would be reinstated with a nice wrongful termination settlement. This change has to come from the very top (govt) or the very bottom (rank and file workers), because there is no way your Union and the local goverments are going to agree to do the right things.
Not sure how that would work. In teaching they get rid of untenured teachers for as little as being "not a good fit" so I am not sure how you could protect people without tenure from the politics of the school board and their other employees (like Principals). If a principal just didnt like someone they could just get rid of them. That would totally destabilize the education system. Kids would sign up for a certain class next year because of a certain teacher and then who knows if they would even run that class since the original teacher is gone? Research has shown that teachers are most effective when they have been teaching the material for about 5 years. If we are constantly moving from district to district how would that ever happen?
Quote:
So, just out of curiosity, would you answer my question about the teacher in my other post?
Not sure which questions you mean. If you are asking me if I think there are a couple of teachers in each district who should not be teaching, sure. But I think you are foolish to think you are protecting your children some how if you get rid of ineffective teachers. When they get to college the sheer number of professors who don't care, don't want to hear from kids, and only teach so they can conduct their own research is staggering. An old fashioned or ineffective teacher in high school is in and of itself a learning opportunity. I had a teacher in high school who never came to class. I mean NEVER, maybe its because it was his last year until he retired. He just dropped off notes, left tests for us, wrote assignments on the board, etc. I do not know anyone that bad in my school now but we took it upon ourselves to learn the material and I cannot tell you how much it actually helped me to be able to teach myself material in college.
You make fair points, and I'm enjoying your perspective, but sometimes I think we're having 2 different conversations.
What I'm saying is that in private industry, once you get through the 90 day "probationary" standard, you cannot be fired without cause and documentation to back up the cause. It's against the law. I've had many employees that I didn't think "fit in" with what I was attempting to accomplish, the mutually beneficial part of Labor Law protection is that it forces me to take that employees and help to develop them, rather than just blanket firings to make a point. If you took away your labor union and ran the system like a business, I really believe you'd see positive results.
Now to your second set of points. I'd like you to explain to me, if you would, how it's foolish to want the best people possible charged with the education of my children? Why is it ok that someone consistantly doesn't show up for work? Or is ineffective? Is it ok to have a Banker that's bad at math? Is it ok to have a Lawyer with stage fright? Is it ok to have a Bus Driver that can't drive? See what I'm saying? Teaching isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a fall back profession, and if you can't teach (see-ineffective) then don't teach! Fair?
I don't know if I'm being naive, but I expect more from people that are IMHO one of the most important fields there is. And to say that having an ineffective teacher is a great learning opportunity is a spin job worthy of the White House press room.
You make fair points, and I'm enjoying your perspective, but sometimes I think we're having 2 different conversations.
What I'm saying is that in private industry, once you get through the 90 day "probationary" standard, you cannot be fired without cause and documentation to back up the cause. It's against the law. I've had many employees that I didn't think "fit in" with what I was attempting to accomplish, the mutually beneficial part Labor Law protection forces me to take that employees and help to develop them, rather than just blanket firings to make a point. If you took away your labor union and ran the system like a business, I really believe you'll see positive results.
Now to your second set of points. I'd like you to explain to me, if you would, how it's foolish to want the best people possible charged with the education of my children?
Thats not what I said. It said its foolish to think you are protecting your children by getting rid of ineffective teachers. Obviously we all want the best for our children. But is it realistic to expect your children (or mine for that matter) are going to live in a world where they are only exposed to the best of everything? Teaching children (especially teenagers) to work with difficult people is its own skill set. Haven't you had to learn to work with difficult people? Isnt that in and of itself a skill?
Quote:
Why is it ok that someone consistantly doesn't show up for work?
I never said it was ok. Nor am I saying ineffective teacher have some sort of right to be there. Far from it. But there are ineffective people everywhere, we all have to deal with them. Its unrealistic to expect that your children will never need to know how to deal with people like that. What is going to happen when they get to college?
Quote:
Or is ineffective? Is it ok to have a Banker that's bad at math? Is it ok to have a Lawyer with stage fright? Is it ok to have a Bus Driver that can't drive? See what I'm saying?
You are missing my point here entirely. Ineffective teachers should be removed from teaching. But the idea that teenagers somehow need to be protected from ineffective people is what I think is silly. So I ask again, what are you going to tell your kids when they get to college and have professors that are ineffective? Or when they go out to the real world and start working for some middle manager who is ineffective?
Quote:
I don't know if I'm being naive, but I expect more from people that are IMHO one of the most important fields there is. And to say that having an ineffective teacher is a great learning opportunity is a spin job worthy of the White House press room.
The single most important thing I teach my students is that their educational "destiny" so to speak is entirely in their hands. A great teacher can teach you how YOU learn, and introduce new concepts, and to help you find what you are passionate about; but whether or not a students learns is entirely up to them. I truly believe that many, many children and adults (including many teachers) do not realize this.
When I went to college we had some great teachers and some not. I literally had a prof who said "don't call me, email me or come to see me during my office hours" many of the kids entirely freaked out, some of us were able to move on and still learn what we needed to. That is a skill I learned from an ineffective teacher. Not sure if thats spin or not, but it is certainly no more or less than my opinion.
What I'm saying is that in private industry, once you get through the 90 day "probationary" standard, you cannot be fired without cause and documentation to back up the cause. It's against the law. .
In New Jersey, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it's not illegal. Generally, employees who work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. In New Jersey, if an employer shows express proof that an employee is employed at-will, even an implied contract will not overcome the presumption of at-will employment.
to be fair we're discussing parents who wish to give their kids an equal opportunity education; choosing to take their child to the nj school of choice. Not forced bussing. You can stop making your 1964 era protest posters.
Actually, it seems pretty similar to me (although based on income rather than race). How do you think the inner-city kid is going to get to this "nj school of choice? Same thing applies to the kid who lives in the better school district which now has no more room for him. Sounds like bussing will indeed be involved. Why not ask the Delaware board how this has worked out? Ah...but they don't have the same tax issues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
