8 ms·

> and getting rid of bad teachers is essentially hopeless. This is the big problem with education. I don't like how unions have co-opted the narrative to "Just

> and getting rid of bad teachers is essentially hopeless. This is the big problem with education. I don't like how unions have co-opted the narrative to "Just pay us more and we'll finally do our jobs right" which somehow has become crowd friendly. Instead better performance testing and easier firing is what we need, especially in my hometown of Chicago. Public sector unions have interests that go against those of taxpayers by default. Until we fix unions we won't fix education.

acdha 13y ago
> I don't like how unions have co-opted the narrative to "Just pay us more and we'll finally do our jobs right" They're probably even less happy about the right-wing has co-opted the narrative that the problems in education are caused by the teachers. Teaching is a challenging job which requires an advanced degree, very long hours with no flexibility, low pay even before you adjust for true hours worked, and you are given very little professional discretion. Do you really think you're going to get better results by putting even more pressure on things which teachers have only marginal control over[1] rather than simply encouraging more teachers to leave? To put some facts into the discussion: this assessment by the American Statistical Association found that teachers are responsible for 1 to 14% of student's test score variance: http://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/ASA_VAM_Statement.pdf http://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/ASA_VAM_Statement.pdf Follow Amdahl's law: even if you could load the school up with the best teachers on the planet, lavish pay, fully merit-based, etc. you're not going to see the kind of improvements you're claiming. The problems start outside of the classroom and need to be fixed there.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  "The problems start outside of the classroom and need to fixed there." So you'd agree that more money for schools is not the answer?
  - acdha 13y ago
    In general, yes, although I do have one major exception: paying teachers more would reduce turnover (which is expensive to deal with) and I think there's still plenty of room for improvement in support services: tutors, particularly for non-native speakers, special needs assistance, counseling / mentoring / etc. In many cases simply having a second person in the classroom who could help a kid who's struggling, deal with discipline issues, etc. without disrupting the overall lesson as much would be a worthwhile investment. This would cost more, although I'd hope we could compensate by having fewer administrators making hard-to-discern contributions at [generally] much higher pay.
  - devrelm 13y ago
    What about the route of lengthening school hours, which would keep kids away from the problems "outside of the classroom". This would certainly require more money to be put into the school systems.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    I would say the amount of funding the US education system as a whole currently has is adequate to achieve much better average results than are currently being produced. That does not mean that there are no individual schools/districts which need more money to efficiently achieve better results than they are now. It also does not mean that removing money from the system will not further reduce its efficacy. You can't fix US education by pouring more money into it, but you're also not going to fix it by dismantling it. The source of the primary problem isn't the education system, it's poverty.
  - intopieces 13y ago
    I do not think the statement you quoted implies this. Schools could always use more money -- the money just needs to be better spent. The article mentions that a lot of money went to high-priced consultants, some of whom earned $1,000/day. What a teacher could do with a grand a day... Moreover, the two ideas are not mutually exclusive: the outside-the-home situation could need improvement AND schools could benefit from more money. One thing article clearly illustrates is that only throwing money at a problem does not work and difficult discussions must be had to improve the schools in this area. This benefits the economy in the long run.
- Omniusaspirer 13y ago
  A quick google gets me this quote: "Chicago school teachers make a median salary of $71,017. That's a whole lot more than the city's median household income (which can include multiple salaries for households with more than one earner) of $46,877, and greater still than its median per capita income of $27,148" According to the actual Chicago Public Schools site that average is now $74,839. "Low pay" seems like quite a reach for me, especially for an employee who works only 9 months out of the year. I agree with your last line very much, but I don't think it hurts to aim some focus towards getting students that extra 14%.
  - acdha 13y ago
    It sounds good compared to the median for the city but you're talking about a job which requires a masters degree - look at the median for that and then remember that you're talking about job which has a RIGID daily schedule, no vacation time during the year, etc. If you're a bright college student, how does that look versus say learning enough Python to get that income straight out of college? Before answering, remember that one of these jobs involves dealing with difficult children, bad parents, often pointy-haired administrators, meddling politicians, etc. 9 months of the year is a popular claim but it's very misleading: most teachers are working 60+ hours during week (and weekends) during the school year and the summer vacation has been steadily shrinking as schools add various administrative days and many teachers are required to engage in ongoing professional development which means that they're using some of that time to take classes. This isn't to say that teaching is abject misery but we aren't exactly going out of our way to make the job appealing. If you look at the total time commitment or stress levels, there are plenty of jobs where you'll get a better deal.
    - danielweber 13y ago
      The master's requirement is nonsense. It was put in place as a credential roadblock to make entering the teaching profession more difficult, but it has zero effect on student results. If we are going to compare inputs in that way, we can look at the test scores of college students going for education degrees, and see that they have worse English scores than the math majors and also have worse math scores than the English majors.[1] For most education majors, their alternative isn't to become a lawyer or scientist or Python developer. The education degree is useful for people who are doing research into education, not actually teaching themselves. [1] First google hit among many for SAT scores of education majors: http://www.joshuakennon.com/sat-scores-ranked-by-intended-college-major-show-teachers-are-below-average/ http://www.joshuakennon.com/sat-scores-ranked-by-intended-co...
- tptacek 13y ago
  The median Chicago teacher's salary is over $70,000. I'm not sure the "advanced degree" is required (the degree you're referring to is a Masters in Education).
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - sanderjd 13y ago
    A Masters in Education is, literally, an "advanced degree" by every definition I've ever seen. Ignoring definitions, the point is that it's expensive in both direct and opportunity costs relative to its future earning potential - most earners of masters degrees can expect to enter fields with significantly higher salaries, especially later in their careers.
    - TheMagicHorsey 13y ago
      Another point of irrationality. Nobody can show any correlation between having that masters degree, and being a better teacher. Its just more institutions included into the education industrial complex ... now the Masters accreditation institutions fight reform too ... because without this shit system, we don't need them and their deadweight either.
      - sanderjd 13y ago
        This is weird, you and danielweber both put the same words in my mouth. I made no comment at all about the value of the degree, only about its necessity to teachers and its expense.
        TheMagicHorsey 13y ago
        I can't speak for the other person, but my point was only that the expense of the degree wasn't actually necessary for the proper functioning of an education system. Its just more waste.
    - 13y ago
- danielweber 13y ago
  requires an advanced degree For no reason whatsoever besides credentialism. very long hours with no flexibility My dad worked hard as a teacher. But he didn't work 60 hours a week or anything like that. He'd grade papers while the kids were doing homework. low pay even before you adjust for true hours worked Two months vacation. and you are given very little professional discretion. I agree with you here. The constraints put on teachers and schools by all sorts of outsiders are very limiting. Most of them are because the people paying the bill want some sort of feedback and control mechanism. Instead, I think teachers should be given great leeway, but also be very easy to hire and fire. If a parent isn't happy with their teacher/school, they shouldn't need to appeal to the schoolboard to place rules on the teachers. Instead they should be able to vote with their feet. Exit beats voice. To put some facts into the discussion: this assessment by the American Statistical Association found that teachers are responsible for 1 to 14% of student's test score variance If the theory is that teachers aren't that important, we shouldn't worry so much about who they are, or if we are paying enough to attract quality teachers. NB I am not saying I agree with the antecedent.
  - acdha 13y ago
    > If the theory is that teachers aren't that important, we shouldn't worry so much about who they are, or if we are paying enough to attract quality teachers. NB I am not saying I agree with the antecedent. I was just trying to point out that we're talking about a small part of the problem. I think teachers are incredibly important but they only have a limited area within which to work and the results are hard to reduce to a single number. Merit pay systems aren't a bad idea in theory but basing them so heavily on standardized tests doesn't seem like it'll set good incentives since it discourages all but a very small part of what you'd hope someone learns in school. By analogy, imagine how it'd sound if we looked at America's obesity problem and said that the problem was caused by bad doctors and we should fix it by linking pay to their patients' blood pressure, measured annually. Nobody would spend a minute taking that person seriously but the equivalent is basically the mainstream consensus for how to talk about education - even the Democrats who generally considered friends of the teachers unions always talk about how we need to attract better teachers, which is basically an insult to anyone who currently has the job.
CarolineSF 13y ago
Except that it's very consistent that the states with strong unions have the highest academic achievement and the states with weak or no unions have the lowest. So the facts easily refute this common but erroneous opinion. (This is most likely because nonunion states correlate with high poverty, and so does low academic achievement, but it conclusively disproves the notion that unions are to blame for low academic achievement.) (Also, whoever told you that lied, so disbelieve anything else that source told you -- fool me twice shame on me.)

acdha 13y ago

> I don't like how unions have co-opted the narrative to "Just pay us more and we'll finally do our jobs right" They're probably even less happy about the right-wing has co-opted the narrative that the problems in education are caused by the teachers. Teaching is a challenging job which requires an advanced degree, very long hours with no flexibility, low pay even before you adjust for true hours worked, and you are given very little professional discretion. Do you really think you're going to get better results by putting even more pressure on things which teachers have only marginal control over[1] rather than simply encouraging more teachers to leave? To put some facts into the discussion: this assessment by the American Statistical Association found that teachers are responsible for 1 to 14% of student's test score variance: http://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/ASA_VAM_Statement.pdf http://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/ASA_VAM_Statement.pdf Follow Amdahl's law: even if you could load the school up with the best teachers on the planet, lavish pay, fully merit-based, etc. you're not going to see the kind of improvements you're claiming. The problems start outside of the classroom and need to be fixed there.

waterlesscloud 13y ago
"The problems start outside of the classroom and need to fixed there." So you'd agree that more money for schools is not the answer?
- acdha 13y ago
  In general, yes, although I do have one major exception: paying teachers more would reduce turnover (which is expensive to deal with) and I think there's still plenty of room for improvement in support services: tutors, particularly for non-native speakers, special needs assistance, counseling / mentoring / etc. In many cases simply having a second person in the classroom who could help a kid who's struggling, deal with discipline issues, etc. without disrupting the overall lesson as much would be a worthwhile investment. This would cost more, although I'd hope we could compensate by having fewer administrators making hard-to-discern contributions at [generally] much higher pay.
- devrelm 13y ago
  What about the route of lengthening school hours, which would keep kids away from the problems "outside of the classroom". This would certainly require more money to be put into the school systems.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  I would say the amount of funding the US education system as a whole currently has is adequate to achieve much better average results than are currently being produced. That does not mean that there are no individual schools/districts which need more money to efficiently achieve better results than they are now. It also does not mean that removing money from the system will not further reduce its efficacy. You can't fix US education by pouring more money into it, but you're also not going to fix it by dismantling it. The source of the primary problem isn't the education system, it's poverty.
- intopieces 13y ago
  I do not think the statement you quoted implies this. Schools could always use more money -- the money just needs to be better spent. The article mentions that a lot of money went to high-priced consultants, some of whom earned $1,000/day. What a teacher could do with a grand a day... Moreover, the two ideas are not mutually exclusive: the outside-the-home situation could need improvement AND schools could benefit from more money. One thing article clearly illustrates is that only throwing money at a problem does not work and difficult discussions must be had to improve the schools in this area. This benefits the economy in the long run.
Omniusaspirer 13y ago
A quick google gets me this quote: "Chicago school teachers make a median salary of $71,017. That's a whole lot more than the city's median household income (which can include multiple salaries for households with more than one earner) of $46,877, and greater still than its median per capita income of $27,148" According to the actual Chicago Public Schools site that average is now $74,839. "Low pay" seems like quite a reach for me, especially for an employee who works only 9 months out of the year. I agree with your last line very much, but I don't think it hurts to aim some focus towards getting students that extra 14%.
- acdha 13y ago
  It sounds good compared to the median for the city but you're talking about a job which requires a masters degree - look at the median for that and then remember that you're talking about job which has a RIGID daily schedule, no vacation time during the year, etc. If you're a bright college student, how does that look versus say learning enough Python to get that income straight out of college? Before answering, remember that one of these jobs involves dealing with difficult children, bad parents, often pointy-haired administrators, meddling politicians, etc. 9 months of the year is a popular claim but it's very misleading: most teachers are working 60+ hours during week (and weekends) during the school year and the summer vacation has been steadily shrinking as schools add various administrative days and many teachers are required to engage in ongoing professional development which means that they're using some of that time to take classes. This isn't to say that teaching is abject misery but we aren't exactly going out of our way to make the job appealing. If you look at the total time commitment or stress levels, there are plenty of jobs where you'll get a better deal.
  - danielweber 13y ago
    The master's requirement is nonsense. It was put in place as a credential roadblock to make entering the teaching profession more difficult, but it has zero effect on student results. If we are going to compare inputs in that way, we can look at the test scores of college students going for education degrees, and see that they have worse English scores than the math majors and also have worse math scores than the English majors.[1] For most education majors, their alternative isn't to become a lawyer or scientist or Python developer. The education degree is useful for people who are doing research into education, not actually teaching themselves. [1] First google hit among many for SAT scores of education majors: http://www.joshuakennon.com/sat-scores-ranked-by-intended-college-major-show-teachers-are-below-average/ http://www.joshuakennon.com/sat-scores-ranked-by-intended-co...
tptacek 13y ago
The median Chicago teacher's salary is over $70,000. I'm not sure the "advanced degree" is required (the degree you're referring to is a Masters in Education).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- sanderjd 13y ago
  A Masters in Education is, literally, an "advanced degree" by every definition I've ever seen. Ignoring definitions, the point is that it's expensive in both direct and opportunity costs relative to its future earning potential - most earners of masters degrees can expect to enter fields with significantly higher salaries, especially later in their careers.
  - TheMagicHorsey 13y ago
    Another point of irrationality. Nobody can show any correlation between having that masters degree, and being a better teacher. Its just more institutions included into the education industrial complex ... now the Masters accreditation institutions fight reform too ... because without this shit system, we don't need them and their deadweight either.
    - sanderjd 13y ago
      This is weird, you and danielweber both put the same words in my mouth. I made no comment at all about the value of the degree, only about its necessity to teachers and its expense.
      - TheMagicHorsey 13y ago
        I can't speak for the other person, but my point was only that the expense of the degree wasn't actually necessary for the proper functioning of an education system. Its just more waste.
  - 13y ago
danielweber 13y ago
requires an advanced degree For no reason whatsoever besides credentialism. very long hours with no flexibility My dad worked hard as a teacher. But he didn't work 60 hours a week or anything like that. He'd grade papers while the kids were doing homework. low pay even before you adjust for true hours worked Two months vacation. and you are given very little professional discretion. I agree with you here. The constraints put on teachers and schools by all sorts of outsiders are very limiting. Most of them are because the people paying the bill want some sort of feedback and control mechanism. Instead, I think teachers should be given great leeway, but also be very easy to hire and fire. If a parent isn't happy with their teacher/school, they shouldn't need to appeal to the schoolboard to place rules on the teachers. Instead they should be able to vote with their feet. Exit beats voice. To put some facts into the discussion: this assessment by the American Statistical Association found that teachers are responsible for 1 to 14% of student's test score variance If the theory is that teachers aren't that important, we shouldn't worry so much about who they are, or if we are paying enough to attract quality teachers. NB I am not saying I agree with the antecedent.
- acdha 13y ago
  > If the theory is that teachers aren't that important, we shouldn't worry so much about who they are, or if we are paying enough to attract quality teachers. NB I am not saying I agree with the antecedent. I was just trying to point out that we're talking about a small part of the problem. I think teachers are incredibly important but they only have a limited area within which to work and the results are hard to reduce to a single number. Merit pay systems aren't a bad idea in theory but basing them so heavily on standardized tests doesn't seem like it'll set good incentives since it discourages all but a very small part of what you'd hope someone learns in school. By analogy, imagine how it'd sound if we looked at America's obesity problem and said that the problem was caused by bad doctors and we should fix it by linking pay to their patients' blood pressure, measured annually. Nobody would spend a minute taking that person seriously but the equivalent is basically the mainstream consensus for how to talk about education - even the Democrats who generally considered friends of the teachers unions always talk about how we need to attract better teachers, which is basically an insult to anyone who currently has the job.

CarolineSF 13y ago

Except that it's very consistent that the states with strong unions have the highest academic achievement and the states with weak or no unions have the lowest. So the facts easily refute this common but erroneous opinion. (This is most likely because nonunion states correlate with high poverty, and so does low academic achievement, but it conclusively disproves the notion that unions are to blame for low academic achievement.) (Also, whoever told you that lied, so disbelieve anything else that source told you -- fool me twice shame on me.)