4 ms·

>> If the environment that produced this horrific behavior in Atlanta is “toxic,” blame the people who control that environment, not the testing regime that att

>> If the environment that produced this horrific behavior in Atlanta is “toxic,” blame the people who control that environment, not the testing regime that attempts to hold those people accountable. The teachers unions that run our schools view public education, first and foremost, as a jobs program for adults. That is why the unions fight so hard to keep open failing schools and want seniority—rather than teaching ability—to determine layoffs. I don't think the author of this piece manages to back up his argument very well. The teachers' union says that the testing regime is flawed, and that the toxic environment is created by it; the author says that the testing regime is "flawed" but not "fatally" so, without substantitively adressing that concern. The "people in charge" of this environment are in turn governed by No Child Left Behind and state/federal regulation and laws -- there's a chain of authority here, and the brokenness of the system can rightly be argued to flow down from the highest policy levels all the way to local middle-management. >> Would you want your child taught by someone who flunked the certification test five times, let alone 10? This is a silly argument. How many people take multiple tries to get a driving license? The test either ceritifies you or it doesn't. >> And would that instructor be more or less likely to resort to changing student test scores to hide his own incompetence? Absolutely no logical connection, other than a wild assertion by an author clearly hostile to the teachers' union, and it seems to me, teachers in general. Like it or not, public school teachers in the US are vastly underpaid and overworked (especially in urban school districts with low budgets), and have their ability to teach severely hampered by testing requirements that may or may not be beneficial to their students. The whole system is broken, but demonizing the people that are attempting to educate in these conditions without trying to understand the pressures at play isn't very constructive. Further reading: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/275/transcript http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/275/t...

Shivetya 12y ago
First, the environment was toxic because the school administration was corrupt at the top and the school system had too much influence over the testing. To prevent further such abuse all testing should be done by accredited third party groups. Second, get off this silly mantra that they are underpaid. In some areas yes, but in Atlanta that is not the case. A simple query of various counties here produces results and for the number of days worked their pay is actually quite good; that and anecdotal being friend with a 10 year teacher who makes good money and who berates the system(which includes the union) for the problems. They cannot fix what they are not allowed too.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- neumann 12y ago
  > all testing should be done by accredited third party groups. These 'accredited third party groups' would need to be a) accredited, b) be paid. And it's already happening here in the US[0]. What you have now is an overhead of bureaucracy that 'accredits' and outsources the testing to these private companies, who pay call center wages to mark high school exams based on shoddy metrics that are aimed at maximising profits. All the markers are temps/contract, and this accreditation system is essentially a cartel of companies that lobby to ensure their business remains. I cannot see the logic how this can end up benefiting the students. Secondly, teachers being underpaid is not a mantra - it is a fact [1]. In the US, the worth society places on a job is strongly correlated to the pay. The accreditation and pay, resources and social respect that teachers (do not) receive I wager is directly correlated with the quality of the education students receive. The system is so broken as to rely on standardized testing as to further punish 'under-performing' schools by limiting availability to funding based on scores. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/07/why-poor-schools-cant-win-at-standardized-testing/374287/ http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/07/why-poor... [1] http://www.nea.org/home/2012-2013-average-starting-teacher-salary.html http://www.nea.org/home/2012-2013-average-starting-teacher-s...
  - Shivetya 12y ago
    Neither source you give is reliable, both are heavily biased. I prefer actual charts from counties that pay, given 190 days of work http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/human-resources/teacher-salary-schedule http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/human-resources/teacher-salary-s... in a respectable county in Georgia this isn't what I would called underpaid. This is before benefits. Its not hard to find these charts for most counties. The areas that need attention is all the money spent on administrative people other than teachers. The US has spent increasing amounts of money on education with near zero results.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > To prevent further such abuse all testing should be done by accredited third party groups. How do those groups earn money? By charging for their testing? So groups that produce better results are selected for, which risks groups that have easier tests or more relaxed scoring being selected for by schools. This has happened in some parts of England for GCSE exams. (These exams are taken by schoolchildren aged 16. )
hitekker 12y ago
While this may reek of "ad hominem", I believe it's important to know that the Wall Street Journal is for conservative audiences by conservative authors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Political_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Politic.... As such, the editorial pages normally present the truth if and only if that truth conveniently intersects with their ideology. Not saying that liberal outlets don't have the same bias, more so that its opinion pages are not a good source for reasonable, effective analysis of, or solutions for, United States policy shortcomings.
- _petronius 12y ago
  True, but if we're going to discuss the piece we have to do so on its own merits.

Shivetya 12y ago

First, the environment was toxic because the school administration was corrupt at the top and the school system had too much influence over the testing. To prevent further such abuse all testing should be done by accredited third party groups. Second, get off this silly mantra that they are underpaid. In some areas yes, but in Atlanta that is not the case. A simple query of various counties here produces results and for the number of days worked their pay is actually quite good; that and anecdotal being friend with a 10 year teacher who makes good money and who berates the system(which includes the union) for the problems. They cannot fix what they are not allowed too.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
neumann 12y ago
> all testing should be done by accredited third party groups. These 'accredited third party groups' would need to be a) accredited, b) be paid. And it's already happening here in the US[0]. What you have now is an overhead of bureaucracy that 'accredits' and outsources the testing to these private companies, who pay call center wages to mark high school exams based on shoddy metrics that are aimed at maximising profits. All the markers are temps/contract, and this accreditation system is essentially a cartel of companies that lobby to ensure their business remains. I cannot see the logic how this can end up benefiting the students. Secondly, teachers being underpaid is not a mantra - it is a fact [1]. In the US, the worth society places on a job is strongly correlated to the pay. The accreditation and pay, resources and social respect that teachers (do not) receive I wager is directly correlated with the quality of the education students receive. The system is so broken as to rely on standardized testing as to further punish 'under-performing' schools by limiting availability to funding based on scores. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/07/why-poor-schools-cant-win-at-standardized-testing/374287/ http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/07/why-poor... [1] http://www.nea.org/home/2012-2013-average-starting-teacher-salary.html http://www.nea.org/home/2012-2013-average-starting-teacher-s...
- Shivetya 12y ago
  Neither source you give is reliable, both are heavily biased. I prefer actual charts from counties that pay, given 190 days of work http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/human-resources/teacher-salary-schedule http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/human-resources/teacher-salary-s... in a respectable county in Georgia this isn't what I would called underpaid. This is before benefits. Its not hard to find these charts for most counties. The areas that need attention is all the money spent on administrative people other than teachers. The US has spent increasing amounts of money on education with near zero results.
DanBC 12y ago
> To prevent further such abuse all testing should be done by accredited third party groups. How do those groups earn money? By charging for their testing? So groups that produce better results are selected for, which risks groups that have easier tests or more relaxed scoring being selected for by schools. This has happened in some parts of England for GCSE exams. (These exams are taken by schoolchildren aged 16. )

hitekker 12y ago

While this may reek of "ad hominem", I believe it's important to know that the Wall Street Journal is for conservative audiences by conservative authors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Political_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Politic.... As such, the editorial pages normally present the truth if and only if that truth conveniently intersects with their ideology. Not saying that liberal outlets don't have the same bias, more so that its opinion pages are not a good source for reasonable, effective analysis of, or solutions for, United States policy shortcomings.

_petronius 12y ago
True, but if we're going to discuss the piece we have to do so on its own merits.