The Privatization of Education in the US [UO, Not JAWM]

[shanvan]

I would have signed it, and I wouldn't have regretted signing it after reading the other info that worried you.  

I think part of why I don't worry about Teacher Certification, is that an Education degree is a joke.   It is the Underwater Basket Weaving degree of today. So, I would rather have my child taught by someone with a real degree and a few training courses in classroom management.  

Not always.  Did you read my earlier post?  Perhaps you have met a lot of people who would make any degree look like a joke.  Sometimes I think it's more obvious when we are seeing a person who is supposed to be educating and yet isn't educated him/herself b/c of a lack of effort or not making the most of their education.  I've certainly met quite a few people with degrees in other fields who seem like they paid no attention throughout their years of schooling and have not made much of an attempt to actually put their knowledge to use.  For example, the woman with the psych degree who is offending everyone she knows left and right b/c she is constantly putting people down.

 

Also, in many states, while an education degree might be closely linked to certification, in that you cannot be certified without a degree, they are really two different things.  Many states do not automatically certify after college and require several years of provisional teaching before issuing a teaching certificate.

[SKL]

I also think that paying taxes should be counted as part of my contribution to the public good, even though I don't necessarily *want* to pay quite so much in taxes.  ;)  I do vote for the school, library, mental health and social service levies, unless they seem really ridiculous.  ;)  And I'll help someone I see in a bind, yeah, but I'm a busy lady.

 

Before I had kids, I had some time to run around volunteering on behalf of others' kids, in between my long work hours.  Now, not so much.  I think a lot of people are in the same boat.  I'm so far behind on my work that the thought of starting up a movement to, say, increase music in the schools is laughable.  I am happy to leave that to people who have more free time right now.

 

We can't all be responsible for fixing everything that isn't working well.

[FaithManor]

I too have been harangued. I was the favorite high school math and science sub in two school districts when I decided to go to work at the Lutheran School. I'd recently done a one semester - full time - sub stint in high school biology for a teacher that needed a leave of absence, and I couldn't work in the system anymore. I just couldn't. The baloney was how dare I leave the system when other kids needed me. Well, I needed my sanity and wasn't cut out for teaching there any longer. I was so happy at the Lutheran school that it was bliss!

 

I have no intention of sacrificing my kids on the altar of the local PS where every single advanced class has been cut one by one because "smart kids will always be okay" and remedial classes abound and para-pros are literally told by the principal to help kids cheat in order to show progress, where teachers are required to give credit for NOT FALLING ASLEEP IN CLASS and just for handing in homework - doesn't matter whether or not it is done much less done right - so that everyone can pass the class, where every single decision that an educator should be able to make has been wrested out of his or her hands, and where bullying is practically an Olympic sport. Nope. Done. I told the superintendent exactly what he could do with such sentiments.

 

I can't save anyone else's kids. I just don't have it in me. But, I'm determined to save my own.

 

I LOVE being a 4-H leader and superintendent. I love teaching science in a positively charged environment where I am only hampered by the limits of my own teaching ability and creativity, and believe me, I work hard to keep stretching those abilities. I've got a greater chance of helping kids make it outside the confines of the school than I do from inside.

 

We need a revolution, an educational revolution but until the majority of parents decide they aren't going to take it anymore and school boards and state boards of education become afraid of the revolt, the status quo will continue. The testing industry is in the driver's seat, and until we unseat them nothing will change academically. As for the environment, until Americans decide they don't like the way our culture operates and actively, as a majority, decide to change, then the bullying, crime, anger, resentment, lack of respect, and apathy will continue.

 

My niece attends a magnet school, Saginaw Arts and Science Academy. I think it begins in 6th grade, and students that come in for music, dance, or theater must audition - the day she auditioned for one of the five openings in 7th grade 29 students auditioned as well and she was the only one taken - they turned down another 125 students for those 5 spots - and in art they have to produce a portfolio for review, in math and science testing and math puzzles, science projects etc. are evaluated to show readiness for their program. She barely made it in because of being so low in math - they have minimum standards even for the arts students - but took her provisionally since my brother agreed to pay for a lot of professional tutoring (she's barely hanging on by a thread, sigh....). They are about as selective is the top 15 universities in the nation and the high school ranks in the top 8% in the country. The math kids are often advanced enough that they take algebra 2 in 8th grade and are through Calc 2 or 3 before leaving high school. The science kids just plain knock your socks off. Some of them have worked summers as research assistants to grad school students at MSU and U of MI. These kids pretty much write their ticket to any college they choose to attend, well, at least the math and science kids do. I can't say that I'm extremely impressed in music and art. Yes, they have a huge amount more than any other PS has to offer. However, they aren't that rigorous in the music department especially. I think the value is that these kids are plugged into private lessons with excellent teachers in the area. The Christmas concert was NOT impressive...not for what they claim. It befuddled me because the auditions are tight. They are supposedly getting the best of the best all under one roof. Makes me think that some of their music teachers are falling down on the job or are failing to motivate these students, maybe a little of both.

 

There are middle schoolers in our area that have auditioned more than once to get in and keep waiting. Some are waitlisted, some keep honing their skills hoping to get into the school before high school begins. It reminds me of that documentary "Waiting for Superman". It breaks my heart too because of how desperate some of these students and their parents are. It seems like in a country with this many resources, this kind of educational desperation should be rare if not non-existent. But, there I go thinking again!

[nerdybird]

We need a revolution, an educational revolution but until the majority of parents decide they aren't going to take it anymore and school boards and state boards of education become afraid of the revolt, the status quo will continue. The testing industry is in the driver's seat, and until we unseat them nothing will change academically. As for the environment, until Americans decide they don't like the way our culture operates and actively, as a majority, decide to change, then the bullying, crime, anger, resentment, lack of respect, and apathy will continue.

 

 

:iagree:

 

As it stands now, the ones that can afford to get out of bad situations, do. Either by tutoring, afterschooling, private lessons or by transferring to private or parochial schools. Maybe gaining entrance to a magnet or charter. Maybe homeschooling if the family is able and it is an option for them.

 

Many are left behind, but what hope is there for improving the system for all? Those are left behind are most likely kids who are dependent on the welfare state and schools to provide food and a basic education to them. They aren't complaining about test scores or shoddy textbooks or the need for new desks or more books in the library. They want new gyms to showcase their kids athletic skills. Equipment so their kids can play sports. Reliable buses to get them back and forth from school. Free lunches because they can't afford to feed their kids at home.

 

A lot of the systemic inequalities we are seeing now are the result of forced integration in the 60s and 70s, coupled with the white flight of the 80s and 90s. Rising immigrant populations and the increasing amounts of second and third generation single parent families play a role too.

 

 

There are middle schoolers in our area that have auditioned more than once to get in and keep waiting. Some are waitlisted, some keep honing their skills hoping to get into the school before high school begins. It reminds me of that documentary "Waiting for Superman". It breaks my heart too because of how desperate some of these students and their parents are. It seems like in a country with this many resources, this kind of educational desperation should be rare if not non-existent. But, there I go thinking again!

 

 

Thinking is risky business. ;) Don't do too much of that! Lol.

 

I have seen "Waiting for Superman". I've also seen "The Lottery" and "The War on Kids". All of these films made me sad because I saw the desperation, the aspirations of parents who want better, who work hard, and want their kids to do better than they are...but they know that if they don't get a spot at XYZ Academy, their chances of becoming anything other than a service drone are ever dwindling.

 

I believe that the American Dream hinges upon education. It is disheartening to realize that so many children and young people aren't getting a shot at obtaining a strong foundation to build their American dreams upon.

[FaithManor]

Margaret, I am generally, nearly always, pro teacher. But, I've had the straw that broke the camel's back moment with the Michigan union. The straw was when the union supported a male teacher in West Branch school district, loudly and vigorously complaining about the 15 year sentence the slime bag received for having s*x with an 8th grader (rape, I call it rape), and then jumped all over the teachers in the district to write letters on his behalf to the court! Yes, you read that right, and dutifully, six teachers did!

 

They stood WITH a raper. Here is what one of them wrote and it is very close to what the other five wrote as well:

 

In their letters, some teachers blamed the victim for not reporting the abuse. 

"The ongoing friendship that the pair had beyond the years of reported sexual activity between them and the fact that the victim did not file the complaint is strong indication that the victim was consenting," wrote one teacher. (West Branch Rose City District - quote taken from Michigan Capitol Confidential)

 

The boy was only about 12 when the relationship began though apparently 13 when the molestation started.

 

Here is a link to the article: It is not off base for what actually occurred and those six teachers are still teaching in the district.

 

At the same time, a male basketball coach of a female high school basketball team was caught videotaping the girls in the locker room. The union got behind him as well and didn't really feel he was all that bad, after all the girls had a pretty good season. :cursing: 

 

I'm done with the teacher's union. Just done.

[Rosie_0801]

Teacher tenure rules make it next to impossible to remove even the worst teacher.  Keeping them on because they've been there a certain number of years doesn't serve students or the community.  

 

There are consequences to putting teachers on yearly contracts too. That leads to burn out and is probably the primary reason for the 3 year drop out over here.

[TechWife]

ime those are people who view education as a race to a job. 

 

That is the goal of the public school system in the US, though. 

 

"The mission of the Department of Education is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access."

http://www2.ed.gov/about/what-we-do.html

[TechWife]

It's clear you know your job as a parent and a community member. But what is your job as a citizen? Is it in your best interest to ignore what the public school is doing?  In my area, significant chunks of the population are excluded from learning at school. Other schools are violent, and in shambles. Silence from the citizens is a vote in favor of continuing.Is that the vote you really want to cast?

 

She isn't ignoring what the public school is doing. Her very own post says: 

 

 

 

 

I do think about the others in the public school system. Every time I pay my taxes, knowing that a hefty portion goes to provide for the education of the others. When I haul various animals or equipment to the various schools in my area to do demonstrations and educational fairs. When I educate myself regarding the candidates' positions regarding various issues before I vote for the local school board members. 

 

 

What else is she supposed to do? 

[TechWife]

 Those are left behind are most likely kids who are dependent on the welfare state and schools to provide food and a basic education to them. They aren't complaining about test scores or shoddy textbooks or the need for new desks or more books in the library. They want new gyms to showcase their kids athletic skills. Equipment so their kids can play sports. Reliable buses to get them back and forth from school. Free lunches because they can't afford to feed their kids at home.

 

In my area, the majority of the children are most definitely not dependent upon welfare. In addition to private schools, there are a large number of choices within the public school system in our county. There are year round schools and traditional schools (you can pick which one you want to go to), magnet schools (IB, STEM, early college, healthcare services, art, GT, etc.), and charter schools. In fact, one of our charter schools shows up regularly on the lists for the best high schools in the US.  All options except the charter schools have bus service.  The textbooks, transportation, sports and facilities are all good, if not excellent. The main problem we have is overcrowding because so many people want to live in our area. I'm just saying this to point out that I think this is a mischaracterization of the students that are in public schools. 

 

FWIW, there is no teacher union in our state. There is what basically amounts to a PAC, but they have no collective bargaining power. Our state also recently voted to phase out tenure. The salary structure for teachers is a mess. Our state has lost over 500 teachers during the 2013-14 school year. 

[Rosie_0801]

Yes. We have friends that are teachers and they would get pink slipped yearly. Ugh. No way to live.

 

I wonder what effect it has on the economy. I know when we were in that position, it seemed like a whole generation was in an unsafe position for buying a house. Obviously some people had fairly reliable jobs and some people bought houses even if they didn't, but I wonder and wish I knew how to articulate my questions properly and find out the answer.

[NASDAQ]

It's clear you know your job as a parent and a community member. But what is your job as a citizen? Is it in your best interest to ignore what the public school is doing?  In my area, significant chunks of the population are excluded from learning at school. Other schools are violent, and in shambles. Silence from the citizens is a vote in favor of continuing.Is that the vote you really want to cast?

 

I pay taxes. I vote. I make a vague swipe at the newspaper. I'm raising four kids, educating two, and gestating one. I don't have a magic answer for saving a bad school system from itself that I can crusade for. I don't have any special expertise or position that is going to give me authority in the school system or even talking about it. And I don't have the time to do it.

 

Do you want me to fix the healthcare waiting lists next? Lower gas prices? I'd probably have better chances of success; Education reform by local citizens is one step above tilting-at-windmills.

[KarenC]

It's clear you know your job as a parent and a community member. But what is your job as a citizen? Is it in your best interest to ignore what the public school is doing?  In my area, significant chunks of the population are excluded from learning at school. Other schools are violent, and in shambles. Silence from the citizens is a vote in favor of continuing.Is that the vote you really want to cast?

I'm sorry, but I am not sacrificing my children to a school that is violent or in shambles.  If that is being a poor citizen, then so be it.

[Trish]

I can't answer your selfish question, you'll have to ask yourself.

 

On the citizen question I asked...what are your rights and responsibilities as a citizen?  You've answered that you've voiced an opinion occasionally in a public forum, and tacetly approved everything else.  And that is fine. You and your community own the results.

 

This world needs more people "selfish" on behalf of their families, not fewer.

 

Oh, the number of things we're apparently tacitly approving and "owning" the results for.

 

The kids who DO manage to get a good public school education locally do so more because of the interest, support and attitude of their parents, not due to the merits of the system.

 

Thank you, "selfish" public, private and homeschool parents!

 

[FaithManor]

Rome is burning! I attend school board meetings and am the most hated individual there. I go to township meetings, count commissioner meetings (and those people are doing a good job with the piddly money they have), I tutor, and I write and call my state politicians.

 

The only difference I've ever made is in 4H! So I will continue with that.

[SarahW]

Privatization. *snort* What a typically shortsighted American response!

 

Finland - yes. The Smartest Kids in the World is a fascinating book which points out why Finland is so good. Being super-selective about teacher training and thoroughly training the teachers is a major reason. What would education look like in America if teacher training colleges were as selective as Harvard or MIT? Because that's what Finland does.

 

I read a book a while ago about a middling New England elementary school trying to raise its Reading score on a standardized test. It was such a case-study in misguided failure. The principal and many of the teachers were average to below-average students themselves in K-12 and college. In the school they skipped around from new theory to theory and new reading program to another like hot potatoes. And, good grief, they blamed their students poor scores directly on the parents. Excuse me? You are the teachers teaching the kids for six hours a day and you can't teach them to read year after year? In no other civilized country would that excuse fly, yet Americans talk it up like it is God's Revealed Word.

 

Seriously. My European husband was offended when our kid came home from Kindergarten with homework. He was even more offended when he realized the homework was just school worksheets we needed to help him fill out. "He is in school all day. Why does he have to do school at home, too? Why on earth are we expected to do it with him? We aren't his teacher! We aren't trained to teach him. Are they going to pay us to do this!?" (He's Dutch, hence the last question.) It did make the decision to homeschool easier, DH figured that teaching him ourselves took not much more time than his homework. And then we could at least take credit for what he knew.  :lol:

 

My in-laws are still scratching their heads over the homeschooling idea. In their country they aren't as rigorous about their teachers as Finland, but it is still considered a highly-professional job. So, why aren't we letting their grandkid be taught by a professional???  :huh: My own advanced degrees seem to be enough to allay their fears that they don't say peep about it to me, but DH has let me know that they think it is very odd.

 

Now, I know there are great public school teachers. I've been taught in a p.s. myself, and I consider all the teachers I had more than adequate. I have also had the chance to talk to some p.s. teachers, and am amazed at some of the things they have to do. I once talked with a high school physics teacher who was choosing her mandatory summer "continuing education" options, and out of the range of bad choices finally decided on the two-week course about art projects. I found the pointlessness of it all fascinating. Yet, this is what being a "good teacher" is made of in America. It's so incredibly bizarre.

[Reefgazer]

The question of teacher tenure used to bother me and I used to go back and forth on it.  But after seeing the public schools in action for years (my son is in 3rd grade and my currently-homeschooled daughter went through 5th grade in public school), I've come to the conclusion that teachers aren't the problem; I do think our society, the testing culture, and what we have set up as expectations for our schools are the problem.  I don't think getting rid of teacher tenure would improve things much.  I also don't think certified teachers are necessarily a plus and I would be OK with non-certified teachers for my kids, as long as they could teach.  Several years ago, I went through a year of teacher certification courses at the graduate level; I felt then, and still feel, that they are pretty worthless classes.  In fact, I am one of those people who think teacher certification programs are just ways to teach herd management and inculcate social values to teachers with the intent that those values be passed on to students.  But maybe it was just my school's teacher training. 

 

I am torn both ways on the issue of privatization of schools; I can see both harm and good in that.  I do think there is a certain segment of the population that is using the current problems of the public school to get a foot in the door and make money, but I am not sure that is a bad thing or not.  We already have "McSchools", thanks to the testing culture.  I'm not sure privatization would make things bad, and it might make things better, especially if parents had choice in which schools their kids attended.  I do also think that homeschooling and attending private school is privatization and I am OK with that, and even vouchers, as long as parents could chose the school. 

 

I used to think that the only way to change schools was to get involved and change them from the inside.  But after trying to do so for many years at the local level, I decide to homeschooled because I was not willing to sacrifice my kids for that ideal, an ideal that I don't think will ever come about, and will certainly not come about in my kids' school lifetimes.  In fact, I've come to think that the fastest way to get attention and change things is for middle class and well-off parents to walk away from public schools.  The public schools around here always say they want to keep middle class families, and if they see them walk and listen to the reasons they are walking, it will probably promote change a lot faster (unless they are BSing on wanting to keep middle class families, in which case, we are better off gone anyway).  At any rate, I *am* selfish about the opportunities my kids have, and I am wholly unapologetic about it.  If everyone paid attention to their kids' educations the way I do, we wouldn't have troubled schools and wouldn't need to have this discussion.

[Reefgazer]

This could be my post.  Except here, we can't even elect a school board  -they are appointed.

One of the reasons I homeschool is because DS, during the first week of first grade, was LITERALLY taught to twiddle his thumbs while waiting for other children to finish their work.  He was also sent to "time-out" twice within the 4 days he was there.  I still don't know why because no one found it important enough to e-mail me or call me about it.  He went from a child who loved school to hating school in 4 DAYS.  We are still undoing the damage 1 year later.  Add in a teacher who didn' know "there" from "their" and thought "clothespin" was spelled "closepin" and I figured I couldn't do worse. 

 

Unfortunately, parents and the staff in our district are so "proud" of the fact that our schools are "blue-ribbon", 10 out of 10 on greatschools, that they refuse to recognize that there are any problems with them.  They are oblivious to the fact that the only reason that the schools do well is because every parent I have talked to afterschools or summerschools their children and the district is made up of predominantly wealthy parents who hire tutors at the first sign that their students are having an issue.  My input is NOT wanted.  So I stick to educating myself on the candidates for school board and making sure I vote every year. 

 

I will not sacrifice my children so that other parents and the school district can feel even better about themselves.  I can sure as heck tell you that I had no knowledge of what was even going on in the classroom (no books or worksheets came home), never mind being able to influence it.

 

[Reefgazer]

This is why we ultimately pulled DD out of public schools, and will be pulling DS in the near future.  The reason for the bolded is because educrats insist on equal outcomes for everyone, even if that means dragging down the bright and talented in the process.  Can't have some people further ahead than others, you know.

It seems a lot of people here have a similar mentality.  When we used to have that district message board, I encountered many people complaining that they think it is unfair that stuff like IB be paid for because it's not available to everyone (not true exactly).  That makes my blood boil.  They spend a TON on special needs programs/therapies/etc. (which I'm fine with, that isn't my problem), but they don't think it is worthwhile to invest in courses for talented students?!  What the heck.  I don't understand that reasoning.  I guess they see offering gifted programming as an unnecessary and unfair extra?  I don't even know.

 

[Audrey]

I want to triple or quadruple like Heather's post. 

 

And she is coming from it as a teacher and administrator in schools. 

 

FWIW, I wish I could say the school system here was better, but ... it is the sole reason why I homeschool. 

[Audrey]

I'm wholeheartedly against the privatization of the public schools.  The last thing this country needs is another way to increase the gap between the wealthy and the poor.

 

And instead of doing away with teacher certification, we need to drastically increase the bar one must meet to become a teacher, similar to how they do things in Finland.  I met a lot of teaching students as a Lit major in college, and to be blunt, most of them would have struggled to teach dog obedience training, never mind educating actual children.  We need to have a way to weed out the people who cruise through with Cs and go on to become below average teachers who in turn crank out below average students.  That's not to say that I don't want experts in their fields to become teachers, but I do think they should have to go through some kind of basic certification process to prove they have some teaching skills.  Just because someone has a PhD in Biology doesn't mean they're going to be good at teaching basic science to high schoolers.

 

Respectfully, I disagree.  The PhD in Biology might not be a great teacher, but they will at least have an expertise in the subject, and hopefully, a passion for that subject.  That, most frequently, DOES translate to the students and certainly translates to the content.  Teaching degrees are largely comprised of a collection of courses on time and group management, child psych and a smattering of technology.  Useless, IMO.

[MistyMountain]

I am against public school money going to private schools. It will not help the kids who need it. All it will do is give a money break to people who are already rich or upper middle class. I have no problem with different alternatives that fall under the public system. No one is trying to make all kids the same or drag down bright kids but schools shouldn't be funded to radically different levels with teachers getting paid less to work in those schools. In my area we do have gifted schools, gifted programs and the schools try for a years growth in a year time for all kids. They have IB and other special programs in the high school. We also have charters that are very much about giving kids material at their level in all subjects. People aren't looking for equal outcomes by dragging other kids down but all kids deserve to go to good schools with good teachers who can meet their needs.

Teacher training does make a difference. I like the models that a lot of successful countries use such as Finland where teaching is a respected profession that isn't super easy to get into. Sure there are examples of teachers that don't have training that do good and ones that do who are not talented teachers but by and large teachers having a better education and more experience will lead to better teachers. My state actually has weak qualifications for teachers and we have bad scores. There are other reasons for it but that is one factor.

 

I don't think we should keep changing but if we really look at different countries, states and cities and study what they are doing that works and doesn't with have good controls then we should be able to make things better. I like what I saw in a video from a European country for math instruction. They used a lot of manipulatives to show it and combined it with writing. The teacher paid close attention for students who were not understanding and she would work with those kids. Kids corrected their mistakes on the spot and moved on. They sat at desks but they would get up for short bursts too especially in the early grades. The day was shorter there. By lunchtime school was over but they still manage to cover a lot. Kids who needed extra help understanding took classes after lunch with different teachers. That is a good way so that fast learners do not get busy work but kids that do need extra help get it. There are lots of examples of things that work. When you compare our poor kids to poor kids in other countries we do much worse. Schools in other countries are not funded radically different and they have a good safety net. We should look for examples of schools that have good results despite bad circumstances. Charters are great. I use an alternative school but even charters in poor neighborhoods do have parents that are invested in their education so they aren't the best place to look.

[Mergath]

Respectfully, I disagree.  The PhD in Biology might not be a great teacher, but they will at least have an expertise in the subject, and hopefully, a passion for that subject.  That, most frequently, DOES translate to the students and certainly translates to the content.  Teaching degrees are largely comprised of a collection of courses on time and group management, child psych and a smattering of technology.  Useless, IMO.

 

I don't know, I've had some college professors who were insanely knowledgeable but couldn't teach their way out of a paper bag. :P  Obviously, the best teachers will have both expertise and the ability to share their knowledge effectively, though from what I've seen, most teachers are lucky to have one out of two.

 

And I agree that the teaching degrees as they are now aren't worth much.  In my perfect world, experts could hang around with an effective, experienced teacher and learn that way.  

[MistyMountain]

Oh and I don't think all people have to put their kids in public schools. I think a parent should be able to chose what works for them and their children be it public, private, or homeschooling. You don't need a current student in a school to affect change if that is an issue that is important to you. You don't really have any control or experience as a volunteer anyway to make major change.

[Frances]

Respectfully, I disagree.  The PhD in Biology might not be a great teacher, but they will at least have an expertise in the subject, and hopefully, a passion for that subject.  That, most frequently, DOES translate to the students and certainly translates to the content.  Teaching degrees are largely comprised of a collection of courses on time and group management, child psych and a smattering of technology.  Useless, IMO.

 

I'm with Audrey on this. It's mind boggling to me that a retired college professor could not come and teach a class in one of our local high schools because they lack certification. Many teachers at elite private high schools do not have teaching degrees. Rather, they have an advanced degree in their subject matter. Our large homeschool co-op hires based on expertise and passion and they end up with amazing teachers. Some are certified, but most are not. 

 

My father-in-law taught public middle school for forty years and always said that his education degrees were almost worthless. What helped him the most was a great student teaching experience and excellent mentors early in his career. He tried to continually give back to the profession by frequently taking student teachers in his classroom and mentoring new teachers.

[MomatHWTK]

http://www.brookings.edu/research/books/2014/teachers-versus-the-public

[Laura Corin]

Out of curiosity, I checked how many of the teachers at the boys' school have teaching degrees (all teachers' qualifications are listed at the front of the school diary).  Out of a total of 71 full and part-time teachers in the school (I excluded the peripatetic music teachers who only teach for an afternoon a week) thirteen had teaching degrees, most of them in the sports department.  

 

Now there may be teaching courses lurking within some of the other teachers' degrees, but that would be unusual in the specialised university world in the UK.  So, it's a fully functioning school with no more than your average number of duff teachers, and with a good sprinkling of inspirational types, and very, very few have teaching degrees.  Which would not be possible if it were a government school.

 

ETA: the school uses mentoring to train new teachers.  Calvin had a brilliant young teacher for English last year - she had now gone off to do a PhD at Columbia - and the head of department sat in on her classes, and sometimes team-taught when she first started.

 

L

[shanvan]

Respectfully, I disagree.  The PhD in Biology might not be a great teacher, but they will at least have an expertise in the subject, and hopefully, a passion for that subject.  That, most frequently, DOES translate to the students and certainly translates to the content.  Teaching degrees are largely comprised of a collection of courses on time and group management, child psych and a smattering of technology.  Useless, IMO.

This would be true for kids who are capable of understanding the material, but not for kids who need to come at the material with a number of approaches.  A great teacher notices when kids aren't understanding, tries to figure out why they aren't getting it, develops various strategies to use when re-teaching, or giving instruction to struggling learners, re-evaluates, and goes through the entire process all over again if needed.  All the passion in the world isn't going to replace that process, and often the people who have the most passion for a subject really cannot understand why it doesn't make sense to some students.  My Dh is the math person in the home, and my Dc would rather I teach them their math related subjects any day.  I'm only average in the mathematics areas, but I understand the use of many different strategies and approaches b/c I needed to use them myself.  A Phd in Biology waxing poetic on various biological processes, but who cannot convey the information well is not going to make a great teacher (Btw, I had one of those in high school.  Half of the class was lost most of the time.).  There is also the danger that the expert with the degree in the field may naturally gravitate to the top students who share their interest/passion leaving out the rest of the students.  An expert with dedication to teaching the material to all students, the ability to assess, reassess, develop ways of teaching to students of varying abilities, that would make an excellent teacher.  I know they do exist, but I also know that passion for a subject alone does not make a good teacher.  

[Haiku]

In the state of Kansas, the same bill that removed teacher due process also removed teacher certification. And that is truly a sobering thought. When/if my children are ever in a public school, I like knowing that their teachers are certified to be there. I like knowing that they have some experience with education, that they've taken some courses, that they aren't some average joe or josie who is just there to collect a check. 

 

For many, many years, private school teachers were not required to be certified teachers. I think in some states they still aren't. When I was growing up, the "good" private schools in our area rarely hired certified teachers.

 

Would it surprise you to know that education majors, as a whole, have the lowest aggregate SAT scores?

 

I don't think that teacher certification has much to do with being an effective teacher.

 

 

 

Both of these articles got me to thinking that perhaps homeschooling is ultimate privatization of education.

 

The only way that public education will ever change for the better is if people who are educated, passionate and resourceful get involved and stay plugged in

 

I don't think that's true. Homeschooling is an option among many choices in educating your children, and although I am a liberal, I don't buy into the liberal idea that we owe it to society to keep our kids in school because we (those who are educated and interested in their child's education, not we liberals) will be the ones who advocate for change. That's like saying we should take our kids only to public clinics and we should move to decaying neighborhoods because we are the only ones who can make them better. First of all, I will not sacrifice my kids on the off chance that their situation will be the catalyst to change for everyone else. Second, I'm not big on the idea that public school parents (or the poor, or what-have-you) can only improve their situation if we-who-know-better-and-care-more step in and tell them how to make it better. 

 

I homeschool AND advocate for better public schools. It's not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, my ideas on how to improve schools tend to be at odds with the teacher's union and the politicians, so people rarely listen to me.

[Word Nerd]

My best (and favorite) teacher was a professor who is an expert in his field and has won multiple teaching awards. The worst "teacher" I ever had to take a class from had a degree in secondary ed and was hired primarily to be a coach. He didn't know his subject or how to teach, but I sure learned a lot about Knots Landing in his class.

 

Teacher training is not the only way to gain teaching skills, and that in itself doesn't make someone a good teacher. The alternative certification tracks usually include some training in how to teach as well, so I'm really not sure what the problem is. I admit I'm scratching my head to see people on a homeschooling forum suggesting that only those with education degrees and teaching licenses are qualified to teach. Yes, I realize that classroom teaching is not the same as homeschooling, but what makes a good teacher is not wholly different from one setting to another (and presumably I'm qualified to make that statement since I have an education degree. ;) ).

[Mergath]

I'm with Audrey on this. It's mind boggling to me that a retired college professor could not come and teach a class in one of our local high schools because they lack certification. Many teachers at elite private high schools do not have teaching degrees. Rather, they have an advanced degree in their subject matter. Our large homeschool co-op hires based on expertise and passion and they end up with amazing teachers. Some are certified, but most are not. 

 

My father-in-law taught public middle school for forty years and always said that his education degrees were almost worthless. What helped him the most was a great student teaching experience and excellent mentors early in his career. He tried to continually give back to the profession by frequently taking student teachers in his classroom and mentoring new teachers.

 

I think most people would be comfortable with someone having years of teaching experience in lieu of a teaching certificate or whatever.

[Mergath]

My best (and favorite) teacher was a professor who is an expert in his field and has won multiple teaching awards. The worst "teacher" I ever had to take a class from had a degree in secondary ed and was hired primarily to be a coach. He didn't know his subject or how to teach, but I sure learned a lot about Knots Landing in his class.

 

Teacher training is not the only way to gain teaching skills, and that in itself doesn't make someone a good teacher. The alternative certification tracks usually include some training in how to teach as well, so I'm really not sure what the problem is. I admit I'm scratching my head to see people on a homeschooling forum suggesting that only those with education degrees and teaching licenses are qualified to teach. Yes, I realize that classroom teaching is not the same as homeschooling, but what makes a good teacher is not wholly different from one setting to another (and presumably I'm qualified to make that statement since I have an education degree. ;) ).

 

I don't think anyone said all teachers should have to have an ed degree and a teaching certificate, did they?  (I admit it, I skimmed.)  Just that there should be some kind of mechanism in place to ensure that even the experts have at least some teaching skills.  A horrible teacher, even one who knows a lot about his or her subject, can kill the students' interest in a subject in a nanosecond.

 

Just my opinion, though.  After six years of college in total at three different colleges, I've learned from a fair amount of "experts" and I have some pretty strong opinions on this stuff.  

[Reefgazer]

I do agree with this wholeheartedly.  If a person has spent his 4 (or 6, or 8) years of higher ed not learning the discipline in which he will teach, then he isn't an expert in it.  I do see the value of such things as composing effective lesson plans, as a previous poster mentioned.  But it would seem that that specific talent could be learned with a few well-constructed teaching courses, rather than 4 years of learning herd management.  OTOH, 4 years spent getting a teaching degree is 4 years not spent learning the discipline.  

I'm with Audrey on this. It's mind boggling to me that a retired college professor could not come and teach a class in one of our local high schools because they lack certification. Many teachers at elite private high schools do not have teaching degrees. Rather, they have an advanced degree in their subject matter. Our large homeschool co-op hires based on expertise and passion and they end up with amazing teachers. Some are certified, but most are not. 

 

My father-in-law taught public middle school for forty years and always said that his education degrees were almost worthless. What helped him the most was a great student teaching experience and excellent mentors early in his career. He tried to continually give back to the profession by frequently taking student teachers in his classroom and mentoring new teachers.

 

[Reefgazer]

See, I still think that an advanced degree in the discipline and additional, targeted training is best for teaching all children, evn those with different learning styles.  I have a graduate degree in a STEM field and teach at a local college and I run into students at that level who need variable teaching strategies because their learning style is a bit different.  But again, this can be taught in a few targeted courses, particularly within special education.  It still makes more sense to me to know your discipline inside and out and spend a semester on targeted courses such as lesson planning, variable learning styles and special education.

This would be true for kids who are capable of understanding the material, but not for kids who need to come at the material with a number of approaches.  A great teacher notices when kids aren't understanding, tries to figure out why they aren't getting it, develops various strategies to use when re-teaching, or giving instruction to struggling learners, re-evaluates, and goes through the entire process all over again if needed.  All the passion in the world isn't going to replace that process, and often the people who have the most passion for a subject really cannot understand why it doesn't make sense to some students.  My Dh is the math person in the home, and my Dc would rather I teach them their math related subjects any day.  I'm only average in the mathematics areas, but I understand the use of many different strategies and approaches b/c I needed to use them myself.  A Phd in Biology waxing poetic on various biological processes, but who cannot convey the information well is not going to make a great teacher (Btw, I had one of those in high school.  Half of the class was lost most of the time.).  There is also the danger that the expert with the degree in the field may naturally gravitate to the top students who share their interest/passion leaving out the rest of the students.  An expert with dedication to teaching the material to all students, the ability to assess, reassess, develop ways of teaching to students of varying abilities, that would make an excellent teacher.  I know they do exist, but I also know that passion for a subject alone does not make a good teacher.  

 

[mirth]

• Why does the idea that you can't teach anything if you don't KNOW anything stun anyone?   (I think I know who's certifiable alright ...)

Imagine if I went to a gym that said I had to hang out there 7 hours/day, mostly putzing around, and then sent me home with more exercises to do at night.  Can't they find a way to address all of my P.E. needs in under 9 hrs/day?

If you cannot convince the people (dropouts) who would benefit the most from school to come back, I doubt you can convince the people who would benefit the least (happy homeschoolers).  This magnificent failure to reengage dropouts is the subject of several fingerpointing papers by the governors of many states.   Surely the educators must understand this problem: 

Where's the herculean educators' effort to reengage these lost souls?  (I do believe that the next true wave in educational reform will have its Big Bang in successful (read: alternative) programs to reengage. And yes, I believe these alt programs will be privatized as they are starting to be now http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/education/sfps-releases-details-of-private-deal-for-dropout-program/article_2e592f71-d803-599e-8108-7925dacdabe1.html  )

[SKL]

A great teacher notices when kids aren't understanding, tries to figure out why they aren't getting it, develops various strategies to use when re-teaching, or giving instruction to struggling learners, re-evaluates, and goes through the entire process all over again if needed.  

 

True, but this is not really learned in the college of education.  Mostly it is something people are wired for or something they make the effort to figure out because they care about imparting knowledge and improving lives.

 

I was an education student and almost zero percent of the course work - other than student teaching - even mentions this stuff.  And telling education students that they need to do this does not mean they will know how to do it.

 

There should be an alternative certification process for non-education-degreed professionals, at the very least.  The soft skills specific to teaching children can be covered in a very abbreviated fashion prior to putting the individual in the classroom to observe, co-teach, and finally teach.

 

It goes without saying that a highly educated professional who wants to teach children is doing it because he cares to impart knowledge.  There is no logic to the assumption that these people are less likely to be able to understand or communicate with kids.  There is certainly no guarantee that the young adults graduating with education degrees are able to understand or communicate with kids.  Many of them take years to figure this out and many never do.  Why not give professionals a chance and fire them if they prove incapable?

[duckens]

I have been following this topic since the mid-80s.  In high school, I would speak on this topic occasionally through our local extemporaneous (news-oriented topic) speaking for Speech Club.  As an adult, much of my life has been enrolled in working with and educating others (as a nanny, school volunteer, babysitter, school employee, college tutor,  parent, etc).

 

Things I know:

 

1) We are living in a renaissance of school choice, and that is a good thing.  Whatever else you read that follows, know that I believe that experimentation in the school system is a GOOD thing if done statistically, and not for an ideological or greed model.  How do we know that the current model is the best if we don't try new things to confirm or challenge it?

In the three decades that I have followed this topic, I have gone back and forth and back and forth and back and forth on school vouchers. 

 

I don't want to tell a parent of a student at a failing school that their children are doomed to stay there.   I am in favor of vouchers/charter/magnet schools IF

a) Vouchers may only be used at accredited schools. 

b ) Vouchers may only be used at nonprofit schools; for-profit schools are addressed below.

c) Any school accepting public dollars CAN and WILL be audited.  If we are giving you PUBLIC dollars to educate our community and our country's children, then, yes, you need to let us make sure you are doing that acceptably well.

===========================================================

2) It is not profitable to me personally to educate someone else's kids.  This is why we do this as a society.  It profits society greatly! 

 

We see the for-profit model in higher education with the explosion of "for profit" colleges with shareholders.

a) Locally (Iowa), twice as expensive as community college.

b )  Not a single class is transferable to another college.

c) "Professors" do not have much more education than their students. 

d) After graduation, if you want to take a new class from this school to update your skills, you must start again from the beginning of their program.

e) Job placement program is horrible compared to what they sell them as.

 

Private companies started out teaching "low income" children, but now they have started excluding as many poor children as they can.  Where do you think this trend will end?

 

Do we really want to go to this model for public school children?

=======================================================

3) Private entities running public school charters have not been found to be much more effective than their public school counterparts. 

 

Example: Rocket Schools.

They are doing some very exciting things at Rocket Schools!  I am sincerely excited!!! but they have not yet broken the barrier of significantly doing better at assessments than public schools.  Ultimately, "There is no substitute for a having a quality educator spend time with your children."

==========================================================

4) Teacher education/certification

 

Education for teachers (college classes) is necessary, but it is just the first step of training a teacher.

 

Good teachers speak of their time as student teacher or of principals who mentored them in their first years.

 

Consider a physician. They receive college and medical school training, but their ultimate training is "on-the-job" in the years of  internment and residency.

 

Would you contract a carpenter that had only a classroom degree and some class projects to build your house?  Or do you want the person that has been working at his Uncle's construction company since he was 14?  Perhaps you prefer the one who has been a carpenter for 30 years.

 

One pilot program puts young teachers through a two-year "internship." They are responsible for a classroom, but their rooms are wired for sound and video.  The principal/mentor can check in on them at any time, and if something needs to be addressed, the principal telephones or visits the room IMMEDIATELY.

 

Not everyone is meant to be a teacher.  I could be the smartest person in the class.  I could have straight A's in my subject matter and in my education classes, but I may not have "IT."  IT is the ability to keep the attention of 30 Third Graders AND to keep them on task AND to teach them something.  Supposedly, some people have "IT," and some people don't.  Can IT be taught?  I don't know.

 

Example: A schoolteacher friend of mine spoke of her student teacher.  He was near the end of his time with her.  He had taught a lesson the day before, and he taught on stuff that wasn't even the lesson.  :glare:  He may be smart.  He may be well intentioned.  He is NOT ready to be a teacher, and her evaluation of him reflected that.

=========================================================

5) For teachers, experience matters.

 

I had an EXCELLENT public school education in Iowa in the 70s and 80s, exceeding what  some post-graduation Boston-area friends had covered and mastered in Massachusetts private ("Harvard comes to my school to recruit") schools.

 

Consider my elementary teachers:

K: in her 50s.

1st: retired at the end of the year

2nd: retired at the end of the year

3rd: early 30s, but had a math teacher that retired at the end of the year

4th: retired at the end of the year

5th: in her 50s

 

I am humbled at the privilege of these very experienced teachers who each devoted a year of their lives and their skills to give me such a good start in life.

 

Right now, you are wondering, "What is so destructive about Duckens that 3 of her 6 homeroom teachers had to retire once they had her as a student???"

 

Experience matters.  Most inner city (failing) schools have a turnover of new teachers every 2-5 years.

If we eliminate tenure, what will happen to experienced teachers that are also more expensive?  We know what happens, from the time before tenure.  Expensive employees are let go. 

===============================================================

6) Why are our schools failing?

 

It's not just schools that are failing; it's society.

 

The number one indicator of student success in school is parental income. 

 

We can fix the schools, and we certainly should do what we can, but it will be hard to make progress until we fix the rest of society, too.

 

Consider a house.  I have a hole in the roof, so I get it fixed.  I hire the best contractor, and the best materials are used.  And yet my house still has water flowing in.  What is the problem???

 

The problem is the broken windows and the door ripped off the hinges.  I don't really have to fix those, do I? I fixed the roof.  I don't understand why everything isn't happy happy joy joy now.  *blank look*

 

25% of American children now grow up in poverty. 

 

Until our society chooses to work on the problems related to poverty, the schools will not get better.

 

Sources: College, Inc (documentary), Bill Moyer's interview of Diane Ravitch, PBS Newshour, Newsweek, etc.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

7) Is Homeschooling the ultimate privatization?

 

No, because I am certainly NOT making a profit doing this.  Is anyone else making a profit homeschooling?  Am I doing this wrong?

 

And, as a flaming liberal, I don't feel bad for not sending my kids to good or bad schools. 

 

My job is to ensure that my children can be functional adults when they grow up: socially, emotionally, and, yes, intellectually/educationally.  My job is to make sure that they are ready for "the next step." 

[shanvan]

I would.  I'd even be comfortable with an "expert in a field" who could somehow demonstrate he had a knack for teaching, but had no teaching certificate.  Or I'd give that person a chance to prove themselves.  This isn't surgery.

Yes, I'd agree with this too.  I just wanted to point out that being an expert in the field does not automatically make for a good teacher.  I do think you might end up right back where we are now, with the question of how would you get rid of a bad teacher who is also an expert in the subject matter?  Colleges have these issues too.  

[shanvan]

 

==========================================================

4) Teacher education/certification

 

Education for teachers (college classes) is necessary, but it is just the first step of training a teacher.

 

Good teachers speak of their time as student teacher or of principals who mentored them in their first years.

 

Consider a physician. They receive college and medical school training, but their ultimate training is "on-the-job" in the years of  internment and residency.

 

Would you contract a carpenter that had only a classroom degree and some class projects to build your house?  Or do you want the person that has been working at his Uncle's construction company since he was 14?  Perhaps you prefer the one who has been a carpenter for 30 years.

 

One pilot program puts young teachers through a two-year "internship." They are responsible for a classroom, but their rooms are wired for sound and video.  The principal/mentor can check in on them at any time, and if something needs to be addressed, the principal telephones or visits the room IMMEDIATELY.

 

Not everyone is meant to be a teacher.  I could be the smartest person in the class.  I could have straight A's in my subject matter and in my education classes, but I may not have "IT."  IT is the ability to keep the attention of 30 Third Graders AND to keep them on task AND to teach them something.  Supposedly, some people have "IT," and some people don't.  Can IT be taught?  I don't know.

 

Example: A schoolteacher friend of mine spoke of her student teacher.  He was near the end of his time with her.  He had taught a lesson the day before, and he taught on stuff that wasn't even the lesson.  :glare:  He may be smart.  He may be well intentioned.  He is NOT ready to be a teacher, and her evaluation of him reflected that.

 

​I was certified after teaching for two years, and I have mixed feelings about it.  I had a great mentor, but it really was another hoop to jump through.  I don't think the program made a huge difference in teacher quality.  I also intensely dislike the idea of being videoed through two years of teaching.  It's creepy, and it makes me think of the idea of 'innocent before proven guilty'.  Why should we automatically assume a prospective teacher is incompetent enough to require constant monitoring.  

 

=========================================================

If we eliminate tenure, what will happen to experienced teachers that are also more expensive?  We know what happens, from the time before tenure.  Expensive employees are let go. 

 

Yes.  This is my concern too.

===============================================================

6) Why are our schools failing?

 

It's not just schools that are failing; it's society.

 

The number one indicator of student success in school is parental income. 

 

Is this now true?  I have always read that parental involvement is the number one indicator of scholastic success.  

This is a bit off topic, but the findings on parental involvement are interesting.  http://www.hfrp.org/publications-resources/browse-our-publications/family-involvement-makes-a-difference-in-school-success

[SKL]

I agree.  I suppose this is why stuff like this is problematic.  How does one prove teaching ability without a teaching certificate?  KWIM?  It probably takes time and money to hire people.  So I get why they just go for people with credentials.  So maybe the issue is with the credentialing.  If someone can get credentialed and still be lousy, there is something wrong with that.

 

I wish more non-teachers could see what the education coursework in college really is.  The only part of it that might arguably "prove teaching ability" is properly-supervised student teaching.  They could arrange student teaching opportunities for people who have other college degrees.

 

There really is no way to "prove teaching ability" regardless of degree, except by putting the person in a classroom and giving him a chance.  Why should the least educated candidates get more of a chance than everyone else?  The only people protected by this policy are those "credentialed" teachers who are not actually very good teachers.

[Abeille]

Sad thing is our magnets don't do better.  In fact, worse.  There is no real school choice here.

One of my kids goes to a "magnet" school. All it means in this case, apart from the word magnet in the school name, is that they are supposed to have a focus on "global exploration" and languages. In the lower grades, that translates to lots of group projects about different countries. The school used to offer more foreign languages than others in the area (e.g. Italian, French) but those teachers were laid off and now the only choice is Spanish. Every year, we get a letter from the school district explaining that the school has failed to meet adequate yearly progress and that we have the legal right to request that our child be moved to another higher-performing school. The catch? Our district has zero school that achieve AYP, so the district is unable to offer moves.

 

If we had $20k per year, per child, our children could attend a local military academy that performs well (though 2 of my 3 would be miserable there). There aren't any other choices for us besides homeschooling. Thankfully, our family is able to subsist on one income so I can stay home. I put my own academic goals on hold to do so, because one ds needed me to and there aren't any alternatives here. I worry about my kids in ps, but they are both thriving and I do what I can with afterschooling and summer schooling.

[shanvan]

See, I still think that an advanced degree in the discipline and additional, targeted training is best for teaching all children, evn those with different learning styles.  I have a graduate degree in a STEM field and teach at a local college and I run into students at that level who need variable teaching strategies because their learning style is a bit different.  But again, this can be taught in a few targeted courses, particularly within special education.  It still makes more sense to me to know your discipline inside and out and spend a semester on targeted courses such as lesson planning, variable learning styles and special education.

I don't think I can agree with this.  I've had some very bad teachers who were experts in their field (some good ones too).  There is no way a few targeted courses is going to suddenly give a person the ability to see where a struggling student is coming from, exactly where the problem is, and the determination to find the best solution.  I suspect you are already good at those things.  And, not all students who struggle are in special education.  Most students preparing to become teachers are already receiving the targeted courses you mentioned, and obviously, the courses aren't working or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[FO4UR]

I wish more non-teachers could see what the education coursework in college really is.  The only part of it that might arguably "prove teaching ability" is properly-supervised student teaching.  They could arrange student teaching opportunities for people who have other college degrees.

 

There really is no way to "prove teaching ability" regardless of degree, except by putting the person in a classroom and giving him a chance.  Why should the least educated candidates get more of a chance than everyone else?  The only people protected by this policy are those "credentialed" teachers who are not actually very good teachers.

 

 

A year of paid internship to replace student teaching...

[shanvan]

I wish more non-teachers could see what the education coursework in college really is.  The only part of it that might arguably "prove teaching ability" is properly-supervised student teaching.  They could arrange student teaching opportunities for people who have other college degrees.

 

There really is no way to "prove teaching ability" regardless of degree, except by putting the person in a classroom and giving him a chance.  Why should the least educated candidates get more of a chance than everyone else?  The only people protected by this policy are those "credentialed" teachers who are not actually very good teachers.

Let's not forget the credentialed teachers who ARE doing a good job.  They are out there.  But, I do agree with your point.  Proving teaching ability is difficult.  I'm not sure providing student teaching would work, b/c many professionals have jobs elsewhere.  Are they really going to give them up just to give it a shot and find out if someone else thinks they have teaching ability?  And who would we decide is qualified to evaluate them?  I hope not school administrators, who have always seemed to be the people who can't teach.  The joke at my old school was that if you couldn't teach you got promoted to an administrative position.

[SKL]

Let's not forget the credentialed teachers who ARE doing a good job.  They are out there.  But, I do agree with your point.  Proving teaching ability is difficult.  I'm not sure providing student teaching would work, b/c many professionals have jobs elsewhere.  Are they really going to give them up just to give it a shot and find out if someone else thinks they have teaching ability?  And who would we decide is qualified to evaluate them.  I hope not school administrators, who have always seemed to be the people who can't teach.  The joke at my old school was that if you couldn't teach you got promoted to an administrative position.

 

I was willing to give up my six-figure job to make a difference with kids.  Until I found that it would cost me 2 years of full-time school costing many times what an entire 4-year undergraduate degree would cost.  All that just to land a job that would definitely not pay for the degree required.  I was willing to live very simply to help the community, but making a big debt is a different story.

 

Student teaching is actually not "full-time," and many professional jobs are flexible enough to work around a temporary part-time gig.  I used to tutor kids every morning during work hours, for example.  I told my boss that if he didn't like it, he could fire me.  He didn't [fire me].  :)

[nerdybird]

People aren't looking for equal outcomes by dragging other kids down but all kids deserve to go to good schools with good teachers who can meet their needs.

 

 

:iagree: That's where I stand at the moment. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as earning/deserving a good education. No one is guaranteed the right to a good school (a safe school, maybe, but a good school, no.) Good teachers are hard to find and harder to keep. The problem is that there really isn't any consistent measure (other than test scores, which are not an indicator of much, imho) to judge the quality of teachers. Parents can say that Mrs. X did a great job, that Johnny loved her class and got an A in it, but you can probably find others would say that Mrs. X was not a good teacher at all, Janie failed her course twice, etc.

 

Homeschooling makes good education accessible to the masses, something that public schools simply fail to do.

 

 

I am on the fence here. Homeschooling is not available to the masses without a lot of sacrifice. Not all parents are capable of homeschooling and homeschooling is not a wise choice for every given circumstance. Some public schools do fail the students and communities that they are supposed to serve and support. Not all public schools fail to provide decent educations to the students in their care though. Some (mostly the very well-funded ones) are comparable to private prep schools and offer a wide variety of services, activities and opportunities to their student bodies.

 

Public schools are sometimes guilty of falling asleep and driving the educational process into the ditch though. They are supposed to be providing everyone who comes through the door with a basic education (3 R's and an exposure to books, music, art and sports). Often times, they tend to focus on being the surrogate family (providing food, talking about relationships, socialization, counseling, interventions, etc) and not on the educational process.

 

When a family chooses to homeschool, they can provide the type of education their child needs and/or the type of education that they desire. They have much more freedom to modify things. Homeschool families can provide the type of socialization they want their children to have and don't have to worry about pleasing the community at large in most cases, whereas public schools do.

 

6) Why are our schools failing?

 

 

 

It's not just schools that are failing; it's society.

 

 

 

The number one indicator of student success in school is parental income.

 

 

 

We can fix the schools, and we certainly should do what we can, but it will be hard to make progress until we fix the rest of society, too.

 

 

 

Consider a house.  I have a hole in the roof, so I get it fixed.  I hire the best contractor, and the best materials are used.  And yet my house still has water flowing in.  What is the problem???

 

 

 

The problem is the broken windows and the door ripped off the hinges.  I don't really have to fix those, do I? I fixed the roof.  I don't understand why everything isn't happy happy joy joy now.  *blank look*

 

 

 

25% of American children now grow up in poverty.

 

 

 

Until our society chooses to work on the problems related to poverty, the schools will not get better.

 

 

 

Sources: College, Inc (documentary), Bill Moyer's interview of Diane Ravitch, PBS Newshour, Newsweek, etc.

 

 

 

 

The number one indicator of student success in school is parental income.

 

and

 

25% of American children now grow up in poverty.

 

I'd argue that one of the main factors as to why our society and our educational system are both decaying in the US is tied to these factors. There are plenty of families where both parents are working, but still struggling. There are others where a single parent works 50-80 hours a week a 1 or 2 jobs just make ends meet. What time is there for enrichment activities? How much time do these parents spend reading to their kids or playing with them? Or even talking to them?

 

Academic success is not entirely about the ability to afford testing and test prep, summer camps and the latest iThing. Some of it is, but not all of it. Academic success hinges in part on literacy, exposure to the written and spoken word, understanding of one's native language and perhaps another language in addition to that on. Academic success is also linked to mathematical literacy as well. Knowing how to handle money is part of that package.

 

Sadly, many adults do not have literacy in either area. Most don't realize what they are lacking, so they don't know that they need to address these things with their children. They assume that it is the school's job to teach their kids to read, to provide books for them to read, to teach them how to do arithmetic, to teach them how to handle money, and all sorts of other things. The schools usually try to provide these things, but parental involvement is key. If reading isn't important in the home and there isn't anything to read, it is unlikely that kids will read. If the kids never have any incentive to learn or apply math to their lives, they won't do so.

 

Schools can assign homework, but if Mom is working 2 jobs and the kid(s) are at a low budget baby-sitter's house with a half dozen other kids until she gets off of work, who is going to help them with the homework? Will it even get done?

 

There was another thread a couple of weeks ago that talked about this sort of thing....HERE is a link to my post there. The rest of the thread is a good read as well for those who may have missed it. :)

 

[shanvan]

I was willing to give up my six-figure job to make a difference with kids.  Until I found that it would cost me 2 years of full-time school costing many times what an entire 4-year undergraduate degree would cost.  All that just to land a job that would definitely not pay for the degree required.  I was willing to live very simply to help the community, but making a big debt is a different story.

 

Student teaching is actually not "full-time," and many professional jobs are flexible enough to work around a temporary part-time gig.  I used to tutor kids every morning during work hours, for example.  I told my boss that if he didn't like it, he could fire me.  He didn't [fire me].  :)

Student teaching is actually full time here.  I went through it and I had to be there every day, all day Monday - Friday from January- middle of May.  I had to take a class in the evening in order to fit in all my requirements to graduate.  That was a killer b/c I was out until almost 10pm for that class and had to get up and teach the next day.  

 

My Dh is an artist who exhibits in several galleries along the east coast.  He has his art teaching degree completed except for the student teaching which is required.  As you can imagine, his employer was not willing to give him months of time off so he could complete student teaching.  He has an accounting degree as well and works full time as an accountant.  We have an alternate route to teaching in our state, but not many schools are willing to hire that way--unless they get desperate.

[Arcadia]

The thing I like about back home is that for people who pass the Ministry of Education's interview, their Bachelors of Education is free under scholarship with a three year bond and receiving a stipend while studying. First year of graduation is spent on being a student teacher under the mentorship of an experienced teacher.
So there is no college debt and some savings when the person graduated from unversity. Scholarships are available for Masters in Education as well.
It is hard to even get an interview to apply to be a teacher. Probably as difficult as Finland. Teachers do get put on probation and even terminated.