Politics 09: Fire Reid and Steele.

[NotMiki]

Yeah, the perverse incentive to get struggling kids to drop out is a problem NYC, and probably metro areas around the country, struggle with.  I have a friend in the teachers union who defended the difficulty schools have in firing and disciplining teachers, saying that it's precisely that union protection that lets teachers resist calls from administrators (who are non-union and are judged by their schools' performance) to drop struggling kids.

I don't know what, exactly, is the best approach to reforming schools.  I do think some areas of improvement are abundantly clear.  Here's a video on a school in rural SC.  It tugs a bit heavy on the heartstrings for my taste, but the information provided is clear.  Throwing money at schools isn't always going to improve performance, but I don't think anyone could argue that it's anything but a necessity for one like this.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/02/26/corridor_of_shame/index.html

EDIT:

The Washington Times ran an incredibly disingenuous piece about the school in the video, which Obama mentioned in his recent speech.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/26/yes-tysheoma-there-is-a-santa-claus/

What the article fails to mention is that the money the district authorized for the school isn't coming.  Banks wouldn't approve the loan because of the crisis.  Raise your hand if you think that omission was due to an honest mistake.

[Luther Lansfeld]

Right, I understand that. I have a pretty big problem with standardized tests in general; I've had tons of teachers in college who pretty much just skim through things to get to the standardized final material so the school will look better.

I guess my problem with the current system is that good teachers are rarely rewarded more than bad teachers. I just find the lack of incentive to do a good job irritating (same with a lot of government jobs, not just teaching), and I think an important thing in making education better is to figure out a way to make teachers want to be more than average or teach kids more than just what is on the standardized exams. Standardized exams are stupid stupid stupid, but measuring how much their students have improved under their teaching is something I'd like to see.

No Child Left Behind doesn't give a shit at all about improvement, from what I've read, seems to just try to take the easiest/laziest way possible to hold their teachers accountable, encourages teachers to teach material directly off a standardized exam... and meanwhile underfunding schools.

My high school was always like in the 25% percentile among schools and completely underfunded to hell. Oooold books, had to dig up some random old copied paper sometimes because buying paper was apparently too expensive, especially in the last years it was trainwrecktastic, and no one gives a shit because we live in rural Oklahoma. That video is depressingly like my school. Leaks and termites and all that. We even live in a pretty large population county; just a poor district.

[Dark Holy Elf]

The problem comes from judging good teachers from bad; we simply don't have a good way to do this. You absolutely CAN NOT use the performance of the teacher's students, because the students themselves have too large an effect. Also standardised exams vaguely fail at assessing good students anyway; they're a necessary evil for post-secondary entrance and all that, but tieing any more than is absolutely necessary to them strikes me as a Very Bad Thing.

I am, of course, very biased on the matter, but one of the biggest things that helps is not underpaying your teachers to hell and back. It's not tooo big a problem where I live, but god knows it is in certain parts of the US (under 30k for an annual salary? What the fuck). Sadly, if you pay people that little, you send a message that their job isn't valuable, so you have more trouble attracting people, and give schools less to choose from. Note that finding quality doctors is rarely a problem, because it's a highly-paid, highly-honoured profession which a lot of people would like to be, so medical schools can be very picky about who they enroll and who they pass, etc.

In my education program, I can already see people I think will be outstanding teachers... and people I think will be quite the opposite, if they even make it (and the numbers say some of them will). Unfortunately I have little faith in any system sieving one from the other. "Good teaching" is easy to see but hard to prove. Unless you give schools the ability to let go teachers whenever they want without hard justification, which (a) isn't something we really tolerate in any workplace, let alone a unionised one, and (b) relies on the administration being both competent and uncorrupt, I'm just not sure what you can do.

As for the summer break issue... I dunno. The break is arguably a bit too long, though the Completely Biased part of me sure as heck doesn't want it getting shorter. I think true year-round schooling just fails, though - a large block of time off is necessary for students who want to take vacations, e.g. to visit family in other continents, because you really do not want these kids leaving during regular classes. Other than that, I will disagree with Dune slightly - usually, by the end of those months, I was glad to be back. Yes, they were awesome, but at a certain point it can be too much, and you just start missing that time with your friends, not to mention the direction in your life.

Granted, I tend to think the school year is long enough as is, so any shortening that happened to summer I'd be inclined to replace with days or weeks off in the middle of the year.

[Dhyerwolf]

From Dune's article. Yeah how DARE you reward people for doing well. Mediocrity is so much easier.

I can understand the union's objections there. Wouldn't that just encourage grade inflation and passing students along?

And doesn't it create a system where kids you who are already having problems are now likely to be far further ignored? I did well in school because of natural aptitude and work I put into it, not because of anything of my teachers specifically did. Granted...the only B I got in high school was due to teacher failure, in that he was so annoying that the second semester I brought in ear plugs everyday, so I can see the general logic. But they'd likely just implement it based on raw grades without looking at any other criteria.

Taking two weeks off of summer break and inserting them in other locations makes sense (Although blah...I know for some extracirricular stuff in hs, they expected you to come in anyways during spring break, so you actually would be losing time in some manners), but our system's problem really isn't the length of the school year.

[Taishyr]

Pretty much what Dhyer said.

An average teacher does not impede the students, and that's what we've got some of. A great teacher assists the students, and we've a few of those (I've been lucky enough to have my share of those). A poor teacher holds back the students, and there are a few of those as well (of which I've also had my share).

But what I'm convinced we have the most of is uninspired teachers, who cannot but fail to pass the attitude on to others - and that's what does the most harm. I've had so many teachers who should have been average or good, but just couldn't care, they couldn't be made to care - and as such they taught the students around me not to care. In some ways they taught me the same thing - it's part of my apathy toward history now, my history teachers... just didn't care, and it rubbed off on me.

[Dark Holy Elf]

That caring is very much part of what makes a good teacher. This gets back to my point about how most everyone can see it, but that doesn't mean they can prove they can see it, and I don't see how you'd base incentives on it.

[metroid composite]

Just general musings on Education funding now.

First district that popped up in my search: Northshore WA, don't know if it's considered good or bad as a district.

http://schoolcenter.nsd.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=73912&pagegroup=3&action=span&cms_mode=view

19,800 students.

http://schoolcenter.nsd.org/education/sctemp/f575a9546de1455ab2779d78f0a02a8e/1235864403/Budget_Summary_Doc.pdf

$185 million in budget.

So...roughly speaking you're looking at $10,000 per year per student.  There's definitely universities with tuition around that level, so that sounds fairly logical.


Throwing more money into the mix definitely improves things, if nothing else by hiring more teachers--most teachers will tell you that teaching 40 students is kinda hellish, and teaching 20 students allows them to do much more.  Additional teachers also allows for more specialization (you can have a band class, a computer graphics class, and so on).  It allows for different streams (you can have an honours class, a remedial class, etc).  It allows for sports programs (article on the importance of sports programs).

The big problem with the American school system is how the money is being distributed--namely the schools that need the most help get the least funding.  Giving the most money to private schools and schools located in well-off neighborhoods seems counterproductive; to use myself as an example, I was reading about logarithms over my summer vacation in grade 6.  For me, graduating from high school was a matter of jumping through some hoops, not some hallowed document that I felt like I worked hard to get (actually I was chillin' in Italy and largely ignoring homework for about a quarter of my final year in high school).  On the other hand, there are underprivileged kids out there who really will learn stuff they would never learn otherwise from high school--spend education funding on them, not me.  (Well...okay fine: spend equally on both groups so nobody can cry discrimination).

[Grefter]

You guys have pretty much highlighted everything that is wrong with privatising the education industry (At any level, universities are still fucked because of this even).  When you have it at the level you do here in Australia you do have incentive for good teaching though!  They get to go somewhere that they can earn a really comfortable living pressuring the subpar kids to drop out of classes so that they can perpetuate the myth that their school is somehow truely exceptional based on that specifics states statewide standardised test (varies from state to state what it is and whatnot) that in most states are worth exactly jack shit for getting into tertiary education.

You want to fix the education industry?  Nationalise it.  Tailor classes to the students needs (Don't fucking lock people out by district).  Stop cutting funding whenever the economy looks bad but even more so when the economy is GOOD which I know happened as well.  I am trying to recall the last time I heard big news in from the States or here in Aus about a massive boom in Education funding but I definitely know of times where funding got slashed.  15 students per class if you can somehow manage it.

Education shouldn't be run like a business where you need to emphasise efficiency and have a constant hire/fire cycle while you test the threshhold for how much bullshit your workers can tolerate you piling onto them.  Yes, good education is expensive.

Unless of course you want a mass that is easy to control, then you up time spent in the institution without actually teaching them anything.  Then they learn to conform and all that other hidden curriculum stuff.

Edit - Disclaimer: I am aware of the fact that there is good teachers in public schools for varying reasons and these tend to be the beacons of light in the industry, especially for the bright students stuck in the underfunded public school sector.  They are the heroes of the day.

[Luther Lansfeld]

Sadly, if you pay people that little, you send a message that their job isn't valuable, so you have more trouble attracting people, and give schools less to choose from.

I think this is an interesting point because I know that talking to people from different regions, people just have sooo much higher of an opinion on being a teacher, whereas a lot of people here seem to mock it. Even my wanting to do post-secondary education makes people go "Why?"

[Grefter]

It is the same reason Reagan and Bush Jr could swing the "I am a fucking retard" card in their campaigns and not be laughed at for it.   HEY GUYS I AM STUPID, YOU ARE STUPID LETS ALL BE STUPID TOGETHER, TAKE THAT YOU EDUCATED BASTARDS WE GOT OUR OWN GROUP TOGETHER WITH BLACK JACK AND HOOKERS.  AREN'T SO SNOOTY AND EDUCATED NOW!

Edit - Late second disclaimer, I am not saying their campaigns had any bearing on the reality of their intelligence at all.

[NotMiki]

Bush got Cs at Yale.  So did Kerry.  One of them is an 'idiot' and the other an 'elitist.'  Weird country we've got here.

But yes, the utter lack of respect for teachers is something that really needs to be addressed.  Unfortunately, probably the best way to make teachers respected is to increase teacher salaries to the point that people will be competing to become teachers.  Money talks in America.  It really does.

[Sierra]

This is fundamentally the problem, in my opinion: we don't respect education. We don't respect knowledge. Or at least, enough Americans evidence a palpable disdain for such to sabotage the whole endeavor through indifference and obstruction. Public discourse in America is rife with anti-intellectual bias. Any person running for office who attempts to tout their education as among their qualifications for a job is committing political suicide, as any sufficiently educated person can easily be deemed out of touch by an opponent looking to score votes (as though being a blue collar slob somehow gives one unique insight into the workings of society and government). This is a cultural problem and it's not going to go away just by us throwing money at it (though certainly many parts of the education system are underfunded--I've been marvelling at the disgustingly poor pay we give our teachers for many years and think that it nicely characterizes how public education is simply not a high priority for us).

Grefter hit on a lot of this: this is what happens when you treat education like a business. You build a system that's merely concerned with maximizing output on standardized tests so that the effectiveness of the system can (supposedly) be calculated for the sake of high-level policymakers who don't have the time or inclination to get personally involved. Meanwhile, the students (even "good" ones) come to understand that learning is only important as far as the next test; they memorize the facts that they need in order to get a good score and forget everything afterwards because whatever they'd learned is seemingly no longer relevant. Nowhere does learning for the sake of learning enter into the equation; we don't present it as a desirable or enoyable enterprise in its own right, or, in many cases, even as something fundamentally useful. The end result is that kids come away being bored with school because it's all rote. We give them facts instead of understanding. So they struggle through high school in order to get into a good college; they struggle through college in order to have that diploma on their resumes, because without it they will not be able to get a good job and the monies.

[metroid composite]

Actually, one thing I will say about saving money on education:

Cut administrators.  More people in-charge (especially "super administrators" who watch over multiple schools) doesn't really add much, and their salaries are massive.

On the opposite end of things, hire assistant aid workers.  Some districts have a system of an aid-worker...where these come in handy is...say a student is struggling with basic reading comprehension, pull the student out of the regular classroom and help him with that a couple times a week until that student is up to speed on basic skills.  (It's really hard to teach one student to read while teaching something else to the other students).  Plus, these workers don't have a high salary.

In short, the less top-heavy the better.

In fact, I'm not fully sold on the need for Principals in schools.  I've seen schools run without a Principal for several months.  I've seen schools that would be better-off if the teachers were running things and the Principal got fired (and she eventually did get fired).  I mean, there's office management stuff...which can be handled by the secretary.  There's leadership duties that can be handled by teachers (they already elect union representatives on a per-school basis and stuff).  Hiring is usually ideally handled by the head-of-department for whatever subject they're hiring.  Though...hmm, I guess principals are handy for a discipline figure "go to the principal's office".

[Dark Holy Elf]

Replace that with "go to the counseler's office", accomplish same thing. You just need someone with general authority over the students past the teacher.

Beyond that... if a school has a really good principal, it's a huge help to the school. A good principal can provide vision and get the school to really go places. In theory this could be accomplished by a few key teachers, but it's harder.

Of course, mediocre or unimpressive principals do a school no good at all, on the other hand.

[Dhyerwolf]

I have to imagine that there at least some decisions that have to be made by a specific person in charge of running a school, and I can't imagine the higher-up administrators would be okay with someone who they themselves didn't decide on. Of course, I could be completely wrong on that.

That said, cutting administrators is good. I went to public schools in LAUSD, but they were all magnets (Basically a special accelerated programs that tended to be better than private schools), so the teachers were both generally excellent, but also jaded with administration and willing to share a few stories of how wasteful higher ups could be. The only one that really stuck was that some high-up had a chaffuer than made at least 100K a year, but it kind of stuck that this person paid someone multiple times more than a teacher just to drive them around. This was even when the teachers were threatening to strikes over wages.

Someone at our school broke our principal's arm. It was a complete accident, but a darkly amusing analogy to how little control the principal really had over the school.

I've always believed that the major key to making students successful isn't in the hands of the schools anyways. Parents get the kids when they are most malleable, and far before they ever enter school. Failure lies at their feet so much more than someone who only gets to work with a child for like 75% of a year (And far less in middle school/high school!), but of course, that goes back to the mind-numbing stupidity of an anti-intellectual culture.

I can't imagine anyone can fix LAUSD at the least. They are portions of LA where they couldn't even build enough schools to meet demand. Maybe the solution is to stop overbreeding.

[Cotigo]

In fact, I'm not fully sold on the need for Principals in schools.  I've seen schools run without a Principal for several months.  I've seen schools that would be better-off if the teachers were running things and the Principal got fired (and she eventually did get fired).  I mean, there's office management stuff...which can be handled by the secretary.  There's leadership duties that can be handled by teachers (they already elect union representatives on a per-school basis and stuff).  Hiring is usually ideally handled by the head-of-department for whatever subject they're hiring.  Though...hmm, I guess principals are handy for a discipline figure "go to the principal's office".

I'm inclined to agree for the most part, but there are exceptions.  For instance, my high school was having a new building built because the campus was starting to show signs of age, plus one of the buildings got lit on fire (No, didn't catch fire.  It was arson!  Yay, small town NM!).  While the school board was partly responsible for getting the funding for it from the state, the principal was a principle lobbyist and met frequently with members of the state legislature and the governor.  Hell, this reconstruction is still going on--they ran out of money, so they were not going to build new facilities for the music program.  The school board was happy enough since parents who don't have kids involved in the bands are traditionally apathetic about funding them.  It was only just recently, thanks to the music teacher prodding the principal (who in turn prodded the superintendent, though), that they got the funds for a new band hall. 

As a rule, I agree, the fewer administrators the better (the function of the superintendent is dubious to me).  However, they are necessary, and when they work with the teachers, they can get some good done for the school without the teachers being forced to drain their energy doing things like begging for money.  After a point, though, more administration just feeds the bureaucracy.

[NotMiki]

One other important task of an administrator: keeping teachers in line.  In best-case scenarios, teachers wouldn't need someone looking over their shoulder or would be capable of self-policing, but let's be honest: the state of teaching in this country is, to a great degree, a huge mess, and terrible salaries for teachers mean it's inevitable there are going to be a lot of terrible teachers.  There are a lot of horror stories about principals and superintendents who are not good at their jobs (in fact, I just shared one with you yesterday) but the jobs they do are necessary.

[metroid composite]

One other important task of an administrator: keeping teachers in line.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this, given that we just got done talking about how it's really not easy to objectively quantify what makes a good teacher, and an administrator telling a teacher to be more enthusiastic likely won't help.

Unless you mean more basic stuff like...make sure the teachers show up for classes, don't vandalize school property, teach the material, and don't sexually assault the children.  In which case: yes, these are things that administrators are good at handling.

In best-case scenarios, teachers wouldn't need someone looking over their shoulder or would be capable of self-policing, but let's be honest: the state of teaching in this country is, to a great degree, a huge mess, and terrible salaries for teachers mean it's inevitable there are going to be a lot of terrible teachers.

So...instead of paying teachers a decent salary, we instead spend that money on administrators to babysit teachers?

[Dark Holy Elf]

From a purely financial standpoint, it's probably more efficient. One admin can oversee many badly-paid teachers.

(Sigh.)

[Taishyr]

Thus is the invisible hand borne out!

...

[Grefter]

Education shouldn't be run like a business where you need to emphasise efficiency and have a constant hire/fire cycle while you test the threshhold for how much bullshit your workers can tolerate you piling onto them.  Yes, good education is expensive.

[Taishyr]

Doesn't stop the system forcing them to run it like one no matter how loud or how often you broadcast it, much to my chagrin.

In short, yay for the heroes, system can go merrily shaft itself.

edit: Actually you know what that pretty much sums up my general feelings toward existence.

[NotMiki]

I disagree with mc's characterization of my position, but I'll let it slide.  This is much more intersting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/michelle-rhee-threatens-e_n_171041.html

Read the whole thing.  There's a lot in there.

The News Hour has done a series of segments on DC's schools.  I'll see if I can find those too.

[superaielman]

Interesting concept. Some comments on Rhee's idea of a two track system:

How are they defining 'good'? How long do the teachers have to fix it, how long do they have if they score poorly one year? What's to prevent this from becoming yet more teach to the test nonsense? What are the protections in place for poorer performing students; what stops the teacher from trying to drop them to make more money?

It's at least worth a stab, as is most anything in DC schools. I have some strong reservations about any for pay bonus system for teachers though, as mentioned above.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Pretty much agree with Super.

I will say that Joel Klein's comments there were pretty shameful.