The following was reported at politico.com:
“AMERICANS CALL FOR STEPPING UP THE TEACHING PROFESSION: Americans want better prepared teachers in the classroom – and a vast majority think educators should be required to pass board certification and submit to licensure standards like doctors and lawyers. Those views come from a PDK/Gallup poll, released today. Seventy percent of respondents said new teachers should spend at least a year teaching under the guidance of a certified colleague. And 60 percent said the entrance requirements for teacher training programs need to be more rigorous. The results come as the Obama administration plans to resurrect an effort to regulate teacher prep programs. They also reflect public attitudes about whether the standardized testing regime ushered in by No Child Left Behind has improved education, said William Bushaw, who until recently served as executive director of PDK. Segun Eubanks, director of teacher quality at the National Education Association, says it’s clear all that testing hasn’t boosted student learning. So naturally, the focus is now swinging to improving the teaching profession. I have the story: http://politico.pro/1uEZjLi
– In another intriguing finding, 61 percent percent of the 1,001 adults surveyed opposed using student test scores in teacher evaluations. On a related note, researchers at The Brookings Institution are out with a study today that argues improving teacher observations is the key to upgrading evaluations. Observations are often biased by student ability and background, the authors say; they urge districts to adjust their observation scores accordingly. The study, published in Education Next: http://bit.ly/1wxBpUV
That 61% number against using tests scores for teacher evaluations is shocking and heartening.
My memory is that some Reformer said that using tests for anything less than 30% of teacher evaluation is “child abuse.”
And I would like free pizza every Thursday night.
“StudentsFirst says it won’t play politics with Columbus schools parent trigger
A state-picked school-reform group won’t push an agenda as it helps parents pull the trigger to change low-performing Columbus City Schools, its director said yesterday. StudentsFirst was founded by teachers union antagonist Michelle Rhee, the former head of the Washington, D.C. schools who fired hundreds of teachers she deemed ineffective. But its Ohio arm is not out to play politics with the state’s new “parent trigger” law, said Greg Harris, the director of StudentsFirst Ohio.”
Ridiculous. They’re a lobbying group.
I guess we’re all going to insist a lobbying group funded by God knows who is a “neutral third party”.
I have a better question.
Why are the people we’re paying to run public schools outsourcing that job to a lobbying group? How was this group chosen? Was there an open process, a chance for pro-public school advocates to be chosen instead? What were the communications between the state and the lobbyists? Can those be released?
I guess we can wave bye-bye to Columbus public schools. The state has decided to relinquish their role to a private party.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/09/16/StudentsFirst_parent_trigger_Columbus_Schools.html
It’s sickening that so many state and city governments are abrogating their responsibility to America’s children and their right to a free public education. In places like Detroit, New Orleans, Philly, and Newark, they just turn the schools over to a for profit entity, and they don’t seem to do much research into the effectiveness of what is being sold to them. These cities all have a large minority populations in common. Is this the new civil rights issue of our times?
Yes, Newark PublIc Schools One Newark plan has both a NJ lawsuit & US Dept Ed investigation re discrimination.
This is back in 2011, when StudentsFirst were lobbyists:
“StudentsFirst is active in several states, including Ohio. In fall 2011, Ohio state director for StudentsFirst Chad Aldis said StudentsFirst would lobby Ohio legislators and policymakers on three main issues:
Teacher and principal evaluations in which at least half of the evaluation is based on students’ academic progress,
Performance-based pay, and
A complete prohibition on seniority-based layoffs.
StudentsFirst lobbied in favor of laws on teacher evaluations that made it into the state budget enacted in 2011. And Rhee herself has made several trips to Ohio, including visits to co-host Waiting for Superman screenings with Gov. John Kasich and to speak at Kent State University.”
Now they’re a “neutral third party”. It’s just insulting to the public at this point.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/tag/michelle-rhee/
Here are the not-lobbyists at StudentsFirst, lobbying for an anti-labor law in Ohio:
“Between January and April of 2011, StudentsFirst employed Robert Klaffky, the president of firm Van Meter, Ashbrook & Associates and a close adviser to Ohio Governor John Kasich (R) to help push various aspects of education policy.
In particular, the group, established by Rhee after she left the D.C. school system following then-Mayor Adrian Fenty’s defeat, had Klaffky work on SB5, the infamous anti-collective bargaining bill passed into law but already facing the likelihood of referendum.”
But they’re not lobbyists, because they say they aren’t. Instead they’re (now) a “neutral third party”.
I’ve been saying this for years. For the profession to be taken seriously the standards need to be raised. Right now in my state a 60 percent score on a certification exam will allow you to become a certified teacher. This is simply unacceptable! However, I have a theory about this; I believe these standards have been lowered purposely in order to mask the truth which is that there is a severe shortage of “QUALIFIED” teachers. This in turn accomplishes another objective; it keeps the salaries of all educators down by controlling the supply and demand spectrum within the profession.
You know what is hilarious to me? My kid is a 2nd year teacher. She studied her craft as an ed major and is certified p-3 and k-6. SHE LOVES TEACHING and wants to do nothing but.
During her college years, she observed, created curriculum, and interned clinical 1 and 2 for a full year without pay, while working part time and going to college. When she finally got a job in NJ, after paying her dues in the only ed jobs she could get–aide and full-time substitute–(unlike the TFAs for whom the red carpet is placed so they can get secured jobs over credentialed and even veteran teachers)–she had to be mentored for a full year, and pay out of her pocket for that mentoring. She was observed numerous times and graded, and was told she could NEVER achieve a 4, because she is new, and it isn’t allowed. The comments on her work, however, were complimentary and exemplary. WHAT MORE DO PEOPLE WANT??????????????????????????????? The very things being called for seem to already be in place; unless you are TFA or work for a charter.
It cannot be had both ways. Whoever “they” are, they cannot continue to bash traditionally trained, qualified, certified teachers, and throw them under the bus to make way for, and praise, TFAers, while saying teachers need MORE training, and TFAs get the worst training of all, and better perks and guaranteed jobs. For crissakes, the charter schools will hire anyone who agrees with their discipline policies; you need not be certified, but if you’re TFA, all the better….the world will go GAGA for you. I feel bad for the certified teachers who are at charters; they are a necessary evil for the scheme to work.
This.
AMEN! Donna, you clear away all the smoke and mirrors. I’ve jumped through so many hoops in my career I should have won an Olympic gold medal. Every time I met the new criteria to ‘prove’ I was competent at my job the goalposts were moved again.
Why is it a given that teachers must continuously prove their professional competence? This does not happen to accountants, attorneys, doctors, nurses, and other professionals.
We played by THEIR rules, got THEIR degrees, passed THEIR tests, followed THEIR certification rules and procedures, survived THEIR tenure process, and still it is never enough.
I disagree with Diane on this one. Why are we limited to those 3 choices? Just because they are historically used doesn’t mean we are limited to choosing among them only.
Let’s think outside the box and look at new ways of maintaining and growing our profession. Observations are a sad joke — the Harvard physician whose research was used to justify the constant walk-throughs in our district retracted his support of the ’round’ methodology, finding that it did not improve diagnostic and treatment outcomes. Peer review can be a good thing and can be a tool of torment and bullying. VAM is snake oil.
We can come up with better ways of entering the profession and sustaining our professionalism. The first thing we need to do is get rid of all the economists, psychologists, psychometricians, and MBA’s who want to tell us what to do and how to do it.
We also need to rein in the out of control bureaucracy that has arisen around NCLB and RTTT and get rid of all of these non-teaching, out of the classroom too long ‘experts’ and strip them of their power. Teachers are the top of the pyramid in education, in partnership with the learners. We need to stop accepting the dominance of non-teachers and run them out of the school systems.
I agree with you, Chris. There are too many consultants, economists, MBAs, and politicians telling teachers how to teach.
Thanks Diane. I was referring to the previous article about Anthony Cody and Peer Review. I thought you were saying that we had to choose between principal observations, peer review, or VAM so peer review was the clear choice. Sorry I misread you.
I agree. I would think the rest of America would look to teachers. After all, teachers manage more direct reports than a line manager, plan better than any executive, are entertainers and public speakers, must be psychologists in motivational theory, are trained in physical confrontation, certified in first aid and hazardous materials, can budget and purchase like any office manager, treat cuts, scrapes, flus, and depression like a doctor, therapists for teens distraught over a break up, deal with constant laws and mandates, decorate a classroom like an interior designer, handle an angry public like a politician, and still have the faith of a minister they’ll make a difference in someone’s life.
I’m down with this. And providing resources to make it happen, including the pay.
But I don’t think that will happen since no one in this country gets or wants to get what it takes to build teaching capacity.
Even most of us as teachers rarely actually talk about or reflect on teaching.
And leaders just talk about raising test scores.
They don’t want it because an educated populace would be vying for the positions of power that are solely reserved for the elite class whom do receive a well rounded education. If you dumb the populace down they remain stagnant and thus become easier to manipulate and control. This is so obvious to anyone with a brain. I find it comical how these upper echelon individuals sell you on the glories of common core yet their very own children are exempt from these so called world class standards. These very same people also tell you how safe genetically modified foods are yet they are non existent in their very own homes. America has been bought and sold down the river and we the middle class if you even want to call us that anymore have been left to foot the bill.
When I was a kid they told us that nuclear energy would make electricity so cheap they would have to take the meter off the house. They also made us do duck-and-cover drills…
How sick was “duck and cover”? They had fallout shelters which had special signs indicating if they were safe from radiation, so a lot of kids knew that hiding under our desks was not going to protect us.
My pediatrician then had lost several fingers due to radiation from exposure to Xrays, so even in the primary grades, I knew “duck and cover” would not save us from the radiation of nuclear bombs. I begged my parents to build a bomb shelter, but they said they couldn’t due to the tableland upon which our house was built. I had constant nightmares and because we had no basement, and I often dreamt about trying to hide in the crawl space beneath our house.
What was the point of scaring the hell out of America’s children and who was responsible for that policy?
Cosmic – I had nightmares, too. Once, while I was trying to get to sleep, I heard a sonic boom and I terrifyingly waited for “the end” to come. I was eight years old. Later on, I created my own little shelter in the basement. Of course, I later realized that my small, youthful attempts were futile, but it had given me some sense of security.
Now we have to fear over zealous administrators will “accidentally” blow up our kids or grand kids in their ego quest for power. Cringing in a homemade hidey-hole won’t work anymore. Perhaps a teddy, a blankey, and a thumb in the mouth – a little more mobile – will do the trick.
Better yet, the new school uniforms should be protective gear to keep our kids safe from attack by their principals.
I think a lot of times when people talk about needing “better” teachers, they mean “smarter” teachers, as in, more “elite”, ivy league types. It comes from the canard that something like half of all teachers come from the bottom third of their class. It’s the belief that being “smart” (the “best and the brightest”!) automatically makes someone a better teacher. So that explains why uncertified TfAers are considered “good” or “excellent” teachers, while veteran, unionized, traditionally trained teachers are “bottom of the barrel”.
TfA is also perfect for the “reformers” because they can get all those wonderful elite, ivy league type teachers without paying them ivy league salaries. Best of all possible worlds!
Being at the top of your class makes you a good student. It does not necessarily make you a good teacher.
I assume the same is true for every other profession.
And I would really like to see those supposed studies that show teachers are the bottom end of their class. I teach in an at risk school, and even then, most of my colleagues and myself were cum laude or higher in our studies.
Here’s the back story on that frequent claim made by “reformers,” including Duncan:
“Do teachers really come from the ‘bottom third’ of college graduates?”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/do-teachers-really-come-from-the-bottom-third-of-college-graduates/2011/12/07/gIQAg8HPdO_blog.html
As an academic who graduated at the top of my college class and received awards for it, as well as a die-hard intellectual, this matter makes me ill each time it comes up. “Reformers” would do a happy dance if only they could require that we all wear armbands with a scarlet T. I’ll wear my Summa Cum Laude medal when “reformers” start wearing armbands with the brand names of all the corporations that sponsor them.
Class standing is a function of the grades awarded. Different schools award grades differently. The mean grades at my university are lowest for the school of engenering, highest for the school of education. It is difficult to compare students across schools.
I wondered just how true those remarks are about teachers coming from the bottom of the barrel. I took a survey of the teachers in my school to find out if any of them had degrees or careers outside of teaching. I wanted to know if any had been accepted into programs outside of teaching. How many graduated with honors?
Fully one half of the staff had worked in other careers before teaching. Three had been office managers, two of whom were in charge of payroll. One had a degree in accounting. Four others had considered business programs before changing direction. One teacher had been accepted into medical school at the U of U. Before deciding to become a teacher. One had been a professional anchor woman. One teacher had been in the army. One was a professional musician before teaching.
Of the twenty teachers on staff, four hold two bachelors degrees, seven have masters degrees with four others in masters programs. One had a PH. D. With one other teacher in a current program. Sixteen are ESL endorsed. Five have endorsements in mathematics. Three have endorsements in reading. Five have endorsements in special education. Seven have early childhood endorsements and two more have endorsements in art. Five teachers are bi-lingual 2 speak German, one Japanese, one Lebanese and one Spanish. Four are acquired languages. English is the second language of our Japanese teacher. When I asked the staff if they had won any educational awards or had graduated with honors, I discovered that five belong to Phi Kappa Phi. Another twelve had graduated with honors.
We are a staff of twenty at the elementary school where I teach. I am positive that the idea that most teachers teach because teaching was the only acedemic program they could gain access to is blatantly false. At least half of our staff had other options but chose to teach. Many from the other group, never considered anything else. Several expressed knowing they would teach as young children. Education was their first and only choice.
In Utah, BYU, U of Utah and Weber State require a 3.0 GPA for admittance into their teaching programs. I do not know the requirements at Utah State, but I assume it is the same. Weber State also requires that candidates pass a nationally ranked entrance exam and extensive interview before being accepted into the program. Several candidates do not gain admittance to the program.
Teachers in Utah have graduated licenses. Before candidates may become licensed they must pass a national board exam (Praxis 1). Within their first three years they must take a second national test (Praxis 2). Teachers must take this exam for each endorsement. The candidate must pass the exam with a score of at least 80%.
Teachers are not coming from low academic programs. Licensed teachers in Utah are coming from vigorous, high quality programs.
Hi, fellow Utahn! The requirement is the same at Utah State–3.0 for admission.
This is just part of the same quasi-stealth business plan to hand over billions in tax dollars to business people through the privatization of public education and the standardization of learning and teaching. Teacher Education is just one more component of the money grab, because it’s a lot more lucrative for corporations when they don’t have to deal with different standards in every state and at each college, so you can be sure that another national curriculum is in the works for teacher preparation and higher education aimed at benefiting the ruling class.
In NYS teachers are required to have a Master’s Degree.
That’s Certified Teachers. You know, teachers who work in Public Schools.
Charter Schools? It depends.
TFAs. They get “dispensation”.
Observations are often biased by student ability and background, the authors say; they urge districts to adjust their observation scores accordingly.
While I think that observations have a say, I think that this type of poll demonstrates why there is a need for assessments like edTPA, that help professionalize the profession, that have unbiased evaluators (trained K-12, higher ed, etc) evaluate teachers. This should NOT be the only way they are trained, but is a step in the right direction
edTPA is a step in the wrong direction. It takes the evaluation of student teachers out of the hands of their college supervisors. It is another money maker for the testing industry at $300 a pop.
EdTPA is now required for teacher certification in NY. Another Pearson $$$maker.
Great teaching cant be taught, only developed over time. I think it is overlooked that it takes a special talent that cannot be imbued through teacher prep programs.
I think deep knowledge of one’s subject is a necessary, though not sufficient, ingredient for great teaching. This is the area in which teacher prep could improve –we have enough pedagogy and ed psych training.
Deep knowledge is the model used in post secondary education.
The best teachers use the deep and broad knowledge they have of their subject areas to take their students way beyond the confines of any textbook. Stay on that soap box Ponderosa. Your preaching to the choir here. Can only hope that your choir is growing in size and devoutness.
Actually, it’s in this country that we seem to believe that teachers are born, not made. So we have mediocre, minimal teacher preparation, and almost no post-certification development.
Good teaching can be taught, but not by lecture or just demonstrations. It takes work, reflection, and collaboration.
Just like good doctoring can be taught.
You aren’t kidding as a teacher whom just recently left the profession to begin a Physician Assistant Program I am now subjected to the greed that is Pearson. I had to Purchase an Anatomy & Physiology book for $300.This is an absolute crime when I totaled the price of all my books combined the cost was slightly higher than the courses themselves. This is a fleecing of unprecedented proportions.
The Real One,
You might ask your professor. Generally the faculty choose the book.
“Just like good doctoring can be taught.”
Just because it is “taught” doesn’t mean it is learned.
I am all for taking a look at college and certification programs for teachers and determining how they can be improved Teachers should enter the workforce with a strong and realistic preparation (such as learning classroom management skills) that may not be happening now. However, the moment I read the idea that teachers should meet licensure standards not unlike doctors and lawyers, I wondered if that meant that teachers could then expect salaries that are commensurate with those of doctors and lawyers. I think not.
If I could have afforded to get my kid into Ivy League, I’d have done so. If I had the connections, like the Bush family, to get my smart kid, versus George W, into Ivy League, I would have. I cannot tell you the lengths I see people go to, the connections they have, to get even their average, and sometimes plain dumb kids, every advantage.
My kid had the advantage that she had invested parents who wanted her to succeed. We’re a middle class family; we could not afford Harvard, Princeton, Yale — nor would she have wanted to attend. What is the point of a $500,000 education, if you want to be a teacher? NJCU and MSU were good enough for her/us. Her passion is evident to anyone who sees her in action.
Rich doesn’t make you smart. Attending Ivy League schools often means you’re family has connections, whether you are the brightest bulb or not. Granted, TFA likes to skim the cream from the top — however, that is just one more way to keep “their kind” in the cash, and look out for each other. Why not do TFA for 2 years, when there aren’t any jobs in your field? When it looks good on a resume? When the perks that go along with it are too good to resist? WHEN YOU’RE USED TO BEING ENTITLED. Ugh.
I grew up in Newark, NJ. I guess I must have had, by RHEEForm standards, some really horrible teachers. I must be a stupid, uneducated moron. TFA couldn’t save me in the 70s.
Parents and educators should organize to keep TFA’s out of their districts and states. Efforts should be made to match education graduates with job openings located in all 50 states. Wouldn’t that be a helpful database–One website where you could search each state for job openings and apply online. Maybe it already exist, but I am not aware of it.
“We’re a middle class family; we could not afford Harvard, Princeton, Yale — nor would she have wanted to attend.”
Donna
You have, unfortunately, been misinformed, or are simply uniformed. Ivy league schools are some of the most affordable private universities in the country for middle and lower class students who qualify. A number of ivies operate using a “needs based” financial aid package. The philosophy is one of “no debt” for their graduates. This is made possible by their multi, multi, billion dollar endowments. If your kid met the qualifications and survived the 7% selectivity barrier, money would never be an issue. The legacy students to which you refer make the needs based financial aid packages available to the less well off, thanks to the money that flows from their wealthy parents.
Would never have even thought about it in the moment – between us at the time, we earned about $110,000 annually – FAFSA didn’t want to give us anything. She should have applied to Yale, Princeton and Harvard? Who would have thunk it? Certainly not us. If you say so, tho, you knew/know something I don’t.
She started an NJCU. There was a kid on scholarship pulling the bare minimum, and he could barely put a sentence together. She was disappointed in that. It seemed if you were not a stellar athlete, or valedictorian, or outright poor…you didn’t qualify for anything. That was our experience. I certainly know we are not alone in this.
Donna,
At $110,000, a relatively wealthy household, a university like mine is a better deal. That is why I have students that have turned down Dartmouth, University of Chicago, and Swarthmore among other schools in my classes.
“who qualify”
How does that work exactly? Test scores again?
My child is extremely capable in math but struggles with a disability. Tests are not his strong point. Ivy League would never accept him even though he could run circles around most blue bloods going there.
Sure, we checked FAFSA. Basically, you go bankrupt and your kid signs up for indentured servitude. America can do better.
Sorry, but the truth is the only difference between the elite kids and the hard workers in the middle class is that the elite kids are coddled and allowed to fail. The rest of us get one shot and work our tails off to get there. I started scrubbing grease pits at 14, worked at tough, dirty, sometimes risky jobs through college. Full time work at startups while getting a masters. Bet no 1%ers kid would even have a clue.
MathVale,
Admission to Ivy League schools depends a great deal on which bucket a student falls into. Harvard wants to have a football team, so a strong high school football player only needs to worry about other high school football players. Yale wants a strong rowing team, so a student from a New England prep school only need worry about other rowers, not non-rowers. If your bucket is academics, you have to have a superb record that it is easy for an admission officer to understand.
trollingeconomist,
Whatever the heck buckets are, you made absolutely no sense.
By “qualify” I was referring to a student being within the academic range necessary for acceptance. This would include SATs in the 2100 -2200 range minimum, and a top-of-the-class GPA, which included the most challenging courses available. TE’s comment about which “bucket a student falls into” is also quite accurate. Having the solid academic minimum. combined with a specialized skill is a huge advantage. Having a different/unique racial, ethnic, demographic, or cultural background is an even further advantage as many ivies are looking to improve campus diversity. Keep in mind that the rejection rate for qualified students at these elite universities is over 90%.
NY Teacher,
I’ll bite. Assuming SAT and related metrics are a good measure of “elite-ness”, then the schools are taking the students they consider the best. But to see these institutions as bastions of altruism is tough to defend. As income inequality grows, I fear for the stability of our country. These ivy league institutions are aggravating the problem and reinforcing rigid, third world notions of class. The elite are truly believing they are superior humans and others are expendable. See it in Romney’s 47% remark, affluenza, or the imposition of policies on “other people’s kids”. Resources and opportunities are taken away from a shrinking middle class and giving to a few. We no longer create wealth, we shift it around.
I have to say that middle class families are squished by the formulation of FAFSA. When we received our figures for our first child, I was certain they had missed a decimal point. There is just no way a working couple of two teachers can save enough to be able to make a family contribution of $30,000 a year for four years of college. Our oldest did indeed get accepted to several elite, wealthy schools, but we made too much to be poor and not enough to have it not matter.
Christine,
Your kind of household is the bread and butter of my institution. Full tuition for in state students is a small fraction of private universities like NYU, so many highly qualified students turn down high priced privates to come here. One recent student even moved out of her Ivy League dorm room when her financial aid appeal was denied and ended up in several of my classes her state university.
NJ Spotlight published an interactive map of student debt by college for 2012 NJ grads (~ 2 weeks ago.) The lowest was Princeton @$5,000 average. NJIT, a state school, was among the highest.
More evidence of how palpable the arrogance of the “trolling economist” is!
Just move right on down the pages, folks, and don’t listen to all the pedantic blathering from someone who doesn’t care that it’s wrong to be so self-serving and insensitive to others.
I agree with NY Teacher. For highly talented students from low income households elite wealthy private schools are less expensive than institutions like mine, a state university.
Of course, te, you agree. If I said the sky was blue, you’d tell me it was orange, with statistics to back you. No thanks.
Donna,
I understand that many who post here take positions without thinking about the merits of their positions. I am not one of them.
trollingeconomist, at least they take positions.
MathVale,
I take many positions and defend them with arguments. I even manage to do it without calling people names.
trollingeconomst,
I call ’em as I see ’em.
You simply like to stir the pot and ask leading and contrarian questions as attempt at “gotcha” posts. Meant to annoy and disrupt, not advance any discussion. That’s trolling.
Teachers grow tired of the constant barrage of attacks and demonization. I see little in your positions other than the same old reformy talking points and a few posts from Chetty. Kinda obvious, don’t ya think?
MathVale,
You might want to take a closer look at my posts over the last couple of years.
By “bucket” I am thinking about the applicants to a private elite school are actually competing against. Harvard MUST admit football players, rowers, violinists, likely math majors, likely fine arts majors, etc.. Applicants are not competing against all other applicants, but against the other applicants that have similar traits that the school finds valuable.
MathVale, beneath the surface, the “trolling economist” actually has one position: hubris. Whatever the topic, he thinks he knows better than everyone else here.
Talk about teachers from the bottom of the barrel.
Citizen,
When I post I do not call anyone by a derogatory name, I do not engage in ad hominem arguments, and I do not speculate about the motivation of the poster. I don’t find those kind of posts persuasive. I state a position and give reasons why I support the position. When I disagree with a position I give reasons and or counter examples. It seems to me that this is the best way to discuss a better education for all.
TE, if you think $110,000 before taxes in NJ is a wealthy household, I assure you, you are very mistaken. Car insurance is stifling, as is rent and taxes if you’re lucky enough to afford even a modest home. I live near Newark; however, I also live near NYC. It costs a fortune here. Don’t tell me what I can afford and how my kid could have gone to an elite wealthy school for much less than it cost to sent her to state university. I think you’re talking fiction. I lived it. NJ is one of, if not the most, expensive states in this nation in which to live. I think you are out of touch with reality; clearly out of touch with my reality, and I have never appreciated your baiting language. Usually, I just reply with “good for you.” You have not walked in my shoes, so please, get off my feet.
Donna,
$110,000 is over twice the median household income. At $110,000 it would likely have been less expensive to send your students to Rutgers (a state university) than NYU or Harvard. For low income households with low incomes the wealthy privates are generally less expensive.
TE, I think the debate over the status of $100!000 reminds me that there are two economies, and not much in the middle.
Many non-teaching peers of educators are in the upper economy. Teachers used to at least be in the middle of he middle. Now they’re near the top of the lower economy. That’s what hurts.
Peter,
According to the latest census figures, the top 20% of households have incomes of at least $105,000 and the top 5% of households have incomes of at least $196,000.
The good news in the latest report is that the estimated number of children living in poverty declined by about 1.4 million.
Here is the Census press release: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-169.html
TE continues to prove our points –and with no care about how arrogant he comes off.
Citizen,
Do you have reason to think I am wrong in this thread?
TE,You have no “deep knowledge” of the lived experiences of Donna, or anyone else here who is struggling to be in the middle class. You didn’t even bother to ask Donna about the details of her family living situation, including the number of dependents she has and the cost of living in her area. The world is not Kansas.
Median income data for the nation has nothing to do with my wallet, so I would not assume it’s relevant to Donna’s either. Try learning how to deal with people, instead of just talking AT them and tossing around statistics that don’t apply to individuals.
Citizen,
I make no claim to deep knowledge about anyone’s circumstances. What I have is some knowledge about income distribution in the United States and how it is measured along with some knowledge about tuition, admission, and “financial aid” practices at US universities. Again, was anything instated here incorrect?
So many examples on these pages of arrested development from someone who should have outgrown their egocentrism long, long ago.
Citizen,
I do think it is more useful to engage in a discussion of issues rather than ad hominem arguments. Others disagree of course.
People who address issues don’t discount the very people who have raised those matters. You are fooling no one here but your inflated ego.
Teacher Ed,
How gave I discounted any person who posts here? I have not called anyone a demeaning name, I have not insulted any poster here. I have always addressed the argument given civilly and if I have disagreed, given reasons for my disagreement or counter examples or the all too commen blanket statements given here.
The self-aggrandizing continues, without any critical examinations in the mirror.
Dolly,
Is there something in my posts here that you have reason to disagree with?
And once again, this is why I say we should look into PAR as a way of evaluating teachers.
btw, I couldn’t find the story on the Politico link you provided.
Schoolgal, the link was on the politico page. It may be behind a paywall. I will get a link for the survey.
Schoolgal,
ScAN this link to find report that 61% of public opposes using test scores to evaluate teachers; only 1% undecided: http://pdkpoll.pdkintl.org/october/
Lost in this discussion is the need for much, much better qualified administrators. The current fast track programs for administrative certification are placing inexperienced educators into management positions (i.e. teacher evaluation and support) for which they are ill equipped. There are principals with less than three years of teaching experience trying to run the show. Much of this mess has been created by overly ambitious educators that never paused for a second to ask themselves if they were really ready to run a school. At least from my perspective, this is the case.
NY Teacher, the model for putting inexperienced educators into the principal’s job is the NYC Leadership Academy. That program fast-tracked teachers with one, two, or three years of experience into the principalship. A terrible idea. They don’t know enough about teaching to help their teachers or to evaluate them.
…and that is by design, and that is the point. Reform at any cost. Get “your people” in their and cause disruption. Get all your reformy cronies in there. The reformers are in this for the long haul. They have been at it now for 20 years actively. What is another 20 in order to have returns on their private-public partnerships?
CX: there. I get too upset about these topics. I think I’m going to have to disappear for a while.
Its not just NYC where this happens. I’ve worked under a number of “insta-pals” in recent years. A truly terrible policy that is wrecking havoc on schools. Many of these administrators are so deeply in over their heads that their egos get the best of them. Nothing worse than a power tripping principal with two years of teaching under their belt. If they wanted a career ladder that should have went into the business world.
TEN years teaching should be the bare minimum required for administrative certification.
At my school last year, I, with 13 years’ experience, had more teaching experience than all three of my administrators, combined.
Agree – ten years experience would be a good minimum.
“Polling Ignorance”
Ignorance is bliss
And polls are just a gauge
Of what the public miss
When ignorance they wage
I agree with NY teacher that we need better qualified administrators. It appears that it is far too easy to become certified as an administrator and many lack the skills, and for some, intelligence, to be effective leaders. If we are going to demand tougher standards for teachers then the same should go for administrators.
I agree but it is sad when the administrator whom is observing my lesson and completing my observation thus affecting my salary can’t even solve the Math problem on the board. Talk about poorly trained and ineffective! In my former district 3 years of teachingis required to become an administraor; which is an absolute joke. Not to mention, their starting salary is double that of a beginning teachers for half the work required. Gotta love America.
This practice is based on the wrong headed assumption that good teaching is a general skill that can be recognized without any understanding of the subject or content. The Marzano/Danielson frameworks apply this crude philosophy. It is their major downfall and one reason they have no credibility with experienced, thoughtful teachers.
Many states already have licensure tests like CA & MA. THE BIGGER ISUE IS FUNDING FOR SMALLER CLASS-SIZES AND TEACHER COLLABORATON.
Absolutely! The best teacher on earth can’t be that good with course loads of 30+ students. Unfortunately, Cuomo’s education policies have left many here in NY with unmanageably large class sizes that no skill or experience can completely overcome.
Because I have met a fair number of extremely talented teachers over the years who were less than stellar students, I cringe at creating rigid standards that look only at grade point averages. On more than one occasion I have heard teachers comment that their own struggles led them to teaching. They wanted to do it better and they have! In any case, I keep looking for this apparently large pool of incompetent teachers. I can’t say that I have seen any data that supports that contention. From what I have seen, teachers, in general, spend an inordinate amount of time in continuing professional development activities.
Ready for a laugh? Teach for America website says applicants must have 2.5 GPA on 4.0 scale. Anecdotal information (not serious research) also holds that students at Ivy League schools rarely are given a grade below B. (Profs figure they shouldn’t be punished for having high-achieving peers; they’d earn a B at other colleges.)
“Teach for America website says applicants must have 2.5 GPA on 4.0 scale. ”
Exactly. TFA doesn’t just recruit at Ivy League colleges either. Plus the Ivy Leagues have their own legacy and athletic dolts, like GW Bush and Arne Duncan. Many ed schools have a higher standard, requiring a 3.0 for admission.
For decades the teaching profession has drawn subservient types of women as teachers, and men as administrators. Then in the last 40 years that has included more masculine women as administrators and more feminine men as teachers. It has become a patriarchal system of bullying with a pecking order that trickles down to the children.
Society has become much too dysfunctional to allow one teacher to be dominant for a group of children, since they now act like dictators and are causing mental illness to rise at alarming rates. Our education system does need to be reformed, but we should follow the Finland and/or Montessori methods of education in order to protect children from bullying and give them a learning environment that is healthy and not abusive. Otherwise, our society will not survive this damage to children from defective teachers.
Pilgrim can you be anymore sexist? Or are you being Andy Borowitz?
Where’s your data on feminine men and masculine women? Are you really saying that leadership requires masculinity?
Regardless of your intent, I did get a laugh.
If they truly want to change the quality of instruction then they must change the expectations for teachers. If a teacher has 200 plus students to teach then the work associated with that many students is ridiculous. I wrote two articles addressing these situations.
http://davidrtayloreducation.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/does-5-more-students-really-matter/
http://davidrtayloreducation.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/new-teacher-bill-of-rights-2013/
Thank you for your graphic. Two years ago, I moved from teaching kindergarten to first grade. I had 20 students. I found myself putting in a large amount of extra hours as I was learning the first grade curriculum. Last year I had 30 students. I increased my outside working hours. This year I have 25. But we have started a new reading program. I put in 80 hours last week. I think the idea that teachers can always find time to add a bit more has reached a breaking point.
Eighty hours was my limit as well and not something I could not have sustained even with all of the time off people seemed to feel we had. I have said this before, but I figured that I worked more than 52 full work weeks per year, just condensed in time. I know I am far from alone.
An ELA teacher with 150 students wants to spend 10 minutes reading, correcting, commenting on, and grading each essay. Seems reasonable until you do the math. That’s 25 HOURS to grade just one routine assignment. Same for the SS teacher and her DBQs and the science teacher and his lab reports. What’s the actual fallout from ridiculously large class enrollments? Teachers have fewer and less demanding course requirements. Class size has a dramatic effect in the quality of any program.