Boston Globe: A higher bar for future teachers

Parents Forum
21

<p>The unions can be an issue -however it’s really not a teacher issue today. </p>

<p>Consider that the sex revolution, with women finally accepting the preachings of Hugh Heffner (among others) - which began in earnest 40 years after the pill was finally perfected, and sex w/o the necessity of love, marriage of committment became the norm - eventually spilled over into teens - and that factor alone distracts from attempts by schools to keep kids focused</p>

<p>Stated bluntly and a bit oversimplified to make the point:
Why should Johnny for example entering 9th grade actually bother to study hard and learn to read and write and do math - to eventually make something of himself -so to maybe get a post-HS job where he can work hard or college or beyond with a perhaps a more advanced job be able to attract Sally. to date Sally or maybe perhaps someday actually marry Sally - when INSTEAD Johnny can be a complete goof-off today and get all the sex he can handle with Sally and perhaps a half-dozen of Sally’s liberated girlfriends - all while still in high school</p>

<p>The opportunity cost (what he’s missing by time spent studying) today is simply much higher for someone like Johnny</p>

<p>Teachers today are competing against a tidal wave of culturally-based hedonism - so laying the blame on them is absurd</p>

22

<p>

</p>

<p>Not so unbelievable I fear. I’ve seen this in primary grades – all different schools, even private Waldorf schools – with three out of four of my kids. As soon as we detected a teacher’s math aversion, we took remedial action ASAP – either a new teacher, new school, or homeschool, as appropriate. I can’t help feeling contemptuous of anybody who would take on the teaching of math knowing they couldn’t teach it with competence and enthusiasm, and a soured parent/teacher relationship needs immediate resolution.</p>

<p>So far, so good. Number one son is fiscally successful in the financial field and enjoys playing number games with his two kids. Number two is successfully employed in a field he loves that requires incredible math/technical fluency. Number three (a D) seems to be choosing a math/physics major in a top program. Number four just changed schools (you can guess why) and is thriving with an excellent geometry teacher (a math major at a top LAC).</p>

<p>Anything the feds can do to improve teacher qualifications in the public schools is critically important. With number literacy will come science literacy in general – and I’m just as concerned with an educated voting public as with filling jobs. The world wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in if the general public knew and cared.</p>

23

<p>

</p>

<p>Amen. Couldn’t have said it better.</p>

24

<p>“Consider that the sex revolution, with women finally accepting the preachings of Hugh Heffner (among others) - which began in earnest 40 years after the pill was finally perfected,”</p>

<p>correction</p>

<ul>
<li>such revolution which began around 1965 approx 5 years after the pill was invented</li>
</ul>

25

<p>That’s a remarkably clear and powerful statement by Levine, and I have little doubt that it will be widely ignored.

</p>

<p>That’s scary, but I suspect it’s all too typical.</p>

26

<p>And don’t forget nepotism. In my town, that’s how teachers are hired. Very unimpressive grads of unimpressive schools who have the right last name. </p>

<p>I really don’t know how the excellent teachers sprinkled throughout our district can stand it.</p>

27

<p>drizzit, I realize that it would have to be a nation-wide change. It’s the way it is in all of Canada, which obviously is much smaller, population wise. The funding issue is probably the biggest difference here. Education in our province, is funded through a combination of local, provincial, and federal dollars. People do not have the opportunity to vote down a particular budget, it just doesn’t work that way. Every school receives the same funding (in principal) per student enrolled, and every teacher in the province (and I believe, in the country) is unionized. It’s not perfect but, from out experience with systems in both countries, I prefer the one here. Schools still have music, art and drama teachers. Everyone here learns French starting in grade 3. There are French Immersion programs if you want your child to be bilingual by the time they graduate high school. There are dedicated schools for the arts, for technical training, for academically gifted learners, etc. </p>

<p>It often does come down to money, and certainly this is no exception. Funding which comes from general tax revenues naturally contribute to the higher taxes here, which also provide healthcare to everyone so there are always going to be trade-offs.</p>

28

<p>The teachers in my local schools are badly underpaid (as a result, it’s hard to get and keep good math/science teachers at the HS level–they can get higher paying jobs doing something else), but tax-payers still complain they’re paying too much. The real sticking point? Teachers get good health care benefits. If the US was like every other developed country on the planet, we’d have a universal health care system and could take this variable out of the school budget equation where it causes polarization and “no” votes on budgets.</p>

29

<p>Let’s not beat up on teachers too much - nor on unions. Neither is guilty of the mess many schools find themselves in. I believe the problems begin with the way schools are funded (or not funded) and then run by various administrative bodies. Address those issues, and teachers themselves & unions become very small issues indeed.</p>

30

<p>Maybe you all should try fantasy football too. Then you can also be a general manager of a pro football team. </p>

<p>The vast majority of educators I know or have known, work their backsides off. As one poster said it is an art form, a skill one pulls from inside. As most arts critics are those who can’t do… those who can’t teach… criticise. </p>

<p>Both my kids were in the top 1% in the country in HS, somebody helped them get there. While I’d like to think I contributed to their success, I wasn’t the only one. They were public schooled no less (gasp). Many, many educators inspired and prodded my kids and others to reach for success. When I look at what schools my kids were able to attend and what was given in scholarship I have at least 300,000 big reasons to thank their teachers.</p>

31

<p>A teacher myself, I have always loathed unions & never belonged to one. I think unionization debases teaching, but the truth is that teachers resorted to that because of previously abysmal salaries & working conditions. Not that unionization has erased that, by the way. In some cases it may appear as if teachers are rolling in money, but not the unionized teachers out my way. Unbelievably, they are still virtually required to work year-round (often working into July & returning Aug. 1 – a whopping 3-week vacation) while really earning no more than 10 months’ salary; still treated like unskilled, uneducated household servants by much of the public and by administrators; still required to purchase essential classroom supplies without reimbursement – a situation that is abusive & exploitative, if not downright illegal. Such conditions would never be tolerated by professionals with any self-respect in other lines of work requiring substantial education, preparation, & investment of time.</p>

<p>Further, unionization – while protecting full-time salaries & some working conditions – has not reversed many of the assumptions & abuses referred to above. Perks, salaries & conditions continue to vary depending on region, State, school, & all the variables attending those. Part-time teachers are often excluded from the so-called “benefits” afforded to full-timrs, yet part-timers are expected to fulfill the same professional standards & are held to those.</p>

<p>Finally, unionization does often, yes, protect incompetents along with the competent.</p>

<p>The truth is that the nature of education is very much a service occupation, not unlike local political office, but one requiring substantial education/training and an ethical orientation not unlike that of a physician – with the professional orienting himself/herself to the immediate good of the patient/pupil beyond any other consideration. The best teachers are those with such a professional impulse. To encourage, attract, & sustain such professionalism, I see no way out except governmental subsidy – & possibly even a nationalization of standards & curriculum such as some posters mentioned on previous CC threads. Retaining local jurisdiction over teachers, but protecting their employment through the kinds of review processes required for city employees, for example, & funding them nationally, would eliminate unions while assuring a decent standard of living, regardless of the local tax base in which the teacher is hired.</p>

<p>Alternatively, it would be possible in this model to treat all public school teachers as independent contractors, while still requiring rigorous avenues of training & certification, overseen by national boards. This (again with governmental subsidy) would equalize salaries between public & private school teachers & allow them to move in & out of both settings & multiple environments. It would not eliminate the opportunity for local control of the delivery, style, design, of that education.</p>

<p>But let’s be clear: as another poster said, & as I have said over & over on CC, educational outcomes depend, at minimum, on 3 synchronous features: school/student/home. You will find the occasional student who rises far above an immediate abysmal environment, but this is rare. The correlations between strong parental support and strong academic outcomes are overwhelming. Those between parental education and strong academic outcomes are even more stunning. That is because only a portion of direct & indirect education occurs in the classroom, or via an employed teacher; a huge amount of educational reinforcement AND direct teaching occurs via the parents, & certain aspects of the home environment (exposure to concepts, to resources, to books, to intelligent, articulate conversation, to a community of educated friends, etc.). Generally, the parents who understand this least are those who are already very educated.</p>

<p>That is just a way of saying that the most effective & premium reform of teacher training is no guarantee of equally fine academic outcomes across all environments.</p>

32

<p>

</p>

<p>Opie, do you smell a logical fallacy here? Your kids did exceptionally well and you credit the teachers? Nah, take the credit yourself. The other 99% went to the same school, right, and somewhere out there the bottom 1% had the same opportunity at the school.</p>

33

<p>epif.</p>

<p>Are you a private school teacher? While your points about different benefits in different areas is fine, it just shows LOCAL representation rather than a national one. Why would that be bad?</p>

<p>“Finally, unionization does often, yes, protect incompetents along with the competent”</p>

<p>You like so many anti teacher union people forget another factor in the need for a union. A union protects an educator from crazy principals, superintendents and school board nutcases that occupy places in many school districts. It always seems to be a onesided arguement giving the administrative side 100% creditbility from the anti union folks. Sorry I know of and have dealt with as many nutbag supers and school board members and principals over the years as I have teachers. </p>

<p>The days for a union will go away when the other side can be counted on to be fair, consistent and honest with their dealings with educators… Any bets on when that will occur? </p>

<p>Good teachers also need union representation because sometimes they run up against bad principals who have unprofessional issues and decide that an excellent teacher suddenly isn’t good anymore. Maybe they didn’t contribute to the principals bday gift one year.</p>

34

<p>“Your kids did exceptionally well and you credit the teachers? Nah, take the credit yourself. The other 99% went to the same school, right, and somewhere out there the bottom 1% had the same opportunity at the school.”</p>

<p>I understand your point and slightly agree, however all I brought to the equation was backing their teachers and telling them to listen up in class. I’m sorry I don’t know chemistry, algebra, biology and if you have read my writings before it becomes pretty clear that English isn’t one of my best subjects either. </p>

<p>Also it wasn’t just my kids, alot of kids did pretty well in this district. </p>

<p>Parent involvement is important, but it is how the parent is involved that matters. Thank you for the compilment about my skills in parenting, however, if they didn’t look like me…well…</p>

35

<p>No, I am not a private school teacher per se, although I do work now & then in private schools. Yes, I know about bad principals & administrators, & I happen not to believe that unions have reversed such situations, because I have evidence of that. In fact, administrators in public school settings are actually the most protected of all – more than their teachers, more than administrators in the private school realm (the latter being overseen by <em>privately</em> run school boards, as opposed to publicly run school boards). Again, in our neck of the woods it is way more difficult to get rid of a public school administrator than a public school teacher. One can wait for a decade or more.</p>

<p>A standardization of how all school personnel (including administrators) are hired, trained, remunerated AND reviewed is better served by a more universally systematized process such as a quasi-governmental or other institutional model. Unions are bargainers & pressure groups (not always without merit, as I’ve noted, so please don’t mischaracterize my response): thus, they are both stabilizers & unstabilizers – more the latter than the former, i.m.o. That is not the same as an organized system of accountability, a predictable scale of pay, etc.</p>

36

<p>I think Arthur Levine is making a very good point in that while there may be a myriad of problems that hinder the quality of teaching professions (budget, family etc that have been brought up on this thread), one area that can be improved is the quality of institutions and intrusctions that train teachers. He is taking a familiar approach that works in higher eductaion, namely the use of an effective peer-reviewed process to ensure the quality of a university program. Thus, university can do much to clean up its Dodge City. </p>

<p>Universities tend to put resources into programs that generate monetary returns, and those programs are also heavily scrutinized by peer-reviews. Programs such as secondary school education often fall by the wayside.</p>

37

<p>Opie: You claim a union is needed to protect teachers against crazy principals, school boards, and superintendants. How do all the non-unionized workers out there – professionals and non-professionals alike – get by without a union? They manage. Cream often rises to the top. When a crazy or unfair boss makes life miserable, the worker moves on & takes his talents where they’ll be appreciated. Outstanding teachers would have no problem being hired anywhere. And if a crazy boss tried to can a beloved teacher, the parents would no doubt rise up & support him.</p>

38

<p>“That is not the same as an organized system of accountability, a predictable scale of pay, etc.”</p>

<p>Is what you are saying assumed for a national level? Usually locally (state and district levels) work out wage issues. Where the feds could help is kicking up the coin for intercity and rural communities where pay or incentive lags behind the suburban publics. </p>

<p>“I happen not to believe that unions have reversed such situations, because I have evidence of that.”</p>

<p>I am also not saying unions have REVERSED that, they have however, protected very good teachers from very bad administrators. My point was often when you see anti-teacher union postings you never see the same people demand accountability from the administration outside of keeping pay low. </p>

<p>I am married to a long time teacher and I’ve seen very good and very bad administrators up close and personal as I also was deeply involved in the community. The local school district has paid dearly for some agendas when brought to the light of day are not what is best for children. Hence my point about unions until the administration side can be faultless and more importantly sane, you’ll have a need for a union. Personally, I haven’t belonged to a union in 25 years. There are days that’s fine and others not so much. </p>

<p>"A standardization of how all school personnel (including administrators) are hired, trained, remunerated AND reviewed is better served by a more universally systematized process such as a quasi-governmental or other institutional model. "</p>

<p>Not too much of an arguement against your point here, but what happens when all those things are in place and someone in power changes the rules? I’m not talking about the domestic wire tapping policy (although it applies) but when established policy is ignored to provide the favored outcome for a few. </p>

<p>I guess I could live with a union as long as I can’t trust administrators to be perfect. Both are necessary evils in education and both for the most part get along. They aren’t always at odds.</p>

39

<p>"How do all the non-unionized workers out there – professionals and non-professionals alike – get by without a union? They manage. Cream often rises to the top. When a crazy or unfair boss makes life miserable, the worker moves on & takes his talents where they’ll be appreciated. Outstanding teachers would have no problem being hired anywhere. And if a crazy boss tried to can a beloved teacher, the parents would no doubt rise up & support him "</p>

<p>Oh SS,</p>

<p>You should stick to topics you understand. Education isn’t one of them. You have absolutely no idea of what makes an outstanding teacher, nor any idea of how to compare. Would you consider someone to be an outstanding teacher because their students test well in NCLB? What about the teacher whose main function based on her students is to get them not to hurt themselves with silverware? You know those kids get tested too. </p>

<p>I don’t know how old you are but picking up and leaving in middle age AIN’T that easy, may you never be so blessed. When we can measure all the “widgets” coming in the same, then we can measure results. Which is a better teacher one who raises under performing kids nearly to standards or the gifted teacher who has a couple of NMFs every year? Which is better? </p>

<p>As far as those probably like yourself who want to pay for the cream, but fire the rest. I will give you an example if I were teaching in a merit based system. The day your child tests poorly, it’s the same day I send your child to the special ed class. Obviously your child has some sort of retardation. They are retarding my take home pay. Aren’t you glad I’m not your kid’s teacher?
The only way I’d take them back is if they tested high enough to improve my pay. I would not accept any unperfect widgets.</p>

40

<p>“often when you see anti-teacher union postings you never see the same people demand accountability from the administration outside of keeping pay low.”</p>

<p>Well I’m not those other postings. In fact I am demanding accountability from administrators. Patchwork proposals (such as limiting it to a pay equity issue among teachers from rural, suburban, urban areas) is not sufficient to address issues of competency & professionalism in all areas of education, teachers & administrators – & for that matter classified employees who often interface with young students.</p>

<p>And I wish pro-teacher-union people would start, just once, thinking outside the (union) box. Unions aren’t the solution, particularly for the training issues which are the topic that opened this thread; they are merely the “court of last resort” – utilized because of frustrations which in my opinion are preventable & should have appropriate, structured, & dignified avenues of redress. I.m.o., unions do not elevate the teaching profession to a level of the respect it deserves, but rather reduce it to the status of a political interest group because of desperation & lack of other vehicles to exert influence.</p>