Cuomo Proposes Sweeping Education Reforms

[powerofk]

P

Perhaps I didn’t explain myself in calling them vouchers. In our county it costs $XXXX dollars per year, per child in public schools. I suggest giving every child the allowance of those same dollars and attend the school of choice. I believe it is not simply rich people who want their kids out of failing public schools. Have you watched “Waiting for Superman?” and see the anguish of parents whose kids didn’t get in via the lottery system. Inner city parents also want a way out and yes there are obstacles of transportation but they can be overcome. Heck there was FORCED bussing for integration for many years.

It may be a while before the dust settles and the competition changes public schools but my objective is to focus on the students and do the best thing for as many as we can. If allowing kids to get out of their failing schools and succeed in getting a good education doesn’t change the public schools, at least some of the kids have benefitted by transferring out.

You’re right teacher’s unions are a double edged sword but again, if competition were part of the system and good teachers were rewarded with higher compensation based on merit not just length of service, I think more people would be attracted to teaching.

Please educators do not take this wrong but the reality is that when I was a little girl, all the smart girls said they wanted to be teachers or nurses. Now the smart girls can and do want to be doctors and attorneys and stockbrokers because there is more money in it. I think this has made the standards for teachers entering and exiting the schools of education drop over the years. I remember the absolutely brilliant teachers I had as a child but I assure you they were mostly wives of professionals and professors who had few other career paths in those days. Something needs to be done to attract bright ambitious and caring people back into this profession and the system now does NOT provide those incentives. Teaching is seen as something that allows you summers off, cushy benefits and a good retirement, even if it isn’t the best paying job now. That does not attract the best and brightest students for the most part. I had contact with education majors during college in various sociology and history classes. I was pretty underwhelmed to say the least.

Again not a rip on all teachers but to say the system is failing our kids for multiple reasons and this is yet another obstacle to improving our schools.

And a huge reason why the system is failing our kids is the thought process among many other professionals that “anyone can be a teacher - people become teachers because they can’t do anything else”. I’m not offended at what you said, but there has to be a realization that education is the most politicized occupation in the United States. It is subject to the whims of whoever is in political office, most of whom have never once stepped foot inside a classroom except as a student - and have no idea how much work most teachers do behind the scenes. In fact, if someone is unsatisfied with his/her child’s educational progress and/or grades, he/she can immediately come over and say that the teacher doesn’t know how to do his/her job. Teachers are given a multitude of best practices, tools, trainings, and what-not, but due to political pressures, district mandates, etc., are forced to teach with both hands figuratively tied behind their backs. Honestly, if we are to change education, we must first change people’s perceptions about the profession - and it starts by treating educators as the professionals that we are.

 

[Inisfallen]

The health of the public school system is an issue that weighs heavily on my mind, since I have a daughter who will be entering the system shortly.

I’m also the son of a New York City public high school teacher, and the son-in-law of a public high school principal (not in NYC). So I think, and talk, a lot about this.

First, both my mother and my father-in-law would agree that having a student body that comes from less than desirable home and economic circumstances is no excuse for poor teacher performance. A teacher’s job is to teach the children in front of her, or him, no matter what their home evironment. Different pedagogical techniques may be called for in different circumstances, and it’s the teacher’s job to find the right technique.

Second, as to “teaching to the test,” well, some metric is needed, don’t you think? And that metric should be the same system-wide (if not nation-wide).

My daughter will be attending a school that has a pretty varied student body. Our zone includes our relatively affluent area, and parents are involved and committed. Many of the students are lucky to have stay-at-home moms, because their fathers (husbands) make enough money to permit that. Our daughter won’t, sadly, but we’re still going to be involved in and committed to her education. On the other hand, our zone also includes one of NYC’s housing projects, and those students are more likely to come from very poor families, and have unfortunate family situations at home.

City politics being what they are, the poorer students are lucky to be zoned in with the more affluent kids, since the affluent parents get attention and response from the local politicians. I have no desire to see the poor kids zoned out of our school. I don’t want my daughter raised and educated in a class-segregated environment anyway.

I am absolutely opposed to a voucher program. It takes needed money out of the public school system. If parents want to sent their kids to private or religious schools, that’s up to them. It is the obligation (actually codified in my state’s constitution) of the state to provide quality free education to all, at least through high school. I’m opposed to any measure designed to weaken that mission (and that includes charter schools).

I think it’s important to modify the system (here in NYC) that allows the most experienced teachers to pick the schools they teach in. It leaves the schools in the poorest areas with the youngest and most inexperienced teachers, and that’s flat-out wrong. This will, of course, require serious negotiation with the teachers’ union, but it has to be done.

 

[SWolf]

Second, as to “teaching to the test,” well, some metric is needed, don’t you think? And that metric should be the same system-wide (if not nation-wide).

No. No standardized metric is needed.

Why shouldn’t the teacher’s competency and value be judged by the school board and principle?

Why shouldn’t the local school board have complete control over curriculum? They’re the ones closest to the parents, and are in the best place to listen to their wishes.

 

[SWolf]

The state already sets the qualification and licensing standards. Better the individual states than the Feds…

In reality, how would a model like this work, and not be completely arbitrary? I also can’t imagine the teachers union being ok with this (I’m basing this on the assumption that in all/most states the removal of a teacher goes to abritration above the local level and they are subject to state labor laws. Could be wrong on this; however)

I appreciate everyone’s feedback and points of view on this

This is an SWolf fantasy. I have no idea how to get from what we have to what I want, but I would start with busting federal control and the teacher’s unions.

In an ideal world you would not need a teaching certification, teacher’s unions would be voluntary, and the local school board would have complete control over teachers and curriculum.

Before anyone says this is extreme, just think, has more federal and state control improved outcomes, or just added to the number of worthless administrators?

 

[ndsolt]

First, both my mother and my father-in-law would agree that having a student body that comes from less than desirable home and economic circumstances is no excuse for poor teacher performance. A teacher’s job is to teach the children in front of her, or him, no matter what their home evironment. Different pedagogical techniques may be called for in different circumstances, and it’s the teacher’s job to find the right technique.

True But its hard to teach children who are not getting their basic needs met at home. There are parents who can’t feed thier children one meal.

 

[meltzerboy]

This is an SWolf fantasy. I have no idea how to get from what we have to what I want, but I would start with busting federal control and the teacher’s unions.

In an ideal world you would not need a teaching certification, teacher’s unions would be voluntary, and the local school board would have complete control over teachers and curriculum.

Before anyone says this is extreme, just think, has more federal and state control improved outcomes, or just added to the number of worthless administrators?

You know, some private and parochial schools already conform, for the most part, to your ideal world. In many instances, no teaching certification is required, no teacher unions exist, teachers have minimal control over curriculum, which is mainly in the hands of the headmaster/headmistress, as is the hiring and firing of teachers, and who answer only to the board of trustees since there is no local school board.

One marked advantage found in private schools, for both teachers and students, is smaller class size compared to that in most public schools. Therefore, more individualized attention can be given to students and there are usually fewer problems in class management and discipline as a result. Another significant advantage is that most of the students are well prepared for learning, having been educated at home in the basics. Further, to gain admittance into many private (secondary) schools, students have to achieve a satisfactory score on certain exams. Thus their skill knowledge, if not their intelligence, is assured to be at a satisfactory academic level. Vouchers may, however, eventually put an end to this private-school paradise by enabling more unprepared public-school students to transfer to private schools, thus enlarging class size, and forcing administrators to add remedial courses so that students who lack basic skills can catch up to those who have already mastered them. This will, necessarily, place more of a burden on private-school teachers, who will then have to instruct a more heterogeneous as well as larger group of students, more of whom are not well prepared.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I disagree with this for several reasons:

1. I don’t believe it is hard in most cases to get a very good education in public schools. Take honors classes. Take AP classes. Take a full schedule your senior year instead of a partial schedule. This has nothing to do with teachers, and if a school doesn’t offer honors/AP classes: A. it’s hopelessly out of date, B. that’s not the teacher’s problem. I went to a public high school in South Carolina, one of the “worst” states academically, and my appraisal is that I received a very good education. That’s because I wanted it and took the right classes.
2. I believe that what the teacher does in the classroom only has a minimal effect on students. Infinitely more important is the student himself/herself and the parents and home life. There is nothing the teacher can do about this, so the teacher should not be held responsible for it.

In sum, I believe the major factors at play here are both: A. not the teacher’s responsibility to deal with and B. in most cases are not especially modifiable by teachers in the first place.

It’s not usually the teacher’s fault if a kid gets a bad education. It’s usually the kid’s fault and the parents’ fault.

As long as the teacher isn’t plain terrible—it happens, but not as often as angry parents think it does—then I don’t see what bashing them and **holding them accountable for things that are not their responsibility and that they cannot change ** is going to accomplish.

The teacher cannot make a kid smarter, more industrious, or get higher test scores. Only the kid and the parents can do that. Period.

 

[Cat]

Those in control of schools should be parents, not the state, not the governor.

JimG, I kind of agree with you.

But I have to admit, after years of being involved in local figure skating clubs and other organizations in which parents run the organization, I’m scared of the idea of parents running schools.

I’ve seen some pretty bad parental misbehavior, and I would hate to have some of those skating parents given any authority in my kids’ schools. I’m not sure the teachers would get just treatment.

But I do think that those who pay for goods and services have the right to expect refunds or exchanges when the good or service is sub-par or broken. I was the “victim” of an incompetent teacher in 5th grade, and it would have been great if she could have been held accountable for her inability to control her classroom and protect her students from bullies.

 

[Cat]

I disagree with this for several reasons:

1. I don’t believe it is hard in most cases to get a very good education in public schools. Take honors classes. Take AP classes. Take a full schedule your senior year instead of a partial schedule. This has nothing to do with teachers, and if a school doesn’t offer honors/AP classes: A. it’s hopelessly out of date, B. that’s not the teacher’s problem. I went to a public high school in South Carolina, one of the “worst” states academically, and my appraisal is that I received a very good education. That’s because I wanted it and took the right classes.

Got news for you–there are a lot of “out-of-date” schools in the U.S. AP classes cost money, and when school districts don’t have money (for various reasons, e.g., a costly deseg lawsuit that created an exodus of families and companies out of the city), AP classes will not be offered.

When school districts are heavily-influenced by street gangs, it is extremely difficult to impossible for a student to get a good education in public schools.

Also, when teachers do not know how to control their classrooms, or are hobbled in enforcing discipline due to concerns about being sued over their discipline methods, it’s hard for the students to receive a good education.

1. I believe that what the teacher does in the classroom only has a minimal effect on students. Infinitely more important is the student himself/herself and the parents and home life. There is nothing the teacher can do about this, so the teacher should not be held responsible for it.

ANY adult who spend several hours a day with a child/teenager WILL have a major influence for the good or bad on that child/teenager.

To say that an adult who spends several hours a day with a child/teenager has minimal effect is naïve.

Teachers enter the profession to be able to influence students.

A good teacher can change a child’s life, inspire them, and give them hope by putting them on the pathway to success by teaching the skills and knowledge that children/teenagers need to be able to succeed.

A bad teacher can infect a student with apathy, cynicism, fear, and hatred. A bad teacher can poison a child’s mind against certain subjects. A bad teacher can also negatively influence a child’s attitude towards religion, their country, their body, their families, and the future. Teenagers are especially vulnerable to the propaganda and half-truths imparted by “bad” teachers, as they are at a stage in their lives where they are beginning to break away from their parents and become independent. A bad teacher can warp a young mind.

In sum, I believe the major factors at play here are both: A. not the teacher’s responsibility to deal with and B. in most cases are not especially modifiable by teachers in the first place.

It’s not usually the teacher’s fault if a kid gets a bad education. It’s usually the kid’s fault and the parents’ fault.

As long as the teacher isn’t plain terrible—it happens, but not as often as angry parents think it does—then I don’t see what bashing them and **holding them accountable for things that are not their responsibility and that they cannot change ** is going to accomplish.

The teacher cannot make a kid smarter, more industrious, or get higher test scores. Only the kid and the parents can do that. Period.

Actually, a good teacher truly can inspire a child to snap out of it and work their butt off.

Be careful about blaming the students. Little children can’t be held responsible for bad home and parental influence. And unless someone steps in (e.g., the TEACHER) and helps the child, they will grow into teenagers who have bad attitudes towards education.

 

[Inisfallen]

No. No standardized metric is needed.

Why shouldn’t the teacher’s competency and value be judged by the school board and principle?

Why shouldn’t the local school board have complete control over curriculum? They’re the ones closest to the parents, and are in the best place to listen to their wishes.

Some of the local school boards around here are real nightmares. I wouldn’t want to trust them with my daughter’s education.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Got news for you–there are a lot of “out-of-date” schools in the U.S. AP classes cost money, and when school districts don’t have money (for various reasons, e.g., a costly deseg lawsuit that created an exodus of families and companies out of the city), AP classes will not be offered.

When school districts are heavily-influenced by street gangs, it is extremely difficult to impossible for a student to get a good education in public schools.

Also, when teachers do not know how to control their classrooms, or are hobbled in enforcing discipline due to concerns about being sued over their discipline methods, it’s hard for the students to receive a good education.

ANY adult who spend several hours a day with a child/teenager WILL have a major influence for the good or bad on that child/teenager.

To say that an adult who spends several hours a day with a child/teenager has minimal effect is naïve.

Teachers enter the profession to be able to influence students.

A good teacher can change a child’s life, inspire them, and give them hope by putting them on the pathway to success by teaching the skills and knowledge that children/teenagers need to be able to succeed.

A bad teacher can infect a student with apathy, cynicism, fear, and hatred. A bad teacher can poison a child’s mind against certain subjects. A bad teacher can also negatively influence a child’s attitude towards religion, their country, their body, their families, and the future. Teenagers are especially vulnerable to the propaganda and half-truths imparted by “bad” teachers, as they are at a stage in their lives where they are beginning to break away from their parents and become independent. A bad teacher can warp a young mind.

Actually, a good teacher truly can inspire a child to snap out of it and work their butt off.

Be careful about blaming the students. Little children can’t be held responsible for bad home and parental influence. And unless someone steps in (e.g., the TEACHER) and helps the child, they will grow into teenagers who have bad attitudes towards education.

Like I said, teachers cannot be held responsible for whether their schools offer AP classes/honors classes or not. That’s not the teachers’ fault, nor is it their responsibility. Deseg lawsuit, uber poor school? Not teacher’s responsibility, not teacher’s fault. Street gangs? Not teacher’s responsibility (other than maintaining discipline), not their fault. We’re talking about a whole bunch of super disparate topics here that have very little relation to one another except that they come together in a locus called education. Each of these problems are real, but they have very little to do with teachers. We have to consider them separately before we can consider them as a synthesis.

Discipline? I went to a school of 3200 students, multiple gangs, coke busts, dog searches, pregnant girl got stabbed in the neck by her babydaddy girlfriend on the side, one pretty bad suicide, machine guns on campus twice when I was there, fights every day, so-hazy-you-can’t-see bathrooms that smelled like a Colorado weed shop 24/7, 6 city police officers full time… meh. I’ve seen it, been there, done that. These are problems, but what do they have to do with teachers? If you’ve got a kid selling drugs, all the teacher can do is report it…quietly so the kid doesn’t find out and freak out before police get there. It was controlled pretty well (managed, not stamped out) by the cops and the administrators were expulsion-happy and weren’t afraid to do it. But I’m not sure what most of this stuff has to do with teachers.

lol but how can you measure inspiration? test scores?

You can’t measure inspiration. Maybe Mr. Z’s class does well because he knows his stuff and he has highly-motivated students. Maybe his class does well 'cause he’s just sooo darn inspirational. But how do you measure that latter bit? You can’t.

For every 1 child who is inspired, perhaps 100 receive no benefit. Is it worth it? It may be, but that’s a decision a teacher has to make for himself. I’m not saying teachers should be uninspirational. I’m saying, however, that that’s not their job, rather it is a nice personal characteristic, and you can’t measure it anyway, so what’s your point? I never looked for “inspiration” in a teacher. Maybe I’m cynical. As long as the teacher was funny and taught the information that I was expected to know and was intellectually stimulating, it was going to be a great class!

Furthermore, I’m not saying that only measurable things are valuable things. I’m saying that if we are going to nickle-and-dime our teachers with points systems and all that nonsense, then we should use measurable things. There is no such thing as a “factor of inspiration” or whatever. Surely, if a teacher does poorly all around, he should face consequences. But… “Sorry Mr. YoungTradCath, you do what you’re supposed to do, but you’re not inspirational enough.” What?! That is ridiculous. I’m saying there’s a gap that can’t be bridged by numbers, therefore it is silly to try to use ephemeral things (only) as a basis for evaluation.

I’ve already made my point on test scores: what goes on at home/parents/kid=wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more important than what goes on at school.

I did it. Product of divorce, live w/grandmother after a long move, 3 high schools, all those “discipline” problems that in all reality were super easy to avoid if you wanted to. Took AP classes, else honors (my school had both), graduated top 5th percentile, mhm. There was an entire peer group of us.

 

[meltzerboy]

lol but how can you measure inspiration? test scores?

You can’t measure inspiration. Maybe Mr. Z’s class does well because he knows his stuff and he has highly-motivated students. Maybe his class does well 'cause he’s just sooo darn inspirational. But how do you measure that latter bit? You can’t.

For every 1 child who is inspired, perhaps 100 receive no benefit. Is it worth it? It may be, but that’s a decision a teacher has to make for himself. I’m not saying teachers should be uninspirational. I’m saying, however, that that’s not their job, rather it is a nice personal characteristic, and you can’t measure it anyway, so what’s your point? I never looked for “inspiration” in a teacher. Maybe I’m cynical. As long as the teacher was funny and taught the information that I was expected to know and was intellectually stimulating, it was going to be a great class!

Furthermore, I’m not saying that only measurable things are valuable things. I’m saying that if we are going to nickle-and-dime our teachers with points systems and all that nonsense, then we should use measurable things. There is no such thing as a “factor of inspiration” or whatever. Surely, if a teacher does poorly all around, he should face consequences. But… “Sorry Mr. YoungTradCath, you do what you’re supposed to do, but you’re not inspirational enough.” What?! That is ridiculous. I’m saying there’s a gap that can’t be bridged by numbers, therefore it is silly to try to use ephemeral things (only) as a basis for evaluation.

I’ve already made my point on test scores: what goes on at home/parents/kid=wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more important than what goes on at school.

Following from your last statement, the obvious question therefore (to me) is why send your kids to school at all? Maybe they can learn everything at home with their parents (homeschooling) and the use of the Internet? I don’t disagree with many of your remarks, however, but they raise a fundamental question, namely, what exactly is the function of the teacher in our modern technological society? Is their role that of an inspirational leader, that of a facilitator who guides students towards studying the important main concepts while not focusing too much attention to the details, that of someone who elicits critical thinking and writing from their students rather than merely inspiring them, that of an instructor who builds moral character and a good work ethic in their students, that of a business manager who sets goals for students to achieve, or perhaps some combination of these? I think it’s an important question for educators to consider from time to time, and it probably varies according to the grade level of the students.

 

[SWolf]

Some of the local school boards around here are real nightmares. I wouldn’t want to trust them with my daughter’s education.

I should introduce you to some of the jokers in State govt. The locals would look like a godsend.

 

[JimG]

I disagree with this for several reasons:

1. I don’t believe it is hard in most cases to get a very good education in public schools. Take honors classes. Take AP classes. Take a full schedule your senior year instead of a partial schedule. This has nothing to do with teachers, and if a school doesn’t offer honors/AP classes: A. it’s hopelessly out of date, B. that’s not the teacher’s problem. I went to a public high school in South Carolina, one of the “worst” states academically, and my appraisal is that I received a very good education. That’s because I wanted it and took the right classes.
2. I believe that what the teacher does in the classroom only has a minimal effect on students. Infinitely more important is the student himself/herself and the parents and home life. There is nothing the teacher can do about this, so the teacher should not be held responsible for it.

In sum, I believe the major factors at play here are both: A. not the teacher’s responsibility to deal with and B. in most cases are not especially modifiable by teachers in the first place.

It’s not usually the teacher’s fault if a kid gets a bad education. It’s usually the kid’s fault and the parents’ fault.

As long as the teacher isn’t plain terrible—it happens, but not as often as angry parents think it does—then I don’t see what bashing them and **holding them accountable for things that are not their responsibility and that they cannot change ** is going to accomplish.

The teacher cannot make a kid smarter, more industrious, or get higher test scores. Only the kid and the parents can do that. Period.

I don’t really have a dog in this hunt (or a kid in a school!) so I can’t speak with much authority on the matter. But I do agree with much of what you say here. I am reminded of a sort of Eureka moment I had in 4th grade, when it occurred to me that teachers couldn’t possibly know everything. And that if I wanted to learn, it was really up to me. Now, in those days, most of my teachers didn’t have advanced degrees; now many of them do, and they have a lot more education and training. But it is still a student’s responsibility to learn. And if a student is disruptive and interfering with other students ability to learn, he ought to be evicted from class.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Following from your last statement, the obvious question therefore (to me) is why send your kids to school at all? Maybe they can learn everything at home with their parents (homeschooling) and the use of the Internet? I don’t disagree with many of your remarks, however, but they raise a fundamental question, namely, what exactly is the function of the teacher in our modern technological society? Is their role that of an inspirational leader, that of a facilitator who guides students towards studying the important main concepts while not focusing too much attention to the details, that of someone who elicits critical thinking and writing from their students rather than merely inspiring them, that of an instructor who builds moral character and a good work ethic in their students, that of a business manager who sets goals for students to achieve, or perhaps some combination of these? I think it’s an important question for educators to consider from time to time, and it probably varies according to the grade level of the students.

You send your kids to school for all the basic reasons people offer: it allows both parents to work, it allows an (arguably) easier way to find a social life (NOT saying homeschooled kids are unsociable weirdos, just that it takes a bit more effort to maintain a social life that way because it has to be intentional, whereas in a regular school, you are put in a large social environment every day by virtue of your being there), it does (I believe) ensure that a basic level of competency is met by whoever is teaching your kid*, etc.

The function of the teacher is to teach the information that he is expected to teach in an intellectually-stimulating way. Whether the teacher is inspirational or not is a secondary benefit. Hopefully he has a good personality and is good-natured. No, I don’t think not being “inspirational” qualifies as having a bad personality or not being good-natured.

again not putting homeschooling down—I think it’s wonderful—but it’s not for everyone and, frankly, no I do not believe every parent is able to teach their kids, some just aren’t, and that’s okay (if we want to have curriculum arguments that’s fine but that’s not what we’re talking about in this thread)*

**double disclaimer: this statement does not mean that I disagree with the Church’s teaching about parents being the best educators of their children, etc., so on and so forth… I just don’t think every parent would necessarily be good at teaching their teens, say, AP Physics. Maybe that can be remedied!

Someone who builds moral character… I guess it can be said that that should be a general expectation towards all adults, to give good example to kids. I don’t think a teacher bears an especial responsibility towards building moral character in kids.

Critical thinking, absolutely. This is, of course, a major aspect of cognition necessary for future studies/jobs/whatever.

I’m not trying to put down the profession of teaching. I’m trying to dissipate what I think are unrealistic and unjust expectations of teachers. I’m trying to (rhetorically) help teachers! Everyone in a kid’s life has a role to play. Different people do different things. There is some overlap, of course.

 

[meltzerboy]

You send your kids to school for all the basic reasons people offer: it allows both parents to work, it allows an (arguably) easier way to find a social life (NOT saying homeschooled kids are unsociable weirdos, just that it takes a bit more effort to maintain a social life that way because it has to be intentional, whereas in a regular school, you are put in a large social environment every day by virtue of your being there), it does (I believe) ensure that a basic level of competency is met by whoever is teaching your kid*, etc.

The function of the teacher is to teach the information that he is expected to teach in an intellectually-stimulating way. Whether the teacher is inspirational or not is a secondary benefit. Hopefully he has a good personality and is good-natured. No, I don’t think not being “inspirational” qualifies as having a bad personality or not being good-natured.

again not putting homeschooling down—I think it’s wonderful—but it’s not for everyone and, frankly, no I do not believe every parent is able to teach their kids, some just aren’t, and that’s okay (if we want to have curriculum arguments that’s fine but that’s not what we’re talking about in this thread)*

**double disclaimer: this statement does not mean that I disagree with the Church’s teaching about parents being the best educators of their children, etc., so on and so forth… I just don’t think every parent would necessarily be good at teaching their teens, say, AP Physics. Maybe that can be remedied!

Someone who builds moral character… I guess it can be said that that should be a general expectation towards all adults, to give good example to kids. I don’t think a teacher bears an especial responsibility towards building moral character in kids.

Critical thinking, absolutely. This is, of course, a major aspect of cognition necessary for future studies/jobs/whatever.

I’m not trying to put down the profession of teaching. I’m trying to dissipate what I think are unrealistic and unjust expectations of teachers. I’m trying to (rhetorically) help teachers! Everyone in a kid’s life has a role to play. Different people do different things. There is some overlap, of course.

If only teaching were as simple as you appear to make it: that is, just teach the material in an intellectually-stimulating way. But of course it’s more complicated than that. Although a teacher can probably get by doing what you prescribe, and (too) many teachers no doubt do, the job itself is more than that. Again, depending on the grade level, a teacher is many things, all at once: a facilitator, a therapist, a role model, a leader, a public speaker, a performer, a creative artist, a coach, a parent, a friend, a debater, a lawyer, a referee, a judge, a pastoral counselor, and many more. The job requirements don’t list these “other” roles, of course, because if they did, very few candidates would dare accept the position. But in the classroom, all of one’s life skills, personality strengths and weaknesses, and academic training even apart from one’s own specialization, come into play. The profession of teaching is a vocation, a calling, not a 9 to 5 office job. It’s the type of profession one takes home, not only concerning the actual home preparation, but with respect to thinking about the students one instructs and how well one is “educating” them. All of this presupposes that one takes the job seriously and understands the enormous responsibilities inherent in it.

 

[powerofk]

If only teaching were as simple as you appear to make it: that is, just teach the material in an intellectually-stimulating way. But of course it’s more complicated than that. Although a teacher can probably get by doing what you prescribe, and (too) many teachers no doubt do, the job itself is more than that. Again, depending on the grade level, a teacher is many things, all at once: a facilitator, a therapist, a role model, a leader, a public speaker, a performer, a creative artist, a coach, a parent, a friend, a debater, a lawyer, a referee, a judge, a pastoral counselor, and many more. The job requirements don’t list these “other” roles, of course, because if they did, very few candidates would dare accept the position. But in the classroom, all of one’s life skills, personality strengths and weaknesses, and academic training even apart from one’s own specialization, come into play. The profession of teaching is a vocation, a calling, not a 9 to 5 office job. It’s the type of profession one takes home, not only concerning the actual home preparation, but with respect to thinking about the students one instructs and how well one is “educating” them. All of this presupposes that one takes the job seriously and understands the enormous responsibilities inherent in it.

Exactly. Unfortunately, most people who inform educational policy in this country (primarily lawmakers and politicians) don’t seem to get this. It seems like, to them, that our educational system is required to be in constant competition to countries around the world. But guess what? It’s not working. I don’t mind giving students tests from time to time to check their learning. But the single-mindedness on math and reading (to the detriment of everything else) has gone too far. School today is not really anything like how it was when most of us were growning up. Kindergarten in many states is full-day. Gone is recess (outside of lunchtime). Science and social studies are treated as “extras”, especially in elementary school. The only thing that keeps the weekly pullout classes in tact is the need for teacher planning time (otherwise, they would be scrapped, as well). Many classes spend all morning reading and all afternoon doing math. And no, I’m not exaggerating. And the idea is that we want critical thinkers, but our test-writers punish people who think differently than the writers. All we are doing is making it so children can pass a test - but there are so many things that pencil and paper tests/computerized tests cannot measure. And this is just in academics!

No good standardized test can really test understanding of the scientific method. No standardized test can really test real understanding of the Constitution and our rights under the law. And no standardized test can really test one’s ability to deconstruct an entire novel, find the author’s real message, and write the next chapter. No standardized test measures the ability to design a well-thought-out persuasive argument or the ability to write and/or act out a play. In other words, standardized tests cannot measure students’ ability to combine their knowledge with imagination. And this is what today’s world needs. The arts and the sciences must be encouraged, not just reading, math, and the ability to take pencil and paper (or now computerized) tests. And it’s what we’re depriving our kids of if we think that how they do on one of these tests is the ultimate way of grading how our schools are doing.

 

[revert_jen]

No standardized test measures the ability to design a well-thought-out persuasive argument…

I’d just like to mention that the GRE tries to do this, more or less. In the essay questions, they have one where you are to take and defend a position on a stated issue, and another where you are to look at a position and critique its soundness. Of course, the only way they can do this is to have essays on a standardized test, which is unusual, and would be too expensive to do in K-12 (also they can’t charge $200 per test in K-12 like they do for the GRE).

I think that some of the other things you mention could at least be addressed by standardised tests, but what would prove difficult there, is that the answers aren’t agreed upon by everyone, and people could get graded down just for having different opinions from the test creators. For example, I’d be interested to see how they’d write a question about “rights under the law” as it relates to the second amendment.

And standardised tests about other issues would have the same kind of problems. Say they had a question about the causes of the Civil War. I know I was taught different causes (or at least different relative importance of the causes) in Virginia than people who went to school in, e.g. Pennsylvania. And I’m OK with that. I really don’t want an entire nation of people who are exactly the same. (Which is one of the many reasons I’d prefer the federal government to keep its mitts off testing standards and leave it to the states.)

Of course, it would still be great to have students demonstrate that they’ve learned some actual facts about history (What was the first country that Germany invaded in WW II? When was the Boston Massacre and how many people were killed?), but social studies is a bit trickier. Likewise, I think the basics of science could be covered, but you’d probably have to be careful about (at least how you worded questions about) scientific theories that some people view as fact and others as nonsense, but nobody seems to treat as theories.

What I’d love to see (but never will) is questions about analyzing advertising. E.g. if a company makes the statement “Nobody will get you a bigger tax refund than we will,” assuming the statement is correct, which of the following are necessarily true:

a. You will save money if they prepare your taxes.
b. If you go to another company, you will get a smaller refund.
c. If you get your taxes prepared by this company, you will get a smaller refund.
d. None of the above

(the answer above being d. of course, because the amount of the increased tax refund (if there is an increase) is probably smaller than the fee you paid them to do your taxes, and the statement doesn’t preclude all other companies from coming up with the same refund they will.)

The thing is, if you can spot weasel statements in advertising, you can spot them in political ads and speeches, so nobody is going to put those on standardised tests.

But it would be harder to standardise tests for the other subjects, and I can’t see any way of making teachers teach all the appropriate subjects without them, which leads me to wonder if zero standardised testing (at least at any level higher than the school district) needs to be considered.

But I’m certainly not an expert. All the critical thinking skills I have, I pretty much had to teach myself–I went to public schools too.

–Jen

 

[powerofk]

I’d just like to mention that the GRE tries to do this, more or less. In the essay questions, they have one where you are to take and defend a position on a stated issue, and another where you are to look at a position and critique its soundness. Of course, the only way they can do this is to have essays on a standardized test, which is unusual, and would be too expensive to do in K-12 (also they can’t charge $200 per test in K-12 like they do for the GRE).

I think that some of the other things you mention could at least be addressed by standardised tests, but what would prove difficult there, is that the answers aren’t agreed upon by everyone, and people could get graded down just for having different opinions from the test creators. For example, I’d be interested to see how they’d write a question about “rights under the law” as it relates to the second amendment.

And standardised tests about other issues would have the same kind of problems. Say they had a question about the causes of the Civil War. I know I was taught different causes (or at least different relative importance of the causes) in Virginia than people who went to school in, e.g. Pennsylvania. And I’m OK with that. I really don’t want an entire nation of people who are exactly the same. (Which is one of the many reasons I’d prefer the federal government to keep its mitts off testing standards and leave it to the states.)

Of course, it would still be great to have students demonstrate that they’ve learned some actual facts about history (What was the first country that Germany invaded in WW II? When was the Boston Massacre and how many people were killed?), but social studies is a bit trickier. Likewise, I think the basics of science could be covered, but you’d probably have to be careful about (at least how you worded questions about) scientific theories that some people view as fact and others as nonsense, but nobody seems to treat as theories.

What I’d love to see (but never will) is questions about analyzing advertising. E.g. if a company makes the statement “Nobody will get you a bigger tax refund than we will,” assuming the statement is correct, which of the following are necessarily true:

a. You will save money if they prepare your taxes.
b. If you go to another company, you will get a smaller refund.
c. If you get your taxes prepared by this company, you will get a smaller refund.
d. None of the above

(the answer above being d. of course, because the amount of the increased tax refund (if there is an increase) is probably smaller than the fee you paid them to do your taxes, and the statement doesn’t preclude all other companies from coming up with the same refund they will.)

The thing is, if you can spot weasel statements in advertising, you can spot them in political ads and speeches, so nobody is going to put those on standardised tests.

But it would be harder to standardise tests for the other subjects, and I can’t see any way of making teachers teach all the appropriate subjects without them, which leads me to wonder if zero standardised testing (at least at any level higher than the school district) needs to be considered.

But I’m certainly not an expert. All the critical thinking skills I have, I pretty much had to teach myself–I went to public schools too.

–Jen

Right. First of all, on the reading section, students are already marked down for interpreting a reading passage differently than the test creators. Seriously. There are valedictorians and salutatorians (I don’t know any personally, but know this has to be the case due to my experience being 4th in my class in HS in the 1990s (before NCLB, but Michigan had a NCLB-type test back then) and unable to rate proficient on the reading portion of the test, even though on the ACT, reading was my highest score - and the fact that I got A’s in all of my English classes) who struggle to gain a proficient score on the NCLB required testing. This is why I suggested in an earlier post to have a 3-year testing cycle. Year 1: Math, reading, and writing (it’s ridiculous that reading is tested under NCLB, but writing is not). Year 2: Science and social studies. Year 3: Integrated design projects. Would it take more time & resources? Sure. But if we’re going to have testing, we need to have testing that’s fair - and testing that tests a student’s ability to actually use his/her knowledge in a real way.