Louisiana School Vouchers -Emails exposed and discussion

[Oye]

Originally Posted by BHM

Oye, I am not sure if you have experienced non-certified teachers so you may not be able to fully answer. Do you think (in general terms) having a certification necessarily makes you a good teacher and not having one make you a bad teacher?

I have. I have interviewed many. And even more when I was dept chair and it was my recommendation to administration that led to hiring.

My first day on the job - period - a non-cert teacher used my classroom (floater teacher w/out a room of her own) during 2nd period. First day, I go back to get something out of my desk (we are expected to be out of our rooms when a floater teacher is in there). I didn't see the teacher. Anywhere.

She was a mid-50s woman, cowering in the corner. And I mean that literally. The kids were going nuts. Her previous teaching experience? Private English tutor in South Korea. Not certified. No experience in classroom of her own. No discipline management courses. No instructional strategy training. Nothing.

Fast forward a couple of years, as DC I am interviewing. I saw lots of people without certification or alternative certification who had poor resumes. Or who had no classroom experience in a preservice role. No training in theory. No grounding in practice. But they took a few EDUC courses and the state gave them an alternative certification. Some had no certification and just came to job fairs.

There are, however, different "alt cert" routes. I am using the term generally, but there are good alt cert programs. And there are alt cert people who have classroom experience as part of their requirements.

I've seen them on the job. I've observed and mentored all kinds. I've assessed all kinds.

And I am speaking in generalities, of course. There are poor certified teachers. There are good uncert/altcert teachers. But, by and large, the alt/non-cert teachers were generally lacking. In a lot of things.

I have said before on here that I think my preservice experience should be a model for a lot of schools - they do it here in Canada. You want to teach? You get a Bachelors in your field. If elementary, it's Child Studies or something similar. Then, you apply to Teachers College and for 1 year, you work on taking your subject expertise and putting that into practice with courses on education (psychology, ed technology, curriculum theory, sociology, discipline management, cognition, etc) and internship/student teaching experience in an actual classroom with mentor teachers.

That is how my Holmes Program was at LSU. 4 year Lit. 1 year MEd - with a full written thesis, 4 consecutive semesters of 12-hour courseloads (9 in summers). Teaching at 3 different schools, each in different sociological contexts/communities.

It was a rigorous year. But extremely helpful. And it was intensive. people dropped out. But I didn't feel sorry for them - teaching is a serious matter. And I think that standards are already too low.

There were certified teachers I interviewed from major universities whose preservice programs were lacking.

We need to be moving in exactly the opposite direction Romney wants to take education.

If you look at nations that have strong education programs - I will tell you to look at this first: how do they train their teachers? What are the attitudes of people going into teaching? Toward the teaching profession?

I can tell you that pretty much across the board, the tougher it is to become a teacher, the stronger the teachers. The stronger the teaching. The better the education.

Here in Ontario, you must be a certified teacher in order to substitute. And many districts have waiting lists... to become a substitute.

I really believe that if you improve teacher education, you improve education.

Originally Posted by BHM

I guess I do not see the value of being certified when teaching a first or second grader for example.

I should show my wife your post. She could answer this better than I could.

I can tell you this - and I don't mean any offense - that this attitude shows how much you underestimate how difficult it is too teach and how effective instruction involves a lot of knowledge about learning, cognition, discipline, psychology, etc.

And you aren't the only one that has this attitude - it's pretty common.

Most people look at teaching and think, "I can do that. It's easy. Little kids - I know more than they do. So even if I suck at math, I can teach two-digit addition."

Really strong effective teachers, though, do a lot more than that.

Do you know how difficult it is to teach a child to read? How about 25 kids? With different learning aptitudes? Languages spoken at home? Disabilities? Etc.

it's a huge responsibility.

And just from talking to my wife, she has to know a lot. Cognition. Development. Literacy. Social functioning. Motor skill development. Psychology. Identifying learning disabilities or potential problems (key to helping kids is early identification). Discipline management. Instructional strategies. Etc.

Like I said, she could probably give you a longer, more comprehensive, and more detailed list.

But make no mistake, just because the kids are small and the print in their books is large, the education going on in that classroom, at that stage, is absolutely vital.

So, again, I think we take teacher education too casually. I think it should be harder to become a teacher. I think standards should be high. I think the work should be challenging. I think the profession should be incentivized.

I think that if you improve teacher education, you improve teachers. And then the handwringing over unions (omg bad teachers in the classroom!) and teacher merit (omg bad teachers in the classroom!) will decrease. Okay, the hand-wringing won't decrease. There's a lot of political gain in self-righteousness over these issues. But they wouldn't be the problem people dream that they are.

I actually think that there are a lot of strong teachers already out there. But, for whatever reason (standardized testing, legislation, strong-armed admin, homogeneity of instruiction, etc) they aren't able to do what they've been trained to do, what they do best.

Teach.

[brockmeaux]

x1000, Oye. Great post.

[Hawkeye Saint]

Less than forthright politicians in Louisiana? I've never heard of such a thing.

[BHM]

Originally Posted by Oye

I have. I have interviewed many. And even more when I was dept chair and it was my recommendation to administration that led to hiring.

My first day on the job - period - a non-cert teacher used my classroom (floater teacher w/out a room of her own) during 2nd period. First day, I go back to get something out of my desk (we are expected to be out of our rooms when a floater teacher is in there). I didn't see the teacher. Anywhere.

She was a mid-50s woman, cowering in the corner. And I mean that literally. The kids were going nuts. Her previous teaching experience? Private English tutor in South Korea. Not certified. No experience in classroom of her own. No discipline management courses. No instructional strategy training. Nothing.

Fast forward a couple of years, as DC I am interviewing. I saw lots of people without certification or alternative certification who had poor resumes. Or who had no classroom experience in a preservice role. No training in theory. No grounding in practice. But they took a few EDUC courses and the state gave them an alternative certification. Some had no certification and just came to job fairs.

There are, however, different "alt cert" routes. I am using the term generally, but there are good alt cert programs. And there are alt cert people who have classroom experience as part of their requirements.

I've seen them on the job. I've observed and mentored all kinds. I've assessed all kinds.

And I am speaking in generalities, of course. There are poor certified teachers. There are good uncert/altcert teachers. But, by and large, the alt/non-cert teachers were generally lacking. In a lot of things.


That is how my Holmes Program was at LSU. 4 year Lit. 1 year MEd - with a full written thesis, 4 consecutive semesters of 12-hour courseloads (9 in summers). Teaching at 3 different schools, each in different sociological contexts/communities.

It was a rigorous year. But extremely helpful. And it was intensive. people dropped out. But I didn't feel sorry for them - teaching is a serious matter. And I think that standards are already too low.

There were certified teachers I interviewed from major universities whose preservice programs were lacking.

We need to be moving in exactly the opposite direction Romney wants to take education.

If you look at nations that have strong education programs - I will tell you to look at this first: how do they train their teachers? What are the attitudes of people going into teaching? Toward the teaching profession?

I can tell you that pretty much across the board, the tougher it is to become a teacher, the stronger the teachers. The stronger the teaching. The better the education.

Here in Ontario, you must be a certified teacher in order to substitute. And many districts have waiting lists... to become a substitute.

I really believe that if you improve teacher education, you improve education.



I should show my wife your post. She could answer this better than I could.

I can tell you this - and I don't mean any offense - that this attitude shows how much you underestimate how difficult it is too teach and how effective instruction involves a lot of knowledge about learning, cognition, discipline, psychology, etc.

And you aren't the only one that has this attitude - it's pretty common.

Most people look at teaching and think, "I can do that. It's easy. Little kids - I know more than they do. So even if I suck at math, I can teach two-digit addition."

Really strong effective teachers, though, do a lot more than that.

Do you know how difficult it is to teach a child to read? How about 25 kids? With different learning aptitudes? Languages spoken at home? Disabilities? Etc.

it's a huge responsibility.

And just from talking to my wife, she has to know a lot. Cognition. Development. Literacy. Social functioning. Motor skill development. Psychology. Identifying learning disabilities or potential problems (key to helping kids is early identification). Discipline management. Instructional strategies. Etc.

Like I said, she could probably give you a longer, more comprehensive, and more detailed list.

But make no mistake, just because the kids are small and the print in their books is large, the education going on in that classroom, at that stage, is absolutely vital.

So, again, I think we take teacher education too casually. I think it should be harder to become a teacher. I think standards should be high. I think the work should be challenging. I think the profession should be incentivized.

I think that if you improve teacher education, you improve teachers. And then the handwringing over unions (omg bad teachers in the classroom!) and teacher merit (omg bad teachers in the classroom!) will decrease. Okay, the hand-wringing won't decrease. There's a lot of political gain in self-righteousness over these issues. But they wouldn't be the problem people dream that they are.

I actually think that there are a lot of strong teachers already out there. But, for whatever reason (standardized testing, legislation, strong-armed admin, homogeneity of instruiction, etc) they aren't able to do what they've been trained to do, what they do best.

Teach.

Don't you dare show this to your wife! I already have one member of the Oye family having me on their crap list.


I am probably not fully understanding what is involved in the certification process. I was assuming it was having a degree and taking a certification test. I remember as a student in drade school, I tended to perform better with a teacher that had the skills to engage the students rather than just being educated. I had a histroy teacher in the 7th grade that was absolutely nauseating. Think of Ben Stein, the Clear Eyes commercial guy. While he was evidently very knowledgeable in his field, his monotone class long speeches either put you to sleep or had you contemplating wrapping ten layers of duct tape around his mouth. He later became the Principal at one of the schools I often visited.

My point was not to bash the value of educated teachers but the process of the selection of the teachers. In simple terms, just because you have a 8 year degree does not mean you will make a good teacher. The question I asked should have been how much does the teacher's ability to actually teach a classroom factor in to the hiring. I know that even if I had an 8 year degree, there is no way I could teach a room full of second graders.

I have said before on here that I think my preservice experience should be a model for a lot of schools - they do it here in Canada. You want to teach? You get a Bachelors in your field. If elementary, it's Child Studies or something similar. Then, you apply to Teachers College and for 1 year, you work on taking your subject expertise and putting that into practice with courses on education (psychology, ed technology, curriculum theory, sociology, discipline management, cognition, etc) and internship/student teaching experience in an actual classroom with mentor teachers.

Is this typical of US schools and was your preservice training typical to what happens in the US? I would be in full support of this type of training and evaluation before a teacher enters a class. Again, just because you are educated does not by itself mean you will be a good teacher. You need to be evaluated and judged on how well you can handle a classroom environment before being allowed to teach.



Thanks for your response and insight.

[BHM]

Originally Posted by brockmeaux

I think it's a money grab for friends with the money to open a charter school and collect funds until the charter isn't renewed because they have no certified teachers and they don't measure up to any kind of standards, then repeat the process (though on the surface, it makes him look good to the hardcore Repub base who love taking it to villainous unions). And I don't think it's much of a debate. As a Louisiana teacher, it frankly sickens me how this was all rammed through. I'm not upset that they'll be evaluating us a little differently (though I could argue that we're as much in control of test scores as the kids are of the environment that they're raised in), and I'm not upset by the idea that we want to try something different to help our kids and their futures out. But the way it was done, with no input from actual educators, and the fact that Jindal basically called me bad for our kids because I care about continuing to get paid for my work because I'm an existing certified teacher, makes me really sick of pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth. It feels a little bit like what Vilma, Fujita, Hargrove, and Smith are going through with Roger Goodell at the moment on a personal level. No matter how much I try to make sense, or point to evidence that's contrary to what he plays up in his PR game, Jindal is in total control of my future as a teacher because he owns the BESE board, the State Ed. Superintendent, and he's got the stroke to pretty much do away with anybody who publicly speaks up against him, as evidenced by the various firings/hirings and removal/placement on panels and committees mentioned here and that have been going on for years.

Sorry for the vent.

Vent away.


I am not a fan of the standardized teacher evaluation that teachers must go through. Going back tot he poor performing school I mentioned in my last post, how is it fair to evaluate these teachers when faced with the environment these kids are being raised in? It is really so bad that if the teacher can get a student to class, they should be patted on the back.

This school and say an E.A. Martin caliber public school are on the completely opposite sides of the spectrum. How you can evaluate or compare teachers from these two schools must go WAY beyond student test scores.

[Oye]

Originally Posted by BHM

I am probably not fully understanding what is involved in the certification process. I was assuming it was having a degree and taking a certification test. I remember as a student in drade school, I tended to perform better with a teacher that had the skills to engage the students rather than just being educated.

My point was not to bash the value of educated teachers but the process of the selection of the teachers. In simple terms, just because you have a 8 year degree does not mean you will make a good teacher.

I thought I'd addressed the bolded above. I'll try once more - the innate ability to teach a child or engage a learner is truly a gift. And a natural teacher would probably do well in a classroom with little formal educational training.

But this is rare. This is the exception. And I do not believe that we should base teacher qualification criteria on an exception.

I never said that having a degree in education made someone a good or great teacher. That's naive.

I think most people wanting to be a teacher need training. And you know what part of that training entails? The skills to engage the students.

Instructional strategies. Best practices. Cognition. Social development. Motivation. Discipline and classroom management/control. Diversifying assessment. Flexibility to modify for student needs.

And you don't just learn this in a university classroom.

That's why I think it's imperative to have student teaching experience. And, more often than not, alt cert and non cert teachers do not have this. Real, practical classroom experience is just as valuable as learning theory, methods, science, etc about learning and development.

And that's what Romney (and Jindal) want removed from the equation. I think it's absolutely absurd.

The 5 year burnout/retention rate is bad enough - and that's for teachers who have student teaching experience and grounding in an educational preparation and certification program.

I keep feeling like you're trying to paint me into a corner, B. Not intentionally, but still doing so.

I said this in the post above, but deleted it - thinking myabe I was mis-reading it and wanted to be fair to you. But I see the same sentiment again. In response to a long post, you come back with the same implied point of my post:

that I think a piece of paper is the most important thing in a teacher and that I'd rather a crappy teacher with a piece of paper than a genius teacher without it.

So I just want to be clear. I don't believe that - but those exceptions are exceptions for a reason.

I think I am a natural teacher. Believe it firmly. I feel I've been called to be a teacher. I've had tremendous students who still stay in touch with me. I get emails and facebook messages and texts telling me, in flattering and superlative tones, how much they learned from me - that they still used today. How I was a better teacher than most of their univ. or college profs. Etc. I've received some pretty strong awards for my teaching.

And I think a lot of that comes from a natural ability to engage. I don't hide my passion for my subject.

I know all of that sounds like bragging - but it's really meant to lead to this point:

Even with the natural ability to teach that I (believe I) possess, I am the teacher I am because of the Holmes Program. because of the rigor. I was challenged so much. I had to reconceptualize pretty much everything I thought about education going in. it was humbling. I felt stupid and awkward and ignorant - and that's because I was.

I think strong teacher education programs make natural teachers better and shape committed, interested people into better teachers.

I see no reason, no rationale to remove that criterion for teaching - none. It's still my number one reason to improve education.

You improve teachers. And you do that by making it harder, not easier.

Originally Posted by BHM

Is this typical of US schools and was your preservice training typical to what happens in the US? I would be in full support of this type of training and evaluation before a teacher enters a class. Again, just because you are educated does not by itself mean you will be a good teacher. You need to be evaluated and judged on how well you can handle a classroom environment before being allowed to teach.
.

I agree on the latter.

As for "typical of US schools" - I don't think so. I can't say for certain, but in my experience - no, it is not typical.

Even at LSU, it wasn't typical. The Holmes Program was introduced and, for a time, was the only way you could get a teaching certificate from LSU. A fgew years it was that way - and that's when I was there. There was no 4 year option.

This was pushed by a College of Education that had some of the most influential people in the history of education at LSU. I mean, some real heavy hitters. Bill Pinar. Bill Doll. Cameron McCarthy. Etc. These are important people in the educational constellation. All at LSU. It was tough.

Initially, I was angry. Another year? And a different degree, first?

Ugh. I want a 4 year option. But there was none.

After the Holmes was implemented, there was a lot of complaining. People dropping out of the program. People grousing about how much work it was. There were 6 others in my cohort by the end. Six teachers graduating with a certification to teach junior/secondary literature.

That's not many for a university the size of LSU.

So, the 4 year option was re-instated and became more popular. I know the 4 year option - it's weaker.

But it's more popular -

They even introduced a sponsored bit of scholarship/funding toward the end of the program that paid the tuition for the extra year if you pursued the Masters.

But it was too hard, too much. And I'm not even certain if the program exists at LSU any more.

That's a shame.

I think it's important to have 3 things in your teaching education program:

1. a degree in your teaching field - an expertise in what you want to teach. At the very least, a high number of minimum hours in your teachable subject.

2. student teaching experience - working under a mentor teacher, being guided and helped under watchful eyes while putting into practice what you're learning in your univ. courses. This practical experience is so incredibly important, imo. I've worked with student teachers and it's a rewarding experience for both. I think it's good for student and teacher. The student learns a lot, obviously.

But the teacher also learns. New strategies. New resources. New research. It's a symbiotic connection between the practical world of the classroom and the theory/research world of the university. The separation between those two worlds is already greater than it should be. The Holmes was designed to be a bridge - and it has been. It was. But it's not broad in impact. I learned from my student teachers. New methods. New resources. It was great. ANd we need more connections b/w theory and practice.

That's one of the foci of my own work - i've pushed to make my work practical as well as theoretical. E.g. what does Foucault's thoughts on punishment and incarceration look like in a juvenile facility? What do Wacquant's thoughts on social decay look like for kids in these urban environments? What does Angela Davis's thoughts on incarceration look like in secure custody facilities and policing practices for (likely already marginalized) youth? What does Giroux's work in critical pedagogy look like in classrooms and youth prisons and inner cities? What does Jonathan Simon's work on governing and criminality say about the laws governing these kids lives or their imprisonment? What does Friere's work on oppression have to say about the banking method in classrooms in the US?

Etc.

I think this is important for education in this country to move forward. Teachers need to be smart about their field, learned in education, informed about research, policy, theory.

3. experience/degree in a teaching certification program - this usually denotes some time dedicated to education issues, specifically. Apart from subject content coursework. All of those things I've listed above - I think they are important. Discipline. Instruction. Theory. Cognition. Development. Literacy. Sociology. Etc.

Ideally, this work is meant to complement the coursework in your subject area - so that you can most/more effectively take what you've learned in English/Science/Art/Music/Drama/Math/History/Econ/Etc and pair it with learning on how best to teach these subjects. Learning them yourself doesn't mean you can teach them to others.

Your students won't learn as you did. So you can't assume it's that way - you need to learn how to teach in addition to what you teach.

Those 3 things are vital, imo.

And Romney wants to make it so that you don't need any of them to become a teacher. Jindal (who is looking more and more like Romney, Jr. in this regard), too.

It makes no sense to me. It's the stupidest policy I've heard. At least with NCLB - though I hate it - I can understand the sentiment behind it. Minimum standards being measured. I get it. Vouchers? Don't agree with it, but I get it. I can see the appeal - however limited. Hell, even privatization - as ignorant as it is in applying market ideologies to education - I can understand the appeal. I can see the reasoning.

For Romney's position here, I think it's stupider and more counterintuitive than any of these things. Because I can't imagine how anyone can think it's a good idea. Unlike those objectionable things above, I can't find a position of support that makes any sense.

If this were to pass, in a global context, US education would move from being a punchline to the joke.

As I said, we have enough protections to keep this from happening in every state (though, sorry Louisiana and probably other states) - but the wrongheadness of this policy is one of the most puzzling I've come across in educational proposal/legislation.

[Ken-Bob]

Originally Posted by BHM

Again, just because you are educated does not by itself mean you will be a good teacher. You need to be evaluated and judged on how well you can handle a classroom environment before being allowed to teach.

This is hitting the nail on the head, IMO. The politicization of the education system has led to the hiring of people for teaching positions who, while they may have a great understanding of their subject matter, they don't have the education in how to teach. Occasionally someone of this type may just "get it". By the same token, there are certainly people who go through the entire process of educator training who don't have enough skill to teach the subject. I've often said that I'd rather have a teacher who knows how to teach than a teacher who has a high degree of knowledge in the subject matter.

But it really opens up an entirely different can of worms. Evaluating a teacher is similar to evaluating an NFL quarterback. Coming out of college, many scouts thought that Brees couldn't cut it the NFL level. Ryan Leaf was thought by many to be a better prospect that Peyton Manning. Just as NFL scouts don't really understand many of the intangibles that make a great quarterback, no one has yet to come up with strong metrics that determine what makes a good teacher.

It's a complex subject that demands much more study and effort than has yet been put into it (or that anyone seems to be willing to put into it). That said, the need is greater than ever. The No Child Left Behind act and the continuing push to turn educational institutions into profit centers rather than learning centers has, IMO, decimated the potential of a decade of America's young people (the generation coming out of high school now may be among the least prepared ever). The emphasis on basic job skills at all levels (even in higher ed) over critical thinking skills and intellectual rigor has the potential to put the US even further behind economically in a world where innovation is king (an area where the US used to lead but soon may not be able to compete at all). I believe a strong education system - one which serves the entire populace - may be America's only potential edge in the new world economy. Yet, in the name of capitalism, we seem to be heading more and more in the wrong direction - because capitalism and a good education system just don't work together well at all.

[Expatriate]

Originally Posted by Ken-Bob

This is hitting the nail on the head, IMO. The politicization of the education system has led to the hiring of people for teaching positions who, while they may have a great understanding of their subject matter, they don't have the education in how to teach. Occasionally someone of this type may just "get it". By the same token, there are certainly people who go through the entire process of educator training who don't have enough skill to teach the subject. I've often said that I'd rather have a teacher who knows how to teach than a teacher who has a high degree of knowledge in the subject matter.

But it really opens up an entirely different can of worms. Evaluating a teacher is similar to evaluating an NFL quarterback. Coming out of college, many scouts thought that Brees couldn't cut it the NFL level. Ryan Leaf was thought by many to be a better prospect that Peyton Manning. Just as NFL scouts don't really understand many of the intangibles that make a great quarterback, no one has yet to come up with strong metrics that determine what makes a good teacher.

It's a complex subject that demands much more study and effort than has yet been put into it (or that anyone seems to be willing to put into it). That said, the need is greater than ever. The No Child Left Behind act and the continuing push to turn educational institutions into profit centers rather than learning centers has, IMO, decimated the potential of a decade of America's young people (the generation coming out of high school now may be among the least prepared ever). The emphasis on basic job skills at all levels (even in higher ed) over critical thinking skills and intellectual rigor has the potential to put the US even further behind economically in a world where innovation is king (an area where the US used to lead but soon may not be able to compete at all). I believe a strong education system - one which serves the entire populace - may be America's only potential edge in the new world economy. Yet, in the name of capitalism, we seem to be heading more and more in the wrong direction - because capitalism and a good education system just don't work together well at all.

Finland seems to have figured it out.

26 Amazing Facts About Finland's Unorthodox Education System - Business Insider

[IntenseSaint]

I guess they pay their teachers less because they subsidize their education.

[Oye]

Originally Posted by Expatriate

Finland seems to have figured it out.

26 Amazing Facts About Finland's Unorthodox Education System - Business Insider

thanks for the link, Ex

As I mentioned above, I am not fluent in comparative global ed - so the list was helpful. Among those items listed, I noted the following:

- only 1 mandatory standardized test (taken at 16)

- science classes are capped at 16 (smaller is better - not too small)

- recess time of 75 mins (vs 27 min avg in the US) - here in Canada, my wife's kids get about 60-70 minutes per day. When she was teaching in Houston? 20 minutes. She is adamant that kids don't get enough time out of their seats - for social reasons, physical reasons, imagination/play reasons, etc.

- all teachers have funded Masters (improved teacher education/certification - like the funded Holmes Program. I will say, though, that a lot of Masters in Ed programs are a joke. Hence my emphasis on increasing rigor)

- national curriculum are only broad guidelines (no standardized test dictating curriculum; teachers have the latitude to teach - my wife has LOTS more choice here vs. back in Texas)

- teachers are selected from the top 10% of graduates (again, improve teacher quality)

- 6600 applied for 660 slots (here, there is a LOT of competition for teaching positions - people substitute teach for years before getting a position a lot of times. And people say you can't have competition in education w/out the freek market? What a joke - there's TONS of competition opportunity)

- teachers w/ 15 years experience make 102% of college grads (vs. 62% in the US; this goes back to the incentivizing of the profession; this helps battle burnout, turnover, and attrition; here in Ontario, a PhD in Ed makes a lot more than a BEd, as opposed to back home or in TX where it was around 3k/year when I was there - not sure what it is now)

- teachers are given the same status as doctors and lawyers (I don't know what they mean by 'same status' - that sounds subjective. And I don't begrudge the increased respect doctors and lawyers receive vs. teachers. Not at all. Still, I think we could have a healthier attitude toward teachers and the profession, culturally. A lot of people's attitudes toward teaching come from a "hey, I can do that - it's not hard!" position. It's insulting and counter productive. That attitude from parents is bad enough - but from legislators and policy makers? Even worse)

- no merit pay for teachers (as I've said before - if you make it harder to be a teacher, make it more attractive, then teachers do their job - because they are strong and competent. No reason for worrying about teacher 'merit')

The bolded items are directly relevant to what I've posted and how I feel about preservice teacher education, making teachers stronger, and incentivizing the profession.

When we talk about education, again, I think the best way to improve it is to improve teachers and the profession. It seems that the list does a good job of highlighting those things. Underscoring the potential in focusing on teacher education and recruitment.

It was an interesting list. And much of it is reflected in the research of successful schooling.

thanks for the link

[Expatriate]

Originally Posted by IntenseSaint

I guess they pay their teachers less because they subsidize their education.

I have no idea what you are saying there.

Their system is more about providing an equal education across the board for all students. Every school is funded by taxes and even the administrators and politicians kids attend the same schools as the ditch digger and sanitation engineer. Amazingly, providing this equality for all in education has resulted in schools that consistently rank in the top 3 of the world over the past decade.

I'd really love to see a similar approach in our state.

[Expatriate]

Originally Posted by Oye

thanks for the link, Ex

You're welcome. You might like this one too. I'd be curious what your wife thinks about the Fin's system too.

“I took Besart on that year as my private student,” Louhivuori told me in his office, which boasted a Beatles “Yellow Submarine” poster on the wall and an electric guitar in the closet. When Besart was not studying science, geography and math, he was parked next to Louhivuori’s desk at the front of his class of 9- and 10-year- olds, cracking open books from a tall stack, slowly reading one, then another, then devouring them by the dozens. By the end of the year, the son of Kosovo war refugees had conquered his adopted country’s vowel-rich language and arrived at the realization that he could, in fact, learn.

Years later, a 20-year-old Besart showed up at Kirkkojarvi’s Christmas party with a bottle of Cognac and a big grin. “You helped me,” he told his former teacher. Besart had opened his own car repair firm and a cleaning company. “No big fuss,” Louhivuori told me. “This is what we do every day, prepare kids for life.”

Read more: Why Are Finland's Schools Successful? | People & Places | Smithsonian Magazine

[Superfan]

Do you think the voucher program might create a demand for teachers in the vision Oye because they will be the better quality thus free market principles driving people to care about teacher-student relationship instead of government-school relationship?

[Ken-Bob]

Originally Posted by Superfan

Do you think the voucher program might create a demand for teachers in the vision Oye because they will be the better quality thus free market principles driving people to care about teacher-student relationship instead of government-school relationship?

For the free market to work properly, open competition is required. There is no basis for competition in the educational system because there is no reasonable/accepted way to measure and compare quality differences between schools and/or teachers.

[Superfan]

Originally Posted by Ken-Bob

For the free market to work properly, open competition is required. There is no basis for competition in the educational system because there is no reasonable/accepted way to measure and compare quality differences between schools and/or teachers.

Making sure people can read and write is a good start.