Ken-Bob
Super Forum Fanatic
- Joined
- May 10, 1997
- Messages
- 8,012
- Reaction score
- 2,263
- Age
- 66
Offline
I agree that schools aren't as bad as some think they are, however I think they can be a lot better.
The women in the workplace argument is interesting. I think it's a factor, but not so much in the drain within the teaching ranks (however, I think that it could very well be a factor there). I think the biggest thing is that there is a situation today wherein women almost have to work in order to help keep the family afloat. When women became more empowered within the job market (which, I believe is, overall, a good thing), that market was flooded with new talent, causing everyone's wages to go down and, in many cases, the cost of living to go up. The economy tends to adjust itself that way. The bad part of it is that the kid doesn't always have a mother at home - that influence is missing. Society, which doesn't adjust as quickly as does the market, still hasn't caught up with that change in allowing parents of both sexes more fluidity in terms of time to be with their kids, as well as other things such as job-site day care, etc.
Another thing which has hurt the schools is the fact that teacher training also has yet to catch up with economic and societal changes. The teacher training models that most universities still use are often mired in the educational models of the 1950s. Teachers are smart, and many will catch up, but something like 50% of all teachers who graduate college and go into the field leave the field within their first two years. Part of this problem certainly falls on the shoulders of the teacher training colleges, which crank bright-eyed young people out of their mills who are woefully unprepared to deal with the challenges of the classroom.
Yet another problem with novice teachers, etc., is the way the administrations handle them. The entire organization of most school systems is also based on an outdated model. I completely agree that teachers all to often fail to receive any reward for good work. But more importantly, the system could be reorganized to allow better teachers to serve as helpers to younger teachers. But we are still mired in a 1 teacher per 20 kids model (mostly for financial reasons) which fails to meet the needs. Personally I'd rather see larger class sizes with more teachers in the classroom (team teaching) than smaller class sizes with a single teacher.
Of course, in order to reward teachers there has to be a realistic way to evaluate them. Their job is to teach! Not to be a disciplinarian or a fund-raising chairman, or a politician, or a club sponsor, although each of those are worthy goals, they take away from their primary function - yet they are often evaluated just as equally on their non-teaching attributes as on their pedagogical assets. The "Dog and Pony Show" evaluations prevalent a just a decade ago (which were terribly inadequate), based on one or two hours of teacher observation a year to see if they had the requisite 'skills', have now given way to the practice of setting a single bar for every child in the country, regardless of their individual ability. Those kids who are too far below the bar are all too often ignored because the schools know that they can never reach the bar. Those who are above the bar are equally ignored because they have already reached it. Only those kids in the middle range, who are at risk of not jumping over the bar, are getting pushed. And those kids are often pushed ridiculously hard on subjects which may not suit them either. This is the morass which "No Child Allowed to Get Ahead" has left us in. It is one of the most harmful pieces of legislation our country has ever seen because it is hurting our young minds, who may very well be our countries greatest resource, so deeply.
I simply can't see why teachers can't be evaluated on how much they can help to improve the knowledge of each individual student. With the database technology we have available today, it boggles my mind why we aren't recording individual student progress in all areas, and evaluating our teachers on that. But that, like different tiers for teacher promotion and reward, like extra teachers in the classroom, like dedicated disciplinarian experts, like extra programs to help the kids who are at risk, or have no parent to go to when they leave school, and like the technology which could help so greatly, cost money. And unless the American people wake up and realize that, in a world where business clamors for cheap labor and cheap resources, the American mind may well be our last great resource, we will watch even that resource dwindle, along with our economic prowess in the world and, indeed, our very lifestyle which we hold so dear - until we are no longer the world leaders in anything, just another also-ran.
The women in the workplace argument is interesting. I think it's a factor, but not so much in the drain within the teaching ranks (however, I think that it could very well be a factor there). I think the biggest thing is that there is a situation today wherein women almost have to work in order to help keep the family afloat. When women became more empowered within the job market (which, I believe is, overall, a good thing), that market was flooded with new talent, causing everyone's wages to go down and, in many cases, the cost of living to go up. The economy tends to adjust itself that way. The bad part of it is that the kid doesn't always have a mother at home - that influence is missing. Society, which doesn't adjust as quickly as does the market, still hasn't caught up with that change in allowing parents of both sexes more fluidity in terms of time to be with their kids, as well as other things such as job-site day care, etc.
Another thing which has hurt the schools is the fact that teacher training also has yet to catch up with economic and societal changes. The teacher training models that most universities still use are often mired in the educational models of the 1950s. Teachers are smart, and many will catch up, but something like 50% of all teachers who graduate college and go into the field leave the field within their first two years. Part of this problem certainly falls on the shoulders of the teacher training colleges, which crank bright-eyed young people out of their mills who are woefully unprepared to deal with the challenges of the classroom.
Yet another problem with novice teachers, etc., is the way the administrations handle them. The entire organization of most school systems is also based on an outdated model. I completely agree that teachers all to often fail to receive any reward for good work. But more importantly, the system could be reorganized to allow better teachers to serve as helpers to younger teachers. But we are still mired in a 1 teacher per 20 kids model (mostly for financial reasons) which fails to meet the needs. Personally I'd rather see larger class sizes with more teachers in the classroom (team teaching) than smaller class sizes with a single teacher.
Of course, in order to reward teachers there has to be a realistic way to evaluate them. Their job is to teach! Not to be a disciplinarian or a fund-raising chairman, or a politician, or a club sponsor, although each of those are worthy goals, they take away from their primary function - yet they are often evaluated just as equally on their non-teaching attributes as on their pedagogical assets. The "Dog and Pony Show" evaluations prevalent a just a decade ago (which were terribly inadequate), based on one or two hours of teacher observation a year to see if they had the requisite 'skills', have now given way to the practice of setting a single bar for every child in the country, regardless of their individual ability. Those kids who are too far below the bar are all too often ignored because the schools know that they can never reach the bar. Those who are above the bar are equally ignored because they have already reached it. Only those kids in the middle range, who are at risk of not jumping over the bar, are getting pushed. And those kids are often pushed ridiculously hard on subjects which may not suit them either. This is the morass which "No Child Allowed to Get Ahead" has left us in. It is one of the most harmful pieces of legislation our country has ever seen because it is hurting our young minds, who may very well be our countries greatest resource, so deeply.
I simply can't see why teachers can't be evaluated on how much they can help to improve the knowledge of each individual student. With the database technology we have available today, it boggles my mind why we aren't recording individual student progress in all areas, and evaluating our teachers on that. But that, like different tiers for teacher promotion and reward, like extra teachers in the classroom, like dedicated disciplinarian experts, like extra programs to help the kids who are at risk, or have no parent to go to when they leave school, and like the technology which could help so greatly, cost money. And unless the American people wake up and realize that, in a world where business clamors for cheap labor and cheap resources, the American mind may well be our last great resource, we will watch even that resource dwindle, along with our economic prowess in the world and, indeed, our very lifestyle which we hold so dear - until we are no longer the world leaders in anything, just another also-ran.
