School Choice/Vouchers (split from '7 point Drain the Swamp')

Moiraine said:
BigRedBuster said:
Moiraine said:
BigRedBuster said:
krc1995 said:
Bad teachers are like any other industry- yes they are some bad ones, just like police officers, nurses, doctors, etc but most are adequate or above. The thing is, teachers don't teach anymore, they read scripts and if they get caught not reading the script (at least in our district) they are tagged with a "plan of assistance." Principals formally walk through twice, informally four plus times and the head of the district-curriculum also makes at least one unscheduled walk through. Teachers better be aligned with what they posted for lesson plans that day, down to the eact words they say. The craft of teaching-like finding teachable moments or doing on the spot adjustments based on what each teacher thinks their class needs in real time- is gone. How is selling education going to magically make teachers better? If you think student performace is solely a teacher issue, you are so sadly mistaken. Poor school perforamance is a breakdown of the family problem. Kids don't have the emotional/social foundation to succeed in any part of life and the easiest thing to blame is the school. Everything is the school's fault. Kid can't read-blame last year's teacher. Kid can't do math-must be a curriculum problem. Kid can't get along with anyone-blame the school and the other kids. I wouldn't be surprised to see "school" not even be a physical place in a few years. Parent's and their lazy kids seemingly like virtual school. Out district has seen massive growth in the last three years of kids that are opting out of traditional school and enrolling in online school. No start time and learn in yout PJs. Sounds like a prosocial movement, doesn't it?

Parent's need to quit be wussys. Criticism is for self improvement and it doesn't mean that kids are inheriantly flawed. A bad grade is not going to ruin their futures or automatiically eliminate them from Harvard. Failure is often necessary to fuel desire. Kids sometimes don't get along-doesn't make it bullying. But mild bullying is necessary to teach kids how to stand up for themselves and for others.

If you really want to see the difference in student outcomes per school you only need to look at one demographic-percentage of single parent families.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I wonder what schools people are associated with.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you're being so vague in your replies on this topic. Like this reply and your reply to me which was almost a one-liner. You don't usually do that. This is one of those topics where people aren't that emotional or set on any one solution so I don't see why you're not making your opinion clearer.
Click to expand...
My question to you was a legitimate question about how to handle bad teachers. I personally think that is an area where we could see improvement.
There are good teachers coming out of college who have s hard time finding a position while some teacher is just biding time on tenure.

As for the other post....I'll admit I over reacted when I read that teachers just stand up and read a script.

If they are doing that, refer to my first two paragraphs.

I said what I did because I don't find that with most teachers. Being a teacher is much more than that.
Click to expand...
It should be more than that. But with NCLB and basically being forced to teach to the standardized tests, that's what it turned into at a lot of schools. A lot of schools require their teachers to follow their lesson plans to a T. It's not a matter of replacing teachers who "read a script." The poster is saying they're basically forced to do that due to the requirements that started with NCLB.

Like I already said, bad teachers should be handled similarly to how they were before NCLB. Maybe with some minor tweaks if there are a lot of bad tenured teachers - I don't know. We had been improving steadily in reading and math since 1990. NCLB didn't improve the rate of improvement but it ruined a lot of people's careers and shut down schools.
Click to expand...
No... It shouldn't just go back to pre NCLB. There were bad teachers just biding time in tenure before that. There needs to be a way to get rid of them just like any other job.

 
To me, improvement comes from two fronts.

A). Be able to replace bad teachers and continually improve your staff. Get rid of the bad ones and reward the good ones.

B). Be able to take bad acting kids out of the regular class room easier.

This is huge. How much time does the teacher spend having to deal with idiot kids that are just there to cause problems. Get them out and into an alternative class until they prove they can behave and participate productively in class.

Your top students will excel faster and there will be consequences for a chronic problem child that wastes everyone else's time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel like that would be solving the wrong problem. We don't have too little separating of top students and bottom students; there's actually quite a lot of it, and from quite early on.

I think imposing such standards does describe the default way we approach education. Philosophically it's not unreasonable. But if the challenge is diagnosing enough kids as "idiot kids" to be consigned to lower quality resources early on, then they are being materially held back and quite a lot of them probably do not deserve it (what constitutes an "idiot kid"? How early are they to be doomed to educational Siberia?). Similarly the desire to seek out and punish bad teachers will cause people to be fired who don't deserve it, as well as further discourage people from entering and staying in a profession that is already not rewarding enough.

In the end, lots of public money will be spent, lots of backs will be clapped, and lots of people will be punished.

Education is not one-size fits all. One-size fits all standards poorly serve those who need help the most, and misdirects the efforts of those who need help the least. And IMO, punishment-based solutions really aren't the way to go, as satisfying as they are in theory.

 
BigRedBuster said:
To me, improvement comes from two fronts.

A). Be able to replace bad teachers and continually improve your staff. Get rid of the bad ones and reward the good ones.

B). Be able to take bad acting kids out of the regular class room easier.

This is huge. How much time does the teacher spend having to deal with idiot kids that are just there to cause problems. Get them out and into an alternative class until they prove they can behave and participate productively in class.

Your top students will excel faster and there will be consequences for a chronic problem child that wastes everyone else's time.
Click to expand...
You mention bad teachers a lot. What is a bad teacher? I feel like maybe you have a teacher right now that you don't like (besides me). I have worked with a few bad teachers, not many, but I would just like to know what you think is a bad teacher.

Love your part B and zoogs asked something in the post below yours about identifying the "idiot kids", well here is how...say you have 7 classes in a day. When your 7 teachers meet to discuss students...if 5/7 say "Yeah, Johnny is an a$$ in class too" then there you have it. That kid is now one of the "idiot" kids.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bad teacher =. Just as some examples, We have a chemistry teacher that is a very nice person.

But, she has no clue how to convey the information to the kids. The very smart ones get it. Anyone else is clueless. She would actually have my daughter teach it to her own classmates and then they would understand.

When I started high school, we had a band of over 100 kids. The instructor did some things that totally lost the respect of everyone from the administration, parents and down to the kids. Within a few years we had maybe 20 kids in band. The administration tried to fire her...but couldn't. She was here for probably another 10 years and the program has never recovered.

We have a Spanish teacher that I don't think I know of one kid that can actually speak Spanish after taking years of it. I know bi lingual Hispanic kids that almost failed the class. They can speak Spanish ten times better than her ( don't get me started about why they needed to take it).

Those are just three.....I could name more. If a school can upgrade, they should be able to.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I agree there. If school administrators can see a situation they want to improve, they should be able to make the changes. They can't, probably because teacher unions are standing in the way? (I don't have an argument from the other side on that point. I'm sure they exist)

Standards without context that are the same for every school is the opposite of this and I think has a lot more potential to both catch solid teachers in the wash, as well as compel every teacher to put their effort in the wrong areas.

But what you describe -- "if a school can upgrade" -- seems like a good way to handle it, and it's at a face to face, case by case level.

 
It takes a teacher 3 full years to reach tenure in Nebraska. During that time they will be formally evaluated 6 times by the administration. That evaluation will include a pre-observation form, a classroom observation, and a post-observation reflection. The "new" teacher will also be subject to multiple "informal" evaluations that involves the administrators briefly checking into the classroom unannounced while teaching (no limit to this). Most schools, if not all, have some kind of mentor program instituted by the administration with veteran teachers.

My point: if a "bad teacher" makes it 3 years without being replaced, it is solely on the administration.

 
funhusker said:
It takes a teacher 3 full years to reach tenure in Nebraska. During that time they will be formally evaluated 6 times by the administration. That evaluation will include a pre-observation form, a classroom observation, and a post-observation reflection. The "new" teacher will also be subject to multiple "informal" evaluations that involves the administrators briefly checking into the classroom unannounced while teaching (no limit to this). Most schools, if not all, have some kind of mentor program instituted by the administration with veteran teachers.

My point: if a "bad teacher" makes it 3 years without being replaced, it is solely on the administration.
Click to expand...
Weekly pop-ins now too.
Sorry, just noticed your said that!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
funhusker said:
It takes a teacher 3 full years to reach tenure in Nebraska. During that time they will be formally evaluated 6 times by the administration. That evaluation will include a pre-observation form, a classroom observation, and a post-observation reflection. The "new" teacher will also be subject to multiple "informal" evaluations that involves the administrators briefly checking into the classroom unannounced while teaching (no limit to this). Most schools, if not all, have some kind of mentor program instituted by the administration with veteran teachers.

My point: if a "bad teacher" makes it 3 years without being replaced, it is solely on the administration.
Click to expand...
What about the formerly good teacher that's been there for 5-10 years and knows it's almost impossible now to be fired so they just coast and collect a pay check while the students don't get jack squat out of their class???

 
Should there be no tenure at all, then? I don't know. Tbh, I didn't know tenure was a thing for high school teachers. But if tenure were eviscerated, I'd worry less about the teachers who coast in job security and more about the ones who never get into the profession because it's a thankless, not very well-paying job that has low job security even in the long term.

 
BigRedBuster said:
funhusker said:
It takes a teacher 3 full years to reach tenure in Nebraska. During that time they will be formally evaluated 6 times by the administration. That evaluation will include a pre-observation form, a classroom observation, and a post-observation reflection. The "new" teacher will also be subject to multiple "informal" evaluations that involves the administrators briefly checking into the classroom unannounced while teaching (no limit to this). Most schools, if not all, have some kind of mentor program instituted by the administration with veteran teachers.

My point: if a "bad teacher" makes it 3 years without being replaced, it is solely on the administration.
Click to expand...
What about the formerly good teacher that's been there for 5-10 years and knows it's almost impossible now to be fired so they just coast and collect a pay check while the students don't get jack squat out of their class???
Click to expand...
I won't speak for every instance, but "when" that happens, they are put on lunch duty, study hall, and every crappy job administrators can find until they leave. I can't speak for every incident, but a teacher that you are describing would not be hard to find in 3 years of observation, peer observations, and co-worker relationships if the administration is worth a damn.

 
The reason for tenure is to protect teachers during a RIF (Reduction in Force). A RIF happens when a district needs to cut costs and it may effect a specific department. Tenure ensures that a "good" teacher will be allowed to stay with the district even if it is as a study hall teacher or another department that they are certified to teach in.

For example: I was recently in a district that faced a RIF situation. A department X had 4 very good teachers, but 2 of them not tenured. Another department Y faced cuts and needed to reduce staff. A tenured teacher, a really good one btw, was certified to teach in dept. X. The district had to let go of one of the non-tenured to ensure the tenured teacher had a job. Tenure doesn't mean "free range" it just means that you will have a job, that you are qualified for, as long as you are worth a damn.

Edit: this is a basic explanation. For the teachers/administrators, I'm aware this is a very cursory explanation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure that's how it's viewed from the teachers side.

However, why should they be different than another job?

In the economic down turn of 2007-2011, our company had to down size to survive.

We looked at the employee base and got rid of the bottom feeders and kept the best employees.

Sometimes that "best employee" was one that had been here a year over someone that has been here 5-10 years.

Why shouldn't a school system be able to do the same?

We rewarded the best employees we had and the company is stronger because of it.

Ps...your last sentence about "worth a damn" is interesting.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top