Maggie's Farm

I think back to my own experience in elementary school and can't honestly remember if I read any young reader "classics" or not. I do remember reading Twain, London, Shakespeare (translated from Ye Olde Anglish) and similar tomes, but most of my leisure reading was the sci-fi of the great masters of the era.

I know my kids read as much as the Mrs. could stuff into their brains and would quiz them on what they read - then again, she taught middle school english and reading so it was natural. Math was my job.

With respect to teaching in general and the hostility evidenced here in this particular thread, I would encourage you to go out and teach yourselves. Deal with the parents who think their child is brilliant and want explanations as to why he/she can't be in the advanced class, administrators who constantly side with parents in matters scholastic and disiplinary (or just ignore situations hoping that it will all go away) and state bureaucrats who know better than everybody about everything and do nothing other than issue mandates and edicts what are almost impossible to follow in practice.

I know that all of you think teachers are lazy, incompetant, stupid know nothings who are grossly over paid for what they do. Yet I don't see any of y'all jumping into the profession to show them how it should be done.

Walk a mile in their shoes and get back to me.

David:

Let's take these one at a time:

"The current structure of the public schools and its surrounding institutions (viz, the ed schools and the teachers unions) screen for prospective teachers who are willing to:"

--go through a training program which ranges from dubious value to mindless to utterly harmful

Such as? You have to have a core competency - math, english/reading, science, history/social studies, language. That requires a certain amount of study to obtain the necessary skill you wish to impart to children. Then there are education theory courses, an non-paid in-service practicum (student teaching) with a mentor and subsequent post-graduate competance in the chosen area of expertise - usually a Master's. I don't see where any of these are of "dubious" value, mindless or harmful.

--accept employment where pay and promotion have little relationship with performance

Really. How do you define "performance"? What standard do you want to apply in defining performance? How do you determine those who are "under performers", "adequate" or "outstanding?

Standardized testing you say?! Great. Which test? State grade level competency test - SATs - PSATs - what are you going to use to determine performance?

Let's take an example of two teachers - one who loves to deal with slower, under performing kids and one who is hired to deal with the "honors" students.

The teacher with the slower class does battle everyday just to get basic concepts and skill across to students who either can't, don't or won't get it. But he/she stuggles on trying to motivate learning to some level of education in the subject area and succeeds to a certain degree given the situation. And does this five days a week for six hours a day.

The teacher with the "honors" class does not have a motivation problem - the kids are bright, motivated and willing to learn. Imparting advanced concepts are easy and the teacher is allowed to exercise the creative ideas without any fear of being chastised by a predatory administration for "failure".

Obviously the smarter kids are going to show more advancement than the slower or less motivated students in testing. But which teacher deserves more money? The honors teacher who could sit back, put his/her feet up on the desk and let the kids learn themselves or the teacher who does battle with student mediocrity and complacency and manages to gain some improvement in overall knowledge as defined by which ever test you which to use.

You tell me - make the decision.

--in many cases, submit to insult and even physical violence from disruptive students

In many cases they have to. The reason is simple - parents will not discipline their children for a variety of reasons - the most common comment is that Little Johnny/Jane just would not do that ever and is always a good child or the administration does not wish to confront any crisis because if they do, their jobs are on the line.

Additionally, if a teacher directly confronts any student who is being disruptive or aggressive, that teacher is likely to not be employed by the end of the day. That is a fact. Teachers are required to pass the disciplinary buck and in most cases, it is a wrist slap and back to class. No suspension, no detention, no discipline at all. Why? Two reasons (1) it requires an administrator to actually make a decision. That decision will be reviewed by the administrator's administration and so on. It becomes a political issue in that the fewer problems the lower level administrators present, the better the chances of a good performance review. (2) Parents. Parents just refuse to believe that their child is capable of doing what ever it was that required discipline. And in large part, don't discipline their children themselves for what ever reason - lack of parenting skills, lack of time - whatever.

Yes, but charter schools (which seems to be something much in favor with my Maggie's Farm Field Hand Friends) you say are successful.

There is a dirty little secret about charter schools. Students actually want to be there. Hello? Bueller? When the kids are motivated, you can have larger classes and have teachers who can teach them because, well, it's easier.

With respect to the CEO comparision, it does not apply. Anybody who manages a Taco Bell isn't necessarily competent enough to run GM - although I will grant you that it sometimes seems like it. :>)

If, however, you have a core compentency like math or one of the sciences, you can be a teacher over night. Presto - you are a teacher. Take a couple of ed courses and there you go.

I could go on and on and..... But I won't. This has been too long already and I have a rod I want to finish building. :>)

Agreed - I thought about that afterwards and didn't parse what David said correctly. My bad. :>)

However, like most professions, what you learn in school does not neccessarily translate to real world operations and you have to feel around to find out what does. And I can certainly tell you that a good, experienced teacher will not adhere to strict educational dogma, but do what works for them and adjust accordingly when dealing with different class years and skill levels.

With all due respect to you and your husband, a Charter School is defined as a publicly supported entity working independantly around a central idea (such as science, the arts, math, technology) where students, parents, administrators and teachers are allowed to work without constraint or educational dogma. What works works.

What you are describing is nothing more than what we used to call Juvie Hall.