3 ms·

"let's take a good look", "let's figure out", "let's have a vibrant discussion". Is there ever a time for action? What evidence would you need to decide that

"let's take a good look", "let's figure out", "let's have a vibrant discussion". Is there ever a time for action? What evidence would you need to decide that a forced attrition program is a good idea?

stretchwithme 16y ago
Evidence that non-performers are not in a union should be sufficient.
yock 16y ago
Certainly not before we know on what to act. What I gathered from reading his comment was that we have significant deficiencies in even how to classify good teaching, let alone measure it, let alone promote it. Skipping straight to the promotion part, which is what you seem to be insisting, would merely involve guessing and inconsistency at best. At worst, we would promote the wrong qualities and make teachers worse. I'm not suggesting that we simply talk and talk and never take action, but it's hard to make the case that we know how to improve teaching given the state of education in this country. It makes good sense to fix our ignorance before acting.
andrewce 16y ago
There's definitely a time for action. Just not until we decide when that action should be taken. As for forced attrition: 1) I would want to see a comprehensive professional development program put in place for all teachers. Teaching well is difficult, and teachers generally don't get any useful feedback from anyone (when I taught, the biggest piece of useful feedback I got from my principal was "Make 'em afraid of you. Today, 3 kids didn't turn in their homework. If they're afraid of you, they'll do your homework"). It's entirely possible that plenty of our "bad" teachers simply need some support and guidance and a more concrete direction. 2) While this is happening, a comprehensive discussion of the goals of education needs to occur. Right now, as near as I can tell, our primary purpose is American competitiveness on an international scale (how dare those children from Shanghai score better than our children?!), which will somehow translate into economic competitiveness. I'm not talking national goals, at least not yet. I'm talking a comprehensive building of the things that an adult need to be able to do in order to choose and set the course of his own life to the greatest extent possible. Obviously, not everyone gets to be an astronaut, but it'd be nice if we took a few steps toward the American ideal of "With enough gumption and hard work, anyone can be reasonably accomplished". 3) Finally, I'd be okay with forced attrition if it were shown to me that the replacements would be better. Others on this board have said things like "pay them more", but the fact is, teaching is not a glamorous position, and is becoming less, rather than more, so as either a direct or indirect result of articles like the one posted. Additionally, most schools nation-wide are struggling with the budget (between California and Illinois, 40,000 jobs were cut last summer. Even in Omaha, where I live, the wealthiest districts are freezing their hiring if they haven't done so already). You might point to programs such as Teach for America, but even they have a pretty high attrition rate, and that's only a 2-year committment (also: do you really want someone who will teach for 2 years and then go do something else?). Finally, the points I outlined in my original comment still stand. I'm not unilaterally opposed to forced attrition, and in fact I'm not even strongly opposed. I just want it to be conscientious, deliberate, and well-thought out, with concrete steps taken to make sure that the new crop coming in has a really good chance to do better than the old crop leaving.
- anamax 16y ago
  > Additionally, most schools nation-wide are struggling with the budget (between California and Illinois, 40,000 jobs were cut last summer. The problem with that number is that the vast majority were rehired later that summer/in early fall. That "fire/hire" dance is part of the "we need funding" theater. However, the real problem with the "struggling with budget" argument is that a lot of the spending in those budgets is for "not classroom". (Yes, I'm including school facilities in classroom.) The folks who set up public school budgets do not act as if public education is a priority, so it's absurd to give them more money to improve public education.

stretchwithme 16y ago

Evidence that non-performers are not in a union should be sufficient.

yock 16y ago

Certainly not before we know on what to act. What I gathered from reading his comment was that we have significant deficiencies in even how to classify good teaching, let alone measure it, let alone promote it. Skipping straight to the promotion part, which is what you seem to be insisting, would merely involve guessing and inconsistency at best. At worst, we would promote the wrong qualities and make teachers worse. I'm not suggesting that we simply talk and talk and never take action, but it's hard to make the case that we know how to improve teaching given the state of education in this country. It makes good sense to fix our ignorance before acting.

andrewce 16y ago

There's definitely a time for action. Just not until we decide when that action should be taken. As for forced attrition: 1) I would want to see a comprehensive professional development program put in place for all teachers. Teaching well is difficult, and teachers generally don't get any useful feedback from anyone (when I taught, the biggest piece of useful feedback I got from my principal was "Make 'em afraid of you. Today, 3 kids didn't turn in their homework. If they're afraid of you, they'll do your homework"). It's entirely possible that plenty of our "bad" teachers simply need some support and guidance and a more concrete direction. 2) While this is happening, a comprehensive discussion of the goals of education needs to occur. Right now, as near as I can tell, our primary purpose is American competitiveness on an international scale (how dare those children from Shanghai score better than our children?!), which will somehow translate into economic competitiveness. I'm not talking national goals, at least not yet. I'm talking a comprehensive building of the things that an adult need to be able to do in order to choose and set the course of his own life to the greatest extent possible. Obviously, not everyone gets to be an astronaut, but it'd be nice if we took a few steps toward the American ideal of "With enough gumption and hard work, anyone can be reasonably accomplished". 3) Finally, I'd be okay with forced attrition if it were shown to me that the replacements would be better. Others on this board have said things like "pay them more", but the fact is, teaching is not a glamorous position, and is becoming less, rather than more, so as either a direct or indirect result of articles like the one posted. Additionally, most schools nation-wide are struggling with the budget (between California and Illinois, 40,000 jobs were cut last summer. Even in Omaha, where I live, the wealthiest districts are freezing their hiring if they haven't done so already). You might point to programs such as Teach for America, but even they have a pretty high attrition rate, and that's only a 2-year committment (also: do you really want someone who will teach for 2 years and then go do something else?). Finally, the points I outlined in my original comment still stand. I'm not unilaterally opposed to forced attrition, and in fact I'm not even strongly opposed. I just want it to be conscientious, deliberate, and well-thought out, with concrete steps taken to make sure that the new crop coming in has a really good chance to do better than the old crop leaving.

anamax 16y ago
> Additionally, most schools nation-wide are struggling with the budget (between California and Illinois, 40,000 jobs were cut last summer. The problem with that number is that the vast majority were rehired later that summer/in early fall. That "fire/hire" dance is part of the "we need funding" theater. However, the real problem with the "struggling with budget" argument is that a lot of the spending in those budgets is for "not classroom". (Yes, I'm including school facilities in classroom.) The folks who set up public school budgets do not act as if public education is a priority, so it's absurd to give them more money to improve public education.