In that case, who holds the state and local level officials accountable when they fail to provide the basic minimums we are talking about? I am not saying that the federal government needs to micromanage every single school out there, but I am unclear on what happens to people raising children in the state with the worst educational system. If the responsibility is at the state/local level, is their only recourse to just move away?
I will admit I never quite got the point of having schools compete for the best students. The end result is that the "brightest" students will go to the "best" schools and the students that require the most resources (in terms of quality of teaching, etc) will go to the schools least able to help/educate them. Furthermore, those that received better education early on are more likely to continue receiving it, while those that did not keep on getting screwed.
I am not quite convinced that rewarding teachers for the success of their students is an entirely good idea either. The teacher in the 40 person inner-city classroom keeps on failing, while the teacher in the 12 person private school classroom gets a steady bonus check. When some of those 40 students want to come to the private school, the incentive on the private school teacher is to deny them - they are likely to hurt his bonus. Of course the same is true in the 40 person student situation - getting the worst students to drop out, or leave the school boosts the reward for the teacher. I am not sure that is the behavior we want to be encouraging.
I fully agree that the importance of education needs to be better advertised.
Well, just as with the Federal government it is up to the voters to hold those they put into office accountable. If they aren't doing the job, vote them out... and that is far easier on the local level than upon the Federal level. If you don't like what your government is doing, do something about it. Vote them out, help their opponents campaign, or even run for office against them. The problem is that far too people care enough to get involved. We get the government we deserve... good and ill. As for move away? It is an option, but I see it more as a last resort.
The flaw with your argument about schools competing for students is that in every case it has been tested - it has worked on both ends of the spectrum. The students that move to better schools, get better educations at schools more prepared to challenge them. The students left behind find a school now able to better meet their needs as they are no longer stretching to reach both the gifted, and the challenged. The schools also find ways to improve themselves, pride is a powerful incentive at both the teaching and student levels.
We've seen the results of not rewarding teachers for success, and promoting teachers solely upon tenure rather than merit. I don't think teachers are being over compensated, far from it given the importance of what they do for our society. The question remains though... why are other nations doing so much better, while spending less per student? Why do students in private schools do better than those in public schools... even in private schools with less per student funding than the local public schools? I don't know... but am certainly willing to shake up the equation and try something new - as our current heavily organized, tenure based system of compensation and promotion isn't getting it done.
I would be interested in reading more about the results schools competing for students - do you have some links to relevant studies and such?
I should clarify - I support paying teachers more, but basing it on their qualifications and certifications, while at the same time making becoming a teacher a more rigorous and demanding process. I think one of the major problems right now in the US is a generally poor quality of teaching, combined with not rewarding teachers who are better trained, and not having a better metric by which to evaluate how well prepared a teacher is to teach a given subject.
I am also interested in someone doing a bit of investigation into teaching materials - namely textbooks. How much of a range is there in "quality" (ie, clarity of explanation, challenging problems in the book, sensible layout, logical pacing and progression through the material, etc) in the textbooks the schools are using? Is there an evaluating or ranking resource for schools/teachers?
I will admit I never quite got the point of having schools compete for the best students. The end result is that the "brightest" students will go to the "best" schools and the students that require the most resources (in terms of quality of teaching, etc) will go to the schools least able to help/educate them. Furthermore, those that received better education early on are more likely to continue receiving it, while those that did not keep on getting screwed.
I am not quite convinced that rewarding teachers for the success of their students is an entirely good idea either. The teacher in the 40 person inner-city classroom keeps on failing, while the teacher in the 12 person private school classroom gets a steady bonus check. When some of those 40 students want to come to the private school, the incentive on the private school teacher is to deny them - they are likely to hurt his bonus. Of course the same is true in the 40 person student situation - getting the worst students to drop out, or leave the school boosts the reward for the teacher. I am not sure that is the behavior we want to be encouraging.
I fully agree that the importance of education needs to be better advertised.
Reply
The flaw with your argument about schools competing for students is that in every case it has been tested - it has worked on both ends of the spectrum. The students that move to better schools, get better educations at schools more prepared to challenge them. The students left behind find a school now able to better meet their needs as they are no longer stretching to reach both the gifted, and the challenged. The schools also find ways to improve themselves, pride is a powerful incentive at both the teaching and student levels.
We've seen the results of not rewarding teachers for success, and promoting teachers solely upon tenure rather than merit. I don't think teachers are being over compensated, far from it given the importance of what they do for our society. The question remains though... why are other nations doing so much better, while spending less per student? Why do students in private schools do better than those in public schools... even in private schools with less per student funding than the local public schools? I don't know... but am certainly willing to shake up the equation and try something new - as our current heavily organized, tenure based system of compensation and promotion isn't getting it done.
Reply
I should clarify - I support paying teachers more, but basing it on their qualifications and certifications, while at the same time making becoming a teacher a more rigorous and demanding process. I think one of the major problems right now in the US is a generally poor quality of teaching, combined with not rewarding teachers who are better trained, and not having a better metric by which to evaluate how well prepared a teacher is to teach a given subject.
I am also interested in someone doing a bit of investigation into teaching materials - namely textbooks. How much of a range is there in "quality" (ie, clarity of explanation, challenging problems in the book, sensible layout, logical pacing and progression through the material, etc) in the textbooks the schools are using? Is there an evaluating or ranking resource for schools/teachers?
Reply
Leave a comment