<p>So what is your solution annasdad?</p>
<p>“Is it easier to educate kids whose parents are educated themselves and involved with their kids’ education? Absolutely. But if you want an easy job, you should not go into public education. Unfortunately, for the last 40 years we have been drawing the majority of our public school teachers from the bottom 25% of the barrel of college graduates, and excuse-making rather than hard work has become the norm in far too many schools.”</p>
<p>…bottom 25% of college grads may be a little off but I do agree that the quaility of teacher has declined over the past 40 years. However let’s look at why: 1) 40 years ago teaching was one of the only professions that women were generally accepted into. As a result, a higher % of the best & brightest women went into teaching because other higher paying professions were not as readily accessable. 2) Although pay has increased, it still lags far behind professionals in the math & science fields. 3) Factors that contribute to job satisfaction in education have declined. Parents & students are less compliant & can be outright viscious, students attention spans are less, diagnosed diabilities have skyrocketed.
4) Education is regarded as a less than demanding major in college & therefore does attract some people without good work habits. So in summary the job has gotten more difficult, it doesn’t attract the best students, & is relatively easy to get a degree in. What is the solution to attracting a higher level of person to education?</p>
<p>
Higher pay seems to me to be the obvious answer.</p>
<p>…more stringent college admission, course work, & certification?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, but only partially. Even the best teacher in the world will not be able to turn around a kid who is intent on misbehaving and knows that the teacher can do nothing about it, and the parent would always come out on the side of the kid.</p>
<p>I have a suggestion. How about an academic tax? Every time a student underperforms (exact definition to be decided) a certain amount of money is docked from the parents’ paychecks. Every time a student overperforms, a certain amount is added on (and it is asymmetrical - i.e., if 1% is docked for underperformance, 2% is added). It is all funded by state and local taxes.</p>
<p>There is no short-term, quick-fix solution. We’ve shot ourselves in the foot by 40 years of neglect.</p>
<p>There is progress, but it is very slow, and it is being driven by the much-maligned (and admittedly flawed) NCLB. Here in our district, 10 years ago, the clear attitude was, “We graduate a few kids a year that go to college, so we’re doing a good job.” We actually had a HS principal who would advise kids who were struggling to drop out and get a job. The light that NCLB has shone on the bottom half of the student population has forced school districts to devote resources to helping those kids. One school superintendent who knows our district well (her kids went to school here), put it well: “They used to ignore the bottom 50%; with NCLB, they can’t get away with that any more.”</p>
<p>I’m a reporter, and over the years, I’ve covered about 15 different small, rural districts. I can tell you that the culture - whether we genuinely care about kids and work to make them successful, or whether we just go through the motions and collect our paychecks - varies immensely from district to district. It’s driven by the people at the top to an extent, but moreso by the attitudes of the teaching staff. Long term, if we have the will, we can right things by doing what is necessary to attract more bright, dedicated young people to teaching jobs. That will require, first of all, money, and second of all, that we begin to regard public school teaching as a prestigious and honorable profession. (I do not claim this will be easy!) </p>
<p>We also need to make it easier to get rid of bad teachers. Here in Illinois, we’ve just passed legislation to make that easier (and believe me, it’s very rare that I hold up Illinois as a positive example for anything at all!). We also need to hold the feet of the educational establishment to the fire, demand that they accomplish results, and fire people (administrators and teachers) when they don’t accomplish those results. </p>
<p>NCLB was a necessary first step, but I fear that we’ve allowed ourselves to be convinced by the educational establishment that because NCLB is not perfect, the whole idea of standards-based evaluation should be thrown out. Educators hate the very idea that outsiders would dare to evaluate what they do rather than just blindly accept their assurances that they’re doing a good job and, with apologies to Garrison Keillor, that all school districts and educators are above average.</p>
<p>I fully agree that NCLB has been a good thing. However, my concern is that whether it is taking away attention from the top performers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually agree with this. This is how most of the other OECD countries work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve nailed it, IMO. BTW, that 25% is not my number; it comes from Peter Schrag, one of the leading contemporary authors who has looked at our public education system:</p>
<p>[Amazon.com:</a> Final Test: The Battle for Adequacy in America’s Schools (9781595580269): Peter Schrag: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Final-Test-Adequacy-Americas-Schools/dp/1595580263/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311180660&sr=1-1]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Final-Test-Adequacy-Americas-Schools/dp/1595580263/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311180660&sr=1-1)</p>
<p>Indian Parent, it is more than taking away “attention” from the top performers. It is actually slowing them intentionally to decrease the the achievement gap. In NCLB, closing the achievement gap is very important (and should be), but it does not stipulate continued “success” of other students except minimum standards for the standardized tests. So what you have is either a flat achievement line for the higher scoring students, or one that slightly dips. Then, as the money and attention is given to the students with lower scores and those scores increase, the line for the higher scoring students remains static and is not moved further out of reach. If the scores of higher scoring students increased at the same time as the lower scoring students increased, there would not be any “progress” in closing the achievement gap, and the school would fail to meet AYP for that year. Stinks, huh?</p>
<p>Annasdad, the main change over the past 40 years has been the acceptance of women into other fields of work. That we cannot turn back. Points 2 and 4 above I don’t think has changed over the years and in fact may have gotten better in aggregate. So the only thing we can influence is point 3. </p>
<p>Which is my point.</p>
<p>vLines, Totally stinks, yes. This is what happens when focus is on mediocrity. Any thoughts here annasdad?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It can, and that’s a valid concern. But in some ways, it is raising all boats (albeit slowly). It’s caused school districts (at least those I’m familiar with) to focus on teaching methods that work and on content based on standards, rather than just traditional ways of doing things.</p>
<p>Our district has used a grammar curriculum known as the “Shurley Method” for years. It’s an awful system that purports to teach kids grammar by teaching them jingles. Some of the more progressive teachers and administrators have been trying to get rid of the curriculum for years; as one said, “Just because they can sing the jingle doesn’t mean they can use the grammar.” But a lot of the mossbacks were comfortable using it and resistant to trying anything new. Finally, the continued pressure brought about by in-the-toilet reading and writing scores has overcome this resistance. All students will benefit, both at the bottom and at the top.</p>
<p>And if one more school admin/teacher tells me “your son will be fine, he is smart “enough””, I will need to be restrained. As I am entering into the college applications, and really looking at merit scholarships, I realize that “smart enough” is not enough. I always felt that a straight A students, top in the school, with appropriate EC’s would have schools all over them. But it is sadly not true. However, a school that would put more effort into their top students, with things like, oh…science fairs, or math team, or almost any other scholastic endeavors would help yield higher outcomes. And encourage academics. But no, our school started a bocce ball league for those students that were not athletic enough to get on the other athletic teams in the school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the United States, we have this odd idea that a permanent underclass is not a good idea and that every child deserves the right to a life of achievement. That it’s harder to convince some to take advantage of that right than it is others is an unfortunate fact of life, and one that’s been used as an excuse by the educational establishment for decades.</p>
<p>I do not see it as a matter of creating a permanent underclass. Some trades make more money than a high school teacher.</p>
<p>The claim that anybody is intentionally slowing the achievement of top performers to close the achievement gap is patent nonsense. Yes, schools have limited resources, and yes, when more of those resources have to be devoted to lower achievers, that can detract from gifted programs and other interventions for the top performers. But intentionally lowering the top line? Horse manure!</p>
<p>Coming a bit late to this discussion.</p>
<p>Usually, it is not the teacher’s fault. There are some teachers that are not performing well enough. I agree with someone above that said that the number of bad teachers is actually much fewer than stated by politicians and news media. In our school, like others, there are often 2 sections of AP classes. In certain subjects, one teacher is known to be easier and thus students get better class grades, but do worse on the AP test. The other teacher may be the opposite. Our district has finally started tracking AP results by teacher. While the results of a particular class is not very helpful (one section may have fewer committed students), tracking this over a few years should indicate if there is a major difference in results.</p>
<p>There are also those few teachers that are universally disliked or known to be either bullying or just plain bad. In some cases, parents may complain but often there is not enough of an outcry. However, good students can usually figure out a way to do well with extra work or with tutoring.</p>
<p>In our high achieving district, NCLB has been of no help and actually hurts. We have one school that did not make AYP for one subgroup and is now tainted. The subgroup is very small so that one or two struggling students make a huge difference in the percentile achievement. Also, the tests are up to each state so most have just made the tests easy enough for most kids to pass. </p>
<p>That being said, there has to be accountability for schools, teachers, administrators and for students. We don’t want to simply pass students on if they have not learned the material. Figuring out the best way to assess results is the sticking point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you need to swap out the can for a will. Does this not worry you? It worries me a lot. As it is the US curriculum lags international standards. As it is US teachers teach to the median. Do we want even more attention taken away from the top performers? What is the incentive to be a top performer then?</p>