The Observation Deck

Gary Rice wrote:
1) Do you think that the current "going after the teachers and their unions" craze is NOT a "political move", or that teachers are NOT currently having BIG problems for "speaking out and disturbing the peace"?

Of course it is political, but not because of what teachers are teaching but because the current administration in Ohio clearly does not value education as a concept. Even now our governor is suggesting 3 year colleges because apparently if you want to be a nurse you have no need for English.

There is a great suspicion of well educated people in this country and we saw vestiges of it in the last presidential election.

But I think that this political move is not an attack on teachers because they are teachers, but something that is so much more layered and a symptom of the larger problem with the country.

Gary Rice wrote:2) Do you think that teachers do NOT need protection from, or experience, capricious lawsuits?

I never said they didn't, what I was asking was whether or not there was evidence to support the fact that tenure made a statistically significant impact in preventing unfair hiring and firing, or if federal policies were enough, much like they have to be for some other professions.

All workers need protection from discrimination.

Gary Rice wrote:3) Do you really think that "longevity" has no "merit"?

I think it is foolish to assume that just because you have been in one place longer that you automatically know more or are more qualified. Which is the reason why I dislike the idea that longevity is such a high determining factor in tenure.

I think longevity is not an indicator of merit, but it is an indicator of committment to the profession. I just wish there would be more sane discussion of other ways to determine merit that are not just lengths of time.

Gary Rice wrote:4) Are you aware that teachers in the past, in some districts, have been deliberately placed in teaching positions that they might not have been qualified to teach? Are you also aware that some of the SAME people who want these reforms also want business and community leaders to be able to enter and teach in the field of education without any certification at all?

Oh I'm sure they have been, just as I am sure that in some places teachers are given cush teaching positions that they ask for because they have been in the district a long time and because of their "longevity" and "merit" deserve to teach in that position. Both are equally wrong and lets just say I know for a fact that I have experienced one of the two first hand and, pardon my bluntness, but it was awful as a student.

The emphasis on longevity is what gets some teachers who aren't qualified in positions that are seen as "rewards" for all their years of hard work. That has to stop. And one way to do that is to lessen the emphasis on longevity and find another means of deliniating good teachers.

Also, I think that there are not strict enough educational standards to let people enter the teaching profession. In Europe the standards for teachers are much higher, possibly because education in general is more valued. If standards were raised we might lose that old saying "those who can do and those who can't teach". *please do not misinterpret that as me saying that statement is true, in most cases it isn't*

But realistically, to put the blame on teachers and their unions, like SB5 is doing is not right, because I feel that unions are reactionary to the peception of the public. I don't think the union would be as active if there weren't such hostility towards education in general.

I think a better question to be asking is why is there such hostility towards education.

Is it because students aren't doing well?

Is it because the teachers aren't good?

Is it because education is not valued?

Is it because this country praises achievement in sports over achievement in academics?

I think if you answer those questions you might have a better basis to understand why Ohio and Wisconsin don't seem to care if education is a victim of their vastly underthought budget cutting.

Because I reiterate, slashing discretionary spending and benefits to public employees will not alter the budge as much as people would have you think. Any sane economist will tell you that.

I think that Thealexa needs to run for a position on the School Board.

Back to the banjo...

Gary Rice wrote:I think that Thealexa needs to run for a position on the School Board.

Thanks, that is flattering, but I don't think I'm a good candidate. I am not studying education or anything remotely related to that or adminstration. Me being on school board would contradict some of what I was saying in the sense that I don't have enough merit in the field.

Now, if you wanted someone to explain economic efficiency or to model the relative effectiveness of certain measures and make proposals, that would be closer to what I'm studying in school.

To be honest, I wish that more people under the age of 30 would be more vocal in educational issues, since they have the most recent experience.

Thealexa:

Actually, I WAS quite serious about you potentially running for Board office.

A school board is supposed to represent and reflect the citizens of a community as a whole, and one DOES NOT need to have particular educational qualifications in order to be a part of it. I believe that there have been a number of very young school board members around the country lately.

Your interest in economics and effectiveness, for example, would certainly suit a board position, I would think.

In my experience (or was that "longevity"? ) I have discovered when a person has a concern about something, it won't be too long before someone encourages you to get involved, elected, or appointed to a leadership position relating to your interest area. If you really ARE concerned, you may end up becoming a chairperson or president of that group!

So much of your future will quite likely be... exactly as you want and prepare for it to be.

Back to the banjo...

Thealexa said:

There is a great suspicion of well educated people in this country and we saw vestiges of it in the last presidential election.

You're right on target there! Anybody who has watched the Governor since he took office I think has to be astonished at his casualness and slovenly attitude in his public presentations. This is most definitely reflective of disdain towards any sort of intellectual achievement on the part of him and his Republican and Tea Party cohorts at the State and national level.
Perhaps the pluperfect example of this detestation of objectivity and logical thinking is the constant attack on funding of National Public Radio. Boehner, Palin, and Bachman just can't tolerate a medium that requires thought, and rigorous intellectual inquiry.
See what I mean when I say Ohio has elected Eddie Haskell's half wit brother (a dated reference for fans of Leave it to Beaver)?

Stan Austin

Thealexa Becker wrote:Of course it is political, but not because of what teachers are teaching but because the current administration in Ohio clearly does not value education as a concept. Even now our governor is suggesting 3 year colleges because apparently if you want to be a nurse you have no need for English.

There is a great suspicion of well educated people in this country and we saw vestiges of it in the last presidential election.

That is all complete nonsense.

There is no suspicion of well educated people. There is a healthy suspicion of people who think a degree is the same as an education and that an advanced degree demonstrates competence. AT&T use to brag that it had more MBA's than any other company of its size. They went out of business. Microsoft was founded by a college drop out.

Nothing in the administrations budget indicates a disdain for education.

Education spending has increased at a rate much faster than the rate of inflation with no increase in the quality of that education. The education dollars have provided those employed in the education industry with shorter work days, easier work days, fewer work days, earlier retirement, more generous pensions and more limits on contact with students; those dollars have not bought a better education. In many cases those extra dollars bought a poorer education. At the rate we are going you will need a PHD to learn what use to be learned at the local community college.

A three year college program is an excellent idea. There is no reason in the world a college degree should cost so much or take so long to complete. The first two years of college are a waste of time for most students:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/ ... 8_ST_N.htm

The proposed changes in State law are an attempt to get some sanity back into education. The LTA's contract contains hundreds of words limiting work load and contact with students and nothing at all about results. How much sense does that make?

It is time for the people of the City to reassert their control over the schools.

Step one:

An 8 hour day and forty hour work week. Schedules of 7 to 4, 8 to 5 and 9 to 6 to recognize the changing needs of parents and students.

What is it about an 8 hour day that upsets them so?

By the way, Lakewood spends $300,000 on the average 4th grade class not including the cost of new buildings. If I gave you $300,000 and 25 kids how would you spend the money?

Bill Call wrote:Microsoft was founded by a college drop out.

So was Apple.

So let me ask this. Apple and Microsoft were founded by college dropouts, but are you also going to say that without all those MBA's, engineers, graphic designers, etc who did go to college that work for those companies that they would be anywhere near what they are today?

I don't think anyone will say that everyone that went to college is smarter than everyone who didn't, there are obviously many examples which prove that. But you also can't pretend that in the big picture, college isn't important.

Bill, could you please explain, using reality as a basis, what argument you have that supports your insistence that Lakewood teachers do not work enough? I've gone over this with you time and time again and you seem to just shrug off my daily experience in favor of your warped vision of what goes on. Here's my work day:


I teach 135 students. We also have a 40 minute lunch and a 40 minute planning period. It's the 40 minute planning period that seems to throw you off the most, and I believe this is what you are talking about when you talk about limiting time with students. Let's just stick with your idea that we only work from 7:45-3:15 for a second. If, during that 7:45-3:15 time, you think it is possible to do all of our planning, grading for 135 students, attendance and participation in IEP meetings (individualized planning for spec. ed. students and their families), phoning and emailing parents, and collaboration with my co-workers on projects and initiatives in the 40 minutes that you seem to think should be devoted to adding another 35 students to my work load, you are trying to get blood from a stone. So yes, aside from lunch, we are given 40 minutes to get all of this done each day. Since any sane person would clearly see that it is impossible to get all of this done in 40 minutes, we take the majority of our work (outside of actually teaching, that is) home. This work adds up to hours upon hours of "off the clock" labor. ANY TEACHER in this district, and I still am waiting for you to find one who doesn't or to come up with a plausible explanation as to how all of this work could get done WITHOUT taking up our time outside of work, takes home at least 10-20 hours of work a week. Bill, your complaints about the 40 minutes of our day outside of lunch in which we are afforded the opportunity to put a small dent in this pile of work without students around, (though most of the time most teachers also meet with students during this time anyway to provide extra help) is ludicrous. It's equivalent to complaining that firefighters are only working when they are actually fighting a live fire, or that police are only working when they are actually on the streets solving crimes. We are most definitely working during our planning periods. We are just not teaching a class during those minutes. As always, I'm not complaining about the work load or the pay. I am simply pointing out to someone who refuses to see, that these erroneous, insulting, and ludicrous claims regarding the time that teachers put in don't up when applied to reality.

Thealexa,

Most of what you have to say is pretty spot-on. However, I'd like to point out that there is no correlation between a teacher's attainment of advanced degrees and student success. Teacher quality IS one of the most significant factors in student success, but that quality has more to due with pedagogy than a teacher's GPA in college. As I said, I appreciate your insight and agree wholeheartedly with the vast majority of your posts on this thread.

Here's an interesting talk by Bill Gates. The first 8 minutes is spent on his work with malaria, but navigate to the 8 minute mark and check out what he says about teacher quality.
[url]
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_unplugged.html[/url]

Thealexa Becker wrote:Of course it is political, but not because of what teachers are teaching but because the current administration in Ohio clearly does not value education as a concept. Even now our governor is suggesting 3 year colleges because apparently if you want to be a nurse you have no need for English.

I would point out that if schools would hold back students who deserve to be held back, it wouldn't be as necessary for colleges to teach those English classes.

Colleges should be for specialization, not general education. I've got a business degree, were the English 101 and 102 classes, after 4 years of English in high school, really necessary? Business writing was part of my major...that makes sense.
This goes for a lot of basic subjects...

Forgive me, I'm going off topic.

Roy Pitchford wrote:Colleges should be for specialization, not general education. I've got a business degree, were the English 101 and 102 classes, after 4 years of English in high school, really necessary? Business writing was part of my major...that makes sense.

Yes, standards all over the country have gotten lax for secondary education. And yes English 101 and 102 are necessary in some colleges, maybe not business schools, but certainly in liberal arts institutions.

Mr. Wheeler, I did not mean to suggest that there is a correlation between the level of education of the teacher and the success of the student. There is no evidence to suggest this but I merely suggested that perhaps level of education should be another consideration rather than just longevity when looking at teacher quality.

Mr. Call, what I said is not nonsense. But I do not wish to debate whether or not this country values education as much as it should, because I KNOW it does not, even if you do not want to acknowledge it.

Rising costs are one examples of this. The government would find ways to make education less expensive if it really cared that much. I also want to dissude any comments about private college's tuition. Yes, some of them are expensive, however, more often than not the good schools will provide a great deal of financial aid to ensure that you can attend. This is a fact. I go to one of those schools. I do not feel like I am wasting my money on my education. I am getting a top quality one.

The only time a college education is a waste is if you choose a college not well suited for you, either financially, academically, or personally. If you major in something useless and don't have a plan for a career, yes, it might seem like college is a waste. And no, not everyone wants or needs to go to college, but to suggest that because Microsoft was founded by a college drop out and ATT went out of business that it means college is overrated, is silly.

I don't agree that the level of education of a teacher is irrelevant to job performance. A teacher who is more competent in his subject area is patently more qualified of organizing and presenting that material than a teacher who lacks a fundamental knowledge of his subject area.

However, what most people don't recognize is that the educational bureaucracy has established a separate level of courses for people who are planning on becoming teachers, and the courses in that curriculum are, to be polite, less rigorous than the like courses in colleges other than a college of education. In plainest terms, the effort that will earn you an A in a physics class taught in a college of education would earn you a lower grade in a college of arts and sciences. The educational bureaucracy apparently believes that courses in how to teach are more valuable than courses in the subject you intend to teach. Indeed, they seem to think that a degree in education gives you the tools to teach any subject. One of the barriers to improving our schools is that people who are masters of a subject area are deemed unfit to teach, unless they spend hours in the numbingly boring educational classes where people try to learn elementary mathmatics and the like.

Most elite colleges do not even offer the courses needed to qualify for a teaching certificate.

I took a course in psychology offered in a college of education. The instructor, a full professor, stood before the class and read the textbook. Apparently, she thought we couldn't read. Worse, I looked around and most of the students were taking notes. The final was multiple choice (I missed the mid-term). That was a typical experience in the college of education at Kent State. I had heard that those who can, do; those who can't do, teach. I added that those who can't teach, teach teaching.

I had hoped that this had improved, but a recent article I read said the the colleges of education continue to attract the least capable students, based on standardized admission scores.

Now I know that there are good teachers. But there are also mediocre teachers, and I think we have to do something to improve the number of good teachers. I also think that we have to do something to improve the efficiency of the educational process, and use our teaching talent to organize material, and counsel students. and reducing the administrative and baby-sitting component of their work. Unfortunately, the educational bureaucracy, including many teachers, is caught up in yesterday's methods, and resists any changes. So change is going to have to come from outside the bureaucracy, or be compelled by the prospect of defunding a disfunctional industry.

Incidentally, this board has recently been inundated by strange and sophomoric postings, including one who apparently thinks the wheel was invented by corporations (?). I look out my window and see a full moon of abnormal brightness. Could there be a relationship there?

When did AT&T go out of business? I thought they were broken up by the government due to antitrust laws. I would hardly call that going out of business. What ever happened to antitrust laws? They used to be how we solved "too big to fail" problems instead of giving government handouts to ginormous companies.

Anyway, what's up with sb5. They've been awful quiet about it. Anything new?

Roy Pitchford wrote:Colleges should be for specialization, not general education. I've got a business degree, were the English 101 and 102 classes, after 4 years of English in high school, really necessary? Business writing was part of my major...that makes sense.
This goes for a lot of basic subjects...

Forgive me, I'm going off topic.

That's completely an opinion however, one with which I heartily disagree. A well rounded liberal arts-based education for any major is important in giving someone a broader outlook, increasing creativity, and cultural open mindedness.

The world would be an awfully boring place if it were run simply by engineers, accountants, and MBAs with backgrounds and education only in the their given field. I'd also dare say much of the creativity that has allowed us to solve many technical and business problems may also not have happened without a liberal arts education.

Now the problem is that our education system for K-12 is failing to actually teach the basics to a large number of kids before just pushing them forward. So where college English should be about much higher topics, they're forced to teach kids basic grammar because people entering college cannot write. History courses miss their college-level work because they have to dumb it down to cover what the kids should have learned in high school.

Liberal arts education is very important, especially at the college level. Equating that with "the basics" is not fair since the fault lies with primary and secondary education in this country, not the college.

Lambasting Liberal Arts is like me saying that business degrees and MBAs are like the fast food of higher ed and that's an opinion actually shared by a lot of people that I also don't think is fair.