The willingness of persons with minimal knowledge to bloviate and pontificate as if they actually know something has always amazed me. As a fact based writer, I try to ensure that what I present as real information is just that, real data.
As a man who came to teaching and loved it for 20 years after 26 years in military service, I have always been astounded by the diametrically different regard with which my two vastly different careers have been viewed by others, including friends who are top professionals in their own, non-education related, fields. I would not presume to critique their job or job performance, either generically or specifically, having no actual experience of knowledge of their specialty. In like manner they have never presumed to critique my job as a Submariner, Nuclear engineer, or leader. However almost anyone can be coaxed into lambasting practitioners of the teaching profession, as well as speaking on subjects of which they have zero experiential knowledge as if they were sages. These are of several, fairly distinct varieties.
On one hand we had George Carlin, in his "angry old man" persona, proffered as an expert on education, even though anyone actually having read his writings would realize that as a young man he was hardly in a position to judge and as an adult, paying off his cocaine related debts and trying to reassemble a family fragmented by his addictions, he hardly qualifies as an expert on public education, especially being a product of a parochial school system.
Then we have a number of other adults whose only connection to teaching, other than as students years ago, is that they know it's hard and they can't do it, but they somehow feel competent to critique those who do.
Add to that the union haters who are absolutely convinced that the only reason US education is lagging other developed nations is the existence of educator's unions. These generally opine their all too familiar diatribes along these lines, "The damned unions protect bad teachers, and make it impossible to fire one."
In consonance with this negativity, we see the Finnish system held up (as it should be) as the example of why their system works and "our" doesn't. Unfortunately, the meme shown in the usual photo with short caption is incomplete and even worse, glaringly incorrect.
Let's start with the first statement: "We pay teachers like doctors." If it were true, it would be truly meaningful, but it's simply not true! Remember facts? Well, here are some:
In Finland general practitioners earn, on average, about $70,000 per year, which is less than half of what doctors earn in the United States. The average salary for primary education teachers with 15 years experience in Finland is about $37,500, compared to $45,225 in the United States. Moreover, the cost of living in Finland is about 30% higher. In short: higher teacher salaries are not what make Finland’s education system better than ours. And I suspect it isn’t recess either.
However, there are some of Finnish factoids relevant to the discussion. Note that we are now far, far past the surface gullibility of those who mindlessly post/ share/tweet/ etc memes like the one above. We're actually finding, or at least searching for, truth. Of course, a prime Common Core objective is teaching kids to think critically and differentiate between fact and opinion or, in this case, blatant bullshit.
Fact:Finland beats the U.S. in math, reading and science, even though Finnish children don't start school until age 7. By age 15, Finnish students outperform all but a few countries on international assessments. What is actually creditable for this excellence is what is sometimes referred to (in Finland) as the "Finnish way." Every child in Finland under age 7 has the right to child care and preschool by law, regardless of family income. Over 97 percent of 3- to 6-year-olds attend a program of one type or another. But the key to Finland's universal preschool system is quality. Entry level day care teachers have Bachelor degrees. Finland's approach is pretty laid back, but, first and foremost, its standards — like what preschoolers should know and be able to do — are set by Finland's National Curriculum Guidelines for early childcare. Yes, head in sand, US trolls, - a Common Core!
Finnish children are almost all in some kind of day care, all of whom are working in the same curriculum that's aligned with what they're going to learn in school, a level of coherence and congruence that most U.S. kids will never experience because we don't have a coherent system with highly trained people in almost every classroom. As long as Common Core is vilified and purveyors of instructional materials see it as just a cash cow, we remain as we are - kids stuck between politicians and Far right sycophants who hate science and controversy on the one hand and publishers who don't care as long as money can be made on the other.
It's a level of coherence that President Obama has repeatedly called for, but until there's some sort of national consensus on standards and what quality preschool should look like, early childhood education in the U.S. will remain fragmented.
It's a level of coherence that President Obama has repeatedly called for, but until there's some sort of national consensus on standards and what quality preschool should look like, early childhood education in the U.S. will remain fragmented.
Then, of course, as there always will be, there's the money issue. In Finland, preschool and day care are basically free, because people pay a lot more taxes to fund these programs. Another, possibly even more significant, glaring difference is the child poverty rate, which is almost 25 percent in the U.S. — five times more than in Finland. In most countries, governments see poverty and education as linked. Most knowledgeable educators see them as inseparable. If you invest in early childhood education, in preschool and day care, that will lead to better results. It's a simple enough concept: In Finland, children from poor families have access to high-quality preschool. In the U.S., most poor children get poor quality preschool, if they get any at all.
As regards mandatory testing, the strange idea that education should function on a business model, even though numerous local efforts to prove that idea have failed miserably, lives on in some sort of folkloric, group mentality twilight zone. Mandatory testing is seen (incorrectly, in my opinion) by legislators as the way to prove results and judge teachers. Charter schools either fail or don't (many in Florida do), but the difference is never whether they follow the business model as much as it is quality of students, teachers, constructive parent involvement, and adequate facilities.
Evaluating teacher performance is one of those annoying things which just doesn't lend itself to technological modernization to a significant degree. This includes high stakes testing , especially where the stakes are higher for the teacher than for the student. What matters in any educational setting is what happens in the classroom. My original "capo de tutti capi", Admiral Hyman Rickover, was an eccentric, but he had it right when he held that the Naval Nuclear Power program would succeed not because of modern buildings (we taught for years in miserable, non air conditioned buildings which the rest of the USN wouldn't use), but because instructors were dedicated, highly trained, and equally important, frequently critiqued, observed and given feedback.
Nuclear Power School (NPS) Instructor duty was a highly sought after assignment which most were not offered. No instructor ever stepped before a class (of 30 to 40 students, on average) without having been observed by peers (instructors in the same discipline, supervisors and even the commanding officer of the school as well as a civilian technical consultant. Even having been certified, this frequent observation was continued. As a public school classroom teacher I welcomed any administrator at any time to visit. It is good for students and teachers as well to know that administration cares.
Of course, this is based on an assumption, not always valid, that the supervisor, (principle, vice principal, etc) also has a background as a successful classroom teacher. Four of six high school principals I worked for actually had those credentials, but at one time three of four administrators who were my supervisors were ex athletic coaches who had zero knowledge of pedagogy or classroom instruction. Being evaluated by any of the three would have been insulting, had they actually done it. My district had/has a three year probationary period and at the end of each year, an underperforming teacher could be terminated without recourse. That only matters if administrators have actually done due diligence during those three years to ascertain competence and that they would recognize it if they saw it. Many do, and are that good, but, unfortunately, some move into administration, not as much for financial gain, but because they either don't like, or are not particularly good at, classroom teaching. Having worked under two such persons, I can attest to the morale detriment they represent. Promoting such marginally competent persons to even higher responsibility at the district level compounds the crime.
It is not unusual to hear an administrator complain about the difficulty inherent in removing a "bad" teacher. While unions do represent teachers , I can attest that the union of which I was a director for years, guaranteed simply due process, not protection from the consequences of bad behavior. The tragic truth is that, as difficult as it might be to remove a teacher, it is done as appropriate and they are removed from the educational system. Happens every year. An unsatisfactory administrator, on the other hand, is seldom (never seen it) fired outright, rather usually shuffled laterally to screw up another school in some lesser capacity.
In my humble opinion, there are a number of ways to ensure teachers are qualified, highly motivated and, most of all competent not just in theory, but in the classroom.
First: make sure that those hired for this important job are among the brightest and best. As a union director, I was sometimes baffled by the angst displayed by member teachers on temporary contract because they were required to pass a basic (and believe me, I mean basic) college level skills test for permanent licensure. Really? Once hired watch them, critique them as appropriate, encouraged them to watch others in their discipline, let them know they are valued when they are, and that they need improvement when they do.
Second: Make the career highly sought after, challenging to enter, and well compensated. I've seen too many bright teachers leave after four or five years for financial gain. In some cases it's been a tearful decision. Pay these people commensurate with the degree of trust and responsibility implicit in their career choice. In Florida, a entry level corrections officer with a high school diploma, charged with guarding some of society's worst, makes almost the same salary as a teacher with a college degree plus, charged with molding and educating our most precious resource.
Third: The best/most experienced teacher in any academic department ought to be the department chair. Only sometimes is that the case. Why? Foremost, the extra responsibility carries a pittance in extra compensation. A close second is that the system as structured at present gives responsibility but essentially zero real authority to a department chairperson. This most seasoned of teachers (ideally) ought to be mentoring, observing and helping new hires to be better teachers. An assistant athletic director is compensated more for what amounts to secretarial skills than a high school Social Studies department chair. If there needs to be a new level of supervisory certification for department chairs, create it, train them, test them, and pay them commensurately. Make the position one which is sought, vice taken because no one else wants the responsibility. Currently in my former school district, tenth largest in the United States, a department chairperson with a department of 11 teachers, is paid $720 dollars annually. Teaching one extra period is paid $4400 annually. Which would you choose? Unions need to recognize the need and support the initiative.
Per usual, those who pile on educators will care little about what I've written here. Unfortunately, the greater their ignorance, the louder they shout. The anti Common Core sentiment , in vogue in some quarters is a classic example. In second seat are the legislators who seem to feel that, all other factors to the contrary, flogging teachers who are and have been, demonstrably excellent by all yardsticks for years, makes sense. A current example in Florida might be making experienced consistently superb teachers with outstanding credentials waste scarce and valuable time because a Dr. Robert Marzano, who has never been a classroom teacher, says he knows a better way.
As regards mandatory testing, the strange idea that education should function on a business model, even though numerous local efforts to prove that idea have failed miserably, lives on in some sort of folkloric, group mentality twilight zone. Mandatory testing is seen (incorrectly, in my opinion) by legislators as the way to prove results and judge teachers. Charter schools either fail or don't (many in Florida do), but the difference is never whether they follow the business model as much as it is quality of students, teachers, constructive parent involvement, and adequate facilities.
Evaluating teacher performance is one of those annoying things which just doesn't lend itself to technological modernization to a significant degree. This includes high stakes testing , especially where the stakes are higher for the teacher than for the student. What matters in any educational setting is what happens in the classroom. My original "capo de tutti capi", Admiral Hyman Rickover, was an eccentric, but he had it right when he held that the Naval Nuclear Power program would succeed not because of modern buildings (we taught for years in miserable, non air conditioned buildings which the rest of the USN wouldn't use), but because instructors were dedicated, highly trained, and equally important, frequently critiqued, observed and given feedback.
Nuclear Power School (NPS) Instructor duty was a highly sought after assignment which most were not offered. No instructor ever stepped before a class (of 30 to 40 students, on average) without having been observed by peers (instructors in the same discipline, supervisors and even the commanding officer of the school as well as a civilian technical consultant. Even having been certified, this frequent observation was continued. As a public school classroom teacher I welcomed any administrator at any time to visit. It is good for students and teachers as well to know that administration cares.
Of course, this is based on an assumption, not always valid, that the supervisor, (principle, vice principal, etc) also has a background as a successful classroom teacher. Four of six high school principals I worked for actually had those credentials, but at one time three of four administrators who were my supervisors were ex athletic coaches who had zero knowledge of pedagogy or classroom instruction. Being evaluated by any of the three would have been insulting, had they actually done it. My district had/has a three year probationary period and at the end of each year, an underperforming teacher could be terminated without recourse. That only matters if administrators have actually done due diligence during those three years to ascertain competence and that they would recognize it if they saw it. Many do, and are that good, but, unfortunately, some move into administration, not as much for financial gain, but because they either don't like, or are not particularly good at, classroom teaching. Having worked under two such persons, I can attest to the morale detriment they represent. Promoting such marginally competent persons to even higher responsibility at the district level compounds the crime.
It is not unusual to hear an administrator complain about the difficulty inherent in removing a "bad" teacher. While unions do represent teachers , I can attest that the union of which I was a director for years, guaranteed simply due process, not protection from the consequences of bad behavior. The tragic truth is that, as difficult as it might be to remove a teacher, it is done as appropriate and they are removed from the educational system. Happens every year. An unsatisfactory administrator, on the other hand, is seldom (never seen it) fired outright, rather usually shuffled laterally to screw up another school in some lesser capacity.
In my humble opinion, there are a number of ways to ensure teachers are qualified, highly motivated and, most of all competent not just in theory, but in the classroom.
First: make sure that those hired for this important job are among the brightest and best. As a union director, I was sometimes baffled by the angst displayed by member teachers on temporary contract because they were required to pass a basic (and believe me, I mean basic) college level skills test for permanent licensure. Really? Once hired watch them, critique them as appropriate, encouraged them to watch others in their discipline, let them know they are valued when they are, and that they need improvement when they do.
Second: Make the career highly sought after, challenging to enter, and well compensated. I've seen too many bright teachers leave after four or five years for financial gain. In some cases it's been a tearful decision. Pay these people commensurate with the degree of trust and responsibility implicit in their career choice. In Florida, a entry level corrections officer with a high school diploma, charged with guarding some of society's worst, makes almost the same salary as a teacher with a college degree plus, charged with molding and educating our most precious resource.
Third: The best/most experienced teacher in any academic department ought to be the department chair. Only sometimes is that the case. Why? Foremost, the extra responsibility carries a pittance in extra compensation. A close second is that the system as structured at present gives responsibility but essentially zero real authority to a department chairperson. This most seasoned of teachers (ideally) ought to be mentoring, observing and helping new hires to be better teachers. An assistant athletic director is compensated more for what amounts to secretarial skills than a high school Social Studies department chair. If there needs to be a new level of supervisory certification for department chairs, create it, train them, test them, and pay them commensurately. Make the position one which is sought, vice taken because no one else wants the responsibility. Currently in my former school district, tenth largest in the United States, a department chairperson with a department of 11 teachers, is paid $720 dollars annually. Teaching one extra period is paid $4400 annually. Which would you choose? Unions need to recognize the need and support the initiative.
Per usual, those who pile on educators will care little about what I've written here. Unfortunately, the greater their ignorance, the louder they shout. The anti Common Core sentiment , in vogue in some quarters is a classic example. In second seat are the legislators who seem to feel that, all other factors to the contrary, flogging teachers who are and have been, demonstrably excellent by all yardsticks for years, makes sense. A current example in Florida might be making experienced consistently superb teachers with outstanding credentials waste scarce and valuable time because a Dr. Robert Marzano, who has never been a classroom teacher, says he knows a better way.
No comments:
Post a Comment